>Henry B. Crawford ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
>>Art museum labels, sad to say, generally don't tell you anything beyond
>>name, title, and medium. They're not interpretive. Art museums probably
>>assume the visitor knows everything else, and that's really a shame.
>
>Henry, I think you are being a little too harsh on art museums. From my
>understanding, art museum labels often provide nothing but the vital
>information to cater to those not interested in anything beyond the 'I
>like it, I don't like it' viewers.
It is the job of museum exhibits to pursuade the visitor to be interested.
Whether the viewer "likes" a work or not is irrelevant. What is important
is an appreciation for it and the gaining of knowledge about it. It is
difficult for a visitor to gain an appreciation for art if the art museum
doesn't see fit to explain why a piece is important.
Good labeling, when done right, allows for visitors at all levels of
interest to enjoy the exhibit at their own pace of absorption.
Interpretive labeling is usually done in three stages, designed
specifically for different levels of interest, and is structured very much
like an outline. A good exhibit will have a catchy title, followed by a
more descriptive subtitle and a broad introductory label giving the general
theme and explaining the purpose and scope of the exhibit. Exhibits which
are broken up into separate themes will often have titles (and sometimes
subtitles) for each theme.
An introductory label gives the broadest of information in each thematic
area, so that a visitor can scan it and move on if he/she so chooses. The
next level of labeling within a theme area, using a smaller font size, goes
into more detail and builds upon the general theme for those who want a
little more information about the subject matter. The third level, with an
even smaller font, breaks the general theme down further into sub-themes
and gives greater amount of attention to detailed information. It allows
those who are truly interested in the details to read more deeply without
hindering the more casual exhibit visitor. The object labels often are
written in a brief and concise form, and explain the significance of the
object. This is the standard formula for interpretative labeling. It
works best for large exhibits, but has its applications for small ones too.
>Those interested in more must make that extra 'effort' of reading more on
>their own
Often what I see in art museums is a sense of elitism. Art museum people
say that if people want to know more about the art they can buy the $40
catalog. There are populations who visit museums regularly, but for a
variety of reasons can't afford the catalog. These people are left out and
ignored by the practice of reserving educational information for those who
can afford it. For a museums, which are public institutions, to do this is
unforgivable, and not very democratic in the social sense. I do not
advocate placing the entire text of a catalog on the wall, but at least
allow the visitor to come away with more information than the artist's name
and the work's dimensions. That way, you give them something to build on
so that they come away with a sense of appreciation. If they are
interested in pursuing it they then might have a better idea of where to
begin at their local public library. Library books are free, and the
knowledge to be gained is priceless. Museums should be catalysts which can
jumpstart a visitor's interest in entirely new areas. All we have to do is
explain to them what they're looking at.
>And ask yourself if history museums always provide more information about
>the artifacts displayed...usually not. There is a blurb at the beginning
>of an exhibition, and sometimes at the end...no more and no less than the
>average art museum.
History labels give more information than art labels do when done right.
Perhaps you have not visited many History museums lately. History labels
are by their nature are interpretive. They don't tell everything about an
object, but at least they place it into a context beyond it's maker and
it's medium. When I visit an art museum I want to know why the artist did
what he/she did, and under what circumstances. For example, if I see a
work which is called "Untitled," I want to know why the artist called it
so. Was there a creative mental block or was the work not worthy of a
title? I'm not an art scholar, beyond those subjects which relate to my
areas of historical expertise. When I visit an art museum, and see little
effort at interpretive labeling, I wonder if that museum really wants to
educate the public through its exhibits at all.
>art museums are
>intimidated by those viewers who do not care to know anything beyond the
>appearance of a painting, sculpture, etc.
Intimidation is no excuse for failing to provide educational information to
the visitor. That is what we museums are supposed to do. With regard to
interpretation through labeling, I think art museums continue to fail. If
museums are going to become intimidated because the public isn't interested
in what they do, there are only two choices: either make the museum more
attractive the the casual or indifferent visitor, or close the doors for
good.
HBC
****************************************
Henry B. Crawford Curator of History
[log in to unmask] Museum of Texas Tech University
806/742-2442 Box 43191
FAX 742-1136 Lubbock, TX 79409-3191
***** "Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are dead!!" *****
|
