Last night the Colbert Report hosted Metropolitan Museum of Art director Thomas Campbell to ask him some probing questions about the elitist art world that are on every “Blue Collar Joe Six-Pack”’s mind. Did you catch the segment? If not, click over to Comedy Central and stream that episode immediately (Campbell starts at about 16 minutes in).
It might be satire, but Colbert asks the big questions that everyone should be asking of museums: What is the point of art? Is art only good if an art critic says it’s good? Can “good” art exist without an audience? Who decides how much art is worth? Who decides what goes in a museum? Colbert even begins by saying: “I don’t like art…and that’s mainly because I don’t get art.” So I ask a further question: How can museums help visitors feel more comfortable around the art — how can we make them feel like they “get it”? (Further, how can we help them feel comfortable with the fact that it’s OK to not “get it” — after all, isn’t that why art is studied: because we never feel like we’ve completely plumbed the interpretations of a work of art?)
These are huge, massive questions. I don’t really think that museum staff have the answer to most of them, and that’s probably why we do what we do — because we want to begin to answer them. I do think they’re questions we should ask ourselves and our visitors, because they can help us learn more about our audience and about our collections and institutions. So as a museum educator, I’m asking all of you, how would you answer the big questions put to Campbell last night? How can museums help you “get art”? Comment away!
(PS: A final thought… Colbert ends by asking about the art housed in the Met: “Do they [the public] vote? Do you let them vote?” He’s met with a chuckle, but what an interesting web 2.0/feedback venture that would be… to ask visitors as they exit: do you think we should keep this work on view in the Museum; why or why not? Would you want to do something like that in a Museum?)
Greetings! I came across your blog a few weeks ago and have enjoyed your posts.
You have brought up some interesting questions about “getting” art. I have often thought about “getting” art in relation to museum text panels. When I was in graduate school, we discussed text panels a lot in a curatorial seminar. Personally, I like reading panels and think that many museum goers feel like they can “get” art better through the help of an explanation. I especially like when panels include multiple interpretations of a work, or encourage the visitor to develop their own interpretation/idea regarding the art. I think that visitors sometimes feel like they don’t “get it” because their personal response/idea is different from the text panel. Perhaps people would feel better about their not “getting” the art if the voice and presentation of text panels were not so authoritative? (But, at the same time, can that authoritative voice be avoided?)
I think museums can help a lot of people to “get art,” especially by just exposing people to art. The more people are exposed to art, the more likely they are to develop their personal taste for artistic styles, mediums, etc. I guess the question is HOW museums can get people to continue to visit if their first experience yields an “I don’t ‘get it’” response. Maybe that question should to go the development and marketing departments of museums; I certainly don’t have a good answer.
(P.S. I also have an art history blog, which you are welcome to visit: http://albertis-window.blogspot.com)
Cheers!
Hi Chelsea!
This post made me think of two articles I read recently in the New York Times. The first one is about the Met’s new acquisition, The Archer, which may or may not be by Michelangelo. The Met itself is allowing viewers to decide for themselves what they think – and if it isn’t Michelangelo, if it still warrants as much attention and praise. The second article relates to the question about who decides what goes in a museum. It’s about the controversy over the new exhibit at the New Museum of Contemporary Art, which is a display of a trustee’s private collection, curated by the artist, Jeff Koons, and has raised some red flags in the museum world.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/06/arts/design/06archer.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/arts/design/11museum.html
Okay, off to watch the Colbert report clip!
Gabby, I read the secnd article, and it’s very interesting indeed!
The Museum world is definitely full of “conflicts of interest” with collections, collectors, staff, artists, and trustees. For me, it really boils down to WHAT is shown vs. HOW it is shown.
I would go and see any show about Tintoretto, regardless of how it came about, but I would be much more critical of a show that I did not find as appealing, but had been curated by the artist and loaned by a Trustee/Collector.
While I think that the article did a good job of representing the pros and cons of the convoluted system, I’m not sure that there is an easy solution. In the end, what tends to bring visitors in to the museum are big names and blockbuster shows. They may not care that it was curated by the artist himself, or they may find it more interesting!
Brilliant, engaging points. It’s telling that it takes a satirist to point out the glaring issues of art elitism and museum protocol.
There are a lot of people out there who like the concept of art, who wish they could get “into” art, but are put off by the idea that stepping into an art venue invites attack from art snobs. I owned a gallery which catered more to the “Joe Six Pack” crowd than the elites–with the goal of reaching out to more people, to awaken their interest in art. When I talked with visitors, they would comment about how welcoming, friendly, and “not snooty,” the gallery was, that they had long avoided galleries and even museums because they feared being teased or singled out when they didn’t “get” art.
We were able to encourage public curiosity while easing fear by being friendly, having informative cards and materials out on the more “complex” works (info which was not written for art elitists, but intended to be read by anyone, at any level). Attitude seemed to play a big role in making visitors feel at ease, rather than under the interrogation light, allowing them to arouse curiosity and explore the art.
As for the topic of what gets considered art, and who gets to claim or decide–that’s one I could write reams on. :-)
I just want to say I really enjoy this blog and think you’re doing an excellent job.
I think a key part of this discussion should be what kind of art education kids get in K-12 schools in the US. There are massive variations among schools in what kids get to see and learn about in the visual arts while they’re still young, curious, and open-minded, but most of it sadly is very, very weak. If their first opportunity to have a meaningful interaction with art is as a teen or in college, you can imagine how many Steven Colberts we produce.
Museums, as you know, often bend over backward to get schools involved with them, but so often it all just comes down to funding, limited instruction time, and testing. I think the culture shift needs to happen among parents and in the schools. I personally won’t send my child to one where learning about art is any less a priority than reading or math.