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.

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.

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!

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!