This weeks reading left me with a number of thoughts, so enough with the themes! Let's cut to the chase!
Different Foundations
In the context of romantic relationships, I've been thinking of the diverse foundations two people have that affect the choices, actions, re-actions, needs, and wants towards each other and the relationship itself. Similarly, In the relationship between Museums and their Visitors, or Audience and Artworks, whatever you have it, the visitor experience in the museum is shaped by the educational foundation of each person. "There is no single track that visitors muse follow to learn in museums, so educators should develop a variety of ways to engage those visitor" (Folk, p. 111). This also beings up the all-to-familiar, "learning styles" that we often use as an excuse for failing tests or ignoring the lecturer (okay, maybe just me). So yes, it is a bit of different "learning styles" but more so the multitude of experiences that an individual's educational foundation is built on should be recognized, challenged, explored and accommodated.
Museum programs should offer learning experiences for a cognitively diverse population (p. 111). This also leads to my next thought:
Immigrant Populations
Over 120 different languages are spoken in my cousin's hometown, Queens. Enough said, right?
Museums in the county cannot neglect that 7 out of 10 residents are immigrants or children of immigrants. These children are often times "a point of entry into the museum experience for their parents" (p. 114) and if family/public programming incorporates both generations for learning and engagement, the museum experience could be very very meaningful - not go mention strengthen intergenerational relationships among the families. The reality of the diverse communities shouldn't simply lead to a need for the overused said/used 'diverse programming,' it should be well embedded in the institution's philosophy, mission and goals. It's like if planners stated every single time, "This is groundbreaking: we should have elevators next to the stairs." It's a given. And diverse populations aren't crippled. Sorry.
Interactive Programming
This is talked about A LOT. Interactive spaces, technology, online guides, interactive activities, blah, blah, blah. BUT why are we still talking about it? Because we aren't doing it yet, we're doing it wrong, or we're jealous of institutions who do. The main thing is, it MUST allow/encourage human interactions as well, meaning, if it doesn't lead to social and physical interaction, than it's a bust. Why have a museum? Alls we need is a cool website, we can just learn, see, and discover with a laptop warming up our thighs. Mmmm. Cozy goodness.
Enough Said
There was a ton of stuff before and after this statement, but I dig it on it's own ;)
"...art education as a process..." (p. 113). So, there you have it, all that babble!
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
the fall of the expert curator, the rise of...
In the context of Obama's new health care reform, I have been thinking a lot about oppositional sides and varying perspectives. One side sees their privileges revoked and their choices stripped, fearing the fall of quality care amongst the rise of Socialism. Then the other side sees the detrimental and unfair insurance costs, desire a platform for social justice, and value basic human rights. The answer for the universal question, "How can we make it better, if this is what we have?" - depends greatly on values from both sides and where the side is viewing the issue/problem!
The museum world is not that much different. There are always and will always be opposing sides. Two main oppositions is the traditional role of the curator versus the push for public accessibility and influence. It's interesting because each side has their definition and standard of a museum and what and how it inhabits (the exhibition). The way it should be.
Like healthcare.
So there is tons of fear involved. One side fears that museums are turning into a messy public playground lacking in quality exhibitions and content. The other side fears that museums arn't evolving with the needs of society and are remaining as "elitist anachronisms" (p. 89).
"The historical circumstances surrounding curators'...challenge to their expertise have led to a collapse of the historical hierarchy within the museum, to renewed calls for general public access to exhibitions, and more broadly, to a reorientation of the museum's mission from objects to audiences" (Weil, 2003).
This is great. Why? Because low and behold, comes the rise of Education in the Art Museum! YAY!! Because no matter what side you're on, everyone needs us now! "As cultural institutions direct more attention to the needs of their audiences, art educators must address how and where subject expertise is valued" (p. 89).
This is great. Why? Because it enables educators to work with curatorial colleagues on a more significant level, shaping museum practice and bringing together the opposing sides. This also disseminates the hierarchical model of curators controlling and leading the intellectual language to the educators and than down the public. The new model enables the public to be part of the curatorial conversation, "opening up the exhibition to those outside the discipline of art history" (p. 91).
It can also be argued from the Traditionalists standpoint that the shift in the museum model is not necessarily good. However, "the most important factors in this reordering of priorities, though, were the economic pressures exerted on the art museum" (p. 93). A need and increase in government funding resulted in the need to serve the general public.
Curators can still continue with their expertise and engagement in art history and fancy collections, BUT "the skills involved in the reconfiguration of the museum in the 21st century - understanding and respecting the knowledge of the museum audience and collaboration - reside in the portfolio of the museum educator" (Zolberg, 1994).
But we already knew that ;)
The museum world is not that much different. There are always and will always be opposing sides. Two main oppositions is the traditional role of the curator versus the push for public accessibility and influence. It's interesting because each side has their definition and standard of a museum and what and how it inhabits (the exhibition). The way it should be.
Like healthcare.
So there is tons of fear involved. One side fears that museums are turning into a messy public playground lacking in quality exhibitions and content. The other side fears that museums arn't evolving with the needs of society and are remaining as "elitist anachronisms" (p. 89).
"The historical circumstances surrounding curators'...challenge to their expertise have led to a collapse of the historical hierarchy within the museum, to renewed calls for general public access to exhibitions, and more broadly, to a reorientation of the museum's mission from objects to audiences" (Weil, 2003).
This is great. Why? Because low and behold, comes the rise of Education in the Art Museum! YAY!! Because no matter what side you're on, everyone needs us now! "As cultural institutions direct more attention to the needs of their audiences, art educators must address how and where subject expertise is valued" (p. 89).
This is great. Why? Because it enables educators to work with curatorial colleagues on a more significant level, shaping museum practice and bringing together the opposing sides. This also disseminates the hierarchical model of curators controlling and leading the intellectual language to the educators and than down the public. The new model enables the public to be part of the curatorial conversation, "opening up the exhibition to those outside the discipline of art history" (p. 91).
It can also be argued from the Traditionalists standpoint that the shift in the museum model is not necessarily good. However, "the most important factors in this reordering of priorities, though, were the economic pressures exerted on the art museum" (p. 93). A need and increase in government funding resulted in the need to serve the general public.
Curators can still continue with their expertise and engagement in art history and fancy collections, BUT "the skills involved in the reconfiguration of the museum in the 21st century - understanding and respecting the knowledge of the museum audience and collaboration - reside in the portfolio of the museum educator" (Zolberg, 1994).
But we already knew that ;)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)