A couple of weeks ago, Nina Simon put out an idea-tweet (as she does) which asked:

Why don’t art museums treat visitors like artists? That’s what science centers do (with science)

After a brief flurry of Twitter replies, the question stuck with me, and it was something I kept thinking about a couple of days later when my Dad came into town for a visit.

He hadn’t had an opportunity to see the new Cal Academy, and he was hoping to see some of the Sully paintings at the deYoung, so we spent the morning and afternoon at Golden Gate Park. Visiting both a science and art museum in the same morning meant that Nina’s question was in the forefront.

Dad and I began at the deYoung. It was the first to open, but we walked right in, no waiting, and went up to the observation deck. Looking across the plaza to the Cal Academy, there was a quarter-mile line of people waiting to get into the building… when it opened an hour later. Hmm.

There were plenty of people in the deYoung, but they were 99% adult (and a small dog). They browsed the galleries, marveled over the craftsmanship or skill, and pointed out things of note. Dad and I did much the same, but I, for some reason, found the whole experience funny. This painting, Letitia Grace McCurdy by Joshua Johnson had me in stitches (“look! Dogs haven’t changed in 200 years! They still need that cookie!!”). A number of works engendered the same reaction. It was something about the seriousness of it all which heightened the experience in such a way as to cause me to turn to either nervous or genuine laughter.

After we finished with the galleries, Dad and I headed over to Cal Academy. A far, far different experience. The demographic was, as expected, predominately families. And it was packed. It was difficult to really browse the exhibits because of the crush of people, and there was a lot more waiting overall. Dad and I actually began by waiting in line for about 20 minutes, in order to see the rainforest exhibit. The rainforest is truly beautiful, with a lot of free-flying birds and butterflies, and plants you can touch.

Not long after we entered, we stopped to look for some little poison dart frogs on a branch. A large Blue Morpho butterfly attached itself to someone’s shirt. Not being comfortable with having a large insect on him, he dislodged his friend. The butterfly, not done with making friends, attached itself to my eyelid and refused to move (cue the sound of 10 Japanese cameras snapping photos of a butterfly attached to someone’s face). Eventually, I managed to coax it onto my finger and, to the delight of the children around me, I held it up very close to them to study. Even Dad got a chance to be examine it closely.

Because of the sheer population density and flow of the Cal Academy, we didn’t spend nearly as much time there as we did in the deYoung. The deYoung was more for contemplation and quiet thought, while Cal Academy was about frenetic bursts of energy – much better-suited for the energies of young children who can touch and have the “art” interact directly with them.

Which brings me back to the original question: Why don’t art museums treat visitors like artists? I think it’s fairly clear that art = priceless object in the minds of many museums and museum-goers (which is often true). It’s impossible for today’s galleries to allow the public to directly interact with the art (and vice versa), simply because, unlike a butterfly, the art cannot be replaced.

All arguments about preciousness aside, what if the art museum treated their visitors as ‘artists’ and presented the artwork accordingly. How would it be different? Would there be paint pots in the galleries for direct art-making? deYoung does have a room for visitors to make their own artworks, but it’s primarily geared for children and it’s separate from the art galleries. Or would it be a matter of display? Would the wall labels instruct people on the art-making process, rather than simply showing the end-product?

That might have some fascinating results. I was intrigued by the deinstallation of this Maya Lin artwork, Systematic Landscapes roped off, but out in the open for people to watch and see the construction of:

I know that visitors are absolutely fascinated by the art-making process. They also love the museum processes of installation and deinstallation. The rise of “fishbowl” offices for conservators (like the Lunder Conservation Center at the Smithsonian American Art Museum) or the popularity of installation photos by museums on Flickr speaks to this.

Science museums do have a vested interest in directly educating the public about their materials, either for environmental reasons, or to support critical thinking skills, or to support the development of the next generation of scientists, or because their granting bodies demand it. But art museums? Their materials are curated, selected based on an insider’s point of view and knowledge of the aesthetic history of the subject. Art museums do have a mandate to educate, but it’s a “fuzzy” sort of education, not based on grounded facts (at least in the way science museums conceive of it). How do you teach aesthetics, especially if the material presented in the galleries is based not on Q&A but on direct presentation of a finished product? You can teach art-making skills, but does that make an artist?

Art museums also have this frustrating habit of assuming that every visitor has had coursework in art history. Much of the background information needed to fully appreciate many artworks is simply not directly available (unless you’re lucky enough to find a docent right there when you have a question). Handhelds can be a good tool for this, but are visitors necessarily going to know how to ask the questions to get the answers they need?

I think my pat answer to Nina’s question, “why don’t art museums teach visitors like artists” is “because the culture doesn’t support it.” There is now an expectation in science museums that science = hands on = learning. Art museums have a very different approach. Art = intuitive experience = ? Sure, there’s some stuff on the side, like wall labels, videos, and cellphone tours, but those require an extra layer of interaction which many visitors, particularly young ones, don’t have the time to discover. I’m not sure how one would bridge the gap in such a way as to permit art museums to treat the visitors as knowledge seekers instead of experience seekers, but reconceptualizing the purpose of the museum might be an interesting place to start.

*edited to add: Title is a response to being attacked by the “artwork” at Cal Academy, and a riff off of the famous “In Soviet Korea, Cat Eats You” lolcat meme.

Be Sociable, Share!

•