Allison asks:

> Do you think that as museum educators our vision and appreciation of a
> work of art would be limited in comparison with that of the expert,
> and
> therefore this procedure would be counterproductive?
>
My short answer is no, it would not be counterproductive.  However, I
have some suggestions to refine your technique.

As the "non-expert" your evaluation of the art is probably closer to
that of the vast majority of your visitors.  However, as an educator,
one of your jobs is to lead those visitors towards the expert's
vision--I would argue that your other job is to give the visitors the
tools they need to evaluate the art themselves (but that is another
post).

When you are getting ready to write educational text to accompany an
upcoming exhibit, you need to meet with the curator, and get a "walk
through" of the exhibit.  Go through all of the art and discuss it with
the curator--find out what his/her thinking was in selecting it, and
what their evaluation of it is.  THEN write your texts.  The next step
is to return to the curator, have them read it, and come to an agreement
about what it should say.

You need to translate what the curator is saying into language that
anyone can understand, and you need to stand firm with them.  My
favorite line from a curator/subject matter expert is "You have way
oversimplified this."  Then I consider my work well done.

It is a collaborative process, but as advocate for the audience, you
need to be firm about what your (their) needs are.

Claudia Nicholson
Curator
Museum Collections Department
Minnesota Historical Society
345 Kellogg Blvd. W.
St. Paul, MN  55102-1906
  e-mail:  [log in to unmask]
  Phone:  651-297-7442
  FAX:  651-297-2967