Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Dumb and Dumber
Two interesting (and discouraging) recent articles about museum display practices and the fine line between visitor friendly and moronic. One from the UK, about the debate over there, the other from the Detroit Free Press, via, about plans by the Detroit Institute of Arts to protect visitors from wall cards that make them feel "stupid". (That's the term used by the museum's vice president of exhibitions.) And how do the mean wall cards do that? By telling people something they might not know or using dangerously specialized terms like Baroque. Until now it had never occurred to me to worry about the countless injuries that must have been suffered as a consequence of the mere appearance in museum galleries of that word. And let's not even talk about Rococo.
Well, I'm as concerned as the next guy about the emotional frailty of the museum going public. Maybe there could be warning signs on the way to the most potentially traumatizing wall cards. (Danger! Information Ahead!) Actually, here's a better idea. How about a brief wall card that simply explains what Baroque means and how the term arose? Then when people encounter the word outside the museum, they'll know something about it.
On second thought, forget it. Too elitist.
My blogger colleague Tyler Green is quoted on one of the Detroit museum's worst ideas — a gallery of modernist works with phrases projected over them. "A projection over a painting sounds like Dante's 43rd circle of Hell." Actually, considering the caliber of the people Dante assigned to hell, I'm guessing they woudn't do anything that tacky.
In connection with all this, a funny blog post in the Brit paper The Guardian, about Tate Modern's plans for a weekend long consultation with 150 teenagers about how the museum should operate and what it should offer. Coming soon, sliding ponds in the Great Turbine Hall. Oh wait, they already did that.
Looking Around
Richard Lacayo writes about books, art and architecture at TIME Magazine, where he arrived in 1984. He is the co-author, with George Russell, of Eyewitness: 100 Years of Photojournalism and has won various lesser known journalism prizes, which he keeps in his desk drawer. Read more
RSS Feed
 |
Daily Email
Recent Posts
Looking Around - TIME.com Archives
Archives
Blogroll
- Alecsoth.com
- Art Law Blog
- Art to Go
- Artblog.net
- Artsjournal.com
- artsjournal.com/aboutlastnight
- artsjournal.com/artopia
- artsjournal.com/culturegrrl
- artsjournal.com/man
- C-monster
- Daily Dose of Architecture
- Eric Etheridge
- Hatchets and Skewers
- Illicit Cultural Property
- Looting Matters
- Plain Sight
- The Exhibitionist
- The New Modernist
- The Walker Art Center
More TIME Blogs
Top Stories
- States Financial Outlook: Getting Worse Fast
- Big Three Bailout Hits Some Speed Bumps in Washington
- Heeding No Authority, Israeli Settler Youth Rampage in Hebron
- Laugh and the World Laughs With You: How Happiness Spreads
- Robert Gates: Secretary of Hilarity!
- A Pirate Ransom Deal: Who Gets the Money?
- Lara Croft Is Back and Remarkably Well-Preserved
- Oil-Price Drop Forces Big Energy to Retreat
- Even Google Gets Frugal in the Recession
- After Mumbai, Can the US Cool India-Pakistan Tension?
Thursday, May 24, 2007 at 11:53 am
Is it so wrong to at least consider people's subjective experience at museums? Visitors aren't reacting badly to learning new words or seeing the names of unknown artists. They are reacting to the often superior and precious tone of so much art museum interpretive content.
Curators write for their peers and colleagues - i.e., other people with PhDs in art history. Having an advanced degree in art history does not guarantee that you can write in plain English. Sure, the word "Baroque" may not scar any visitors, but must we insist on including terms like "nature morte" and "repoussoir" and then complain that no one is reading our precious gallery text?
At a contemporary art museum the other week, I stood next to an affluent-looking couple reading the introductory wall text, which was full of references to semiotics and reinterpreting the canon...finally the husband turned to the wife and said, "What the hell are they talking about?"
When you deconstruct sentences with enough big words in them, sometimes there is nothing being said at all. Give me plain and simple any day. If you can't articulate it simply, perhaps you don't know what you are trying to say in the first place.
Thursday, May 24, 2007 at 9:48 pm
I for one would really appreciate strategically placed cards that explain the terminology.
I grow up in Lebanon and went to one of the best schools in the country. But, because of the war, art, music and sports were cut off our curriculum since we often had to deal with 5 month school years.
I am not ashamed that i don't know much about art. There are important things for me to be grateful for. I am alive.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Actually, my comment, quoted by reporter Stryker and again by blogist Lacayo, referred to labels that did not provide any information beyond artist's name, title of the work, and an accession number. New labels will provide accurate and useful information. What is Mr. Lacayo worried about? That we do not respect the intelligence of museum visitors? The fact is that we demonstrate that respect by listening closely to the people who visit the museum, and incorporating that feedback as one of many factors that has shaped our decision-making. I would suggest that Mr. Lacayo visit the DIA and read our labels before making pronouncements on something he has yet to experience directly. Perhaps he should take a “byte” from Lee Rosenbaum's blog, http://www.artsjournal.com/culturegrrl/2007/05/memo_to_detroit_detractors_all.html, and hold his critiques until he has visited the DIA.