Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 26 Sep 1994 13:38:15 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> I say a great Charles Adams exhibit at the New York Public
> Library. I also must say that it was one of the most closely
> examined exhibits I've ever been to. People were *so* into
> it. What is it about humour that makes people become so
> engaged. Why do museums never (almost never?) use humour in
> their "serious" exhibits to engage people. I mean,
> particularly kid's exhibits would benefit from the a bit of
> levity.
>
> There's a great new consultancy for you! Get yourself hired
> as the part of the exhibit team responsible for injecting
> some *humor* into the exhibit. Talk about an invaluable
> member of the planning team...
>
>
> Eric Siegel
> [log in to unmask]
Eric,
Like That.
In comparison to literature and the performing arts, the fine arts have
suffered from a lack of scholarly work done on the role of humor/comedy.
There are some who would argue, in fact, that until the 20th century humor
has played a relatively insignificant role in the fine arts -- that it has
not really reached the level of genre. Perhaps a reason for the dearth of
humor in exhibitions?
FYI: Am working with folks here on a visiting artists series that explores
the relationship of comedic literary devices and related areas in visual
art.
Until later,
Molly Callender
|
|
|