So now to catch up on my happenings this week. I went to a whole bunch of meetings and am beginning to get a sense of how the different departments co-mingle. More specifically I have observed the general disconnect between the curatorial staff and everyone else. This is most pronounced between curation and public programming - and I'm working with both. Makes for some awkward times. The problem as I see it with my limited 2 week experience is this: curators are thinking primarily (only) about building a highly focused collection of art full of perfect examples of historic periods by relevant artists and public programs wants a collection of artworks that lend themselves to interpretation and greater audience appreciation. Of course they want famous artists and works represented, but it is because it's easier to hook young audiences/non-art people with big names/items they recognize. The problem lies in the fact that the curators don't ever take into account the value a visitor will get from the art, whether it is in regards to a piece they want to buy, an exhibit they install or visiting artist installation. In the 3 meetings that lasted 2+ hours each that I attended this week, the curators put together beautiful (I mean immaculate, gorgeously worded) presentations. Everyone is nodding along and appreciating the work they do and then a question is asked about visitors experiencing the art and they are brought up short. They have no prepared responses, they stumble, mumble and pull themselves together enough to pull out a poised/intellegent answer that has nothing to do with the question and the meeting continues. It's like they never even considered how the public would react/understand/interact with the art.
When I observed this to the public programs department at lunch (seriously these women are the most wonderful 4 people I have met here), they affirmed that this is the key problem that they deal with every day. I quite honestly am in shock and feel very disappointed. How could you have the power of the curator to build a collection of art and never take into serious account what it will communicate to people???? That is the whole POINT for goodness sake! Why else do we put art in museums if not to learn and enrich our lives and show people that you don't need to know a thing to interact with/appreciate/talk about art??? That art can change the way you see the world and yourself if only you would take a moment to really LOOK at it and get over this concept of "not understanding art". You have eyes - look at it, think about it, make observations and can come to understand it in your own way.
Sidenote: all of that being said, I do sympathize with the curators for one reason. Although I have loved looking at art all my life, it was art history classes that brought that appreciation to a level of bliss at going to art museums. So I get it when they are after this idea that only the educated masses will enjoy the art and they don't need to provide those people with anything to help them interpret the art, making public programs irrelevant. But really I think they should look at it like they have these educated people already in the bag as an audience (I hardly need any encouragement to go to a museum), so they should be trying to get MORE people to come in that wouldn't necessarily think they like art.
This difference in outlooks between departments is also visible in my encounters with my supervisors from each department. When I ask Jane (public programs) questions, whether it is about the work I'm doing or about art history or the museum, she anticipates where I'm going or what I'm really trying to ask and we have hour long discussions about fascinating things. She is wicked smart. But when I ask Nina (curation) questions about the work I'm doing or her job I get really short answers and I feel confused when I leave. Therefore I'm not enjoying the work I'm doing for her as much because I don't really know if I have it right and she is so particular about wording that I am terrified to get back the piece I just wrote for her. It's almost like the curators are too far removed from the everyday experience of non-art historians in museums and they don't take the time to relate/observe them, leaving them not taking into account this point of view at all. I know that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but I'm working it out still.
Anyway, onto other things as I didn't just sit in meetings all week. I've been researching my brains out and it has been wonderful. I finally finished reading everything the museum has on a contemporary piece by Marisol called "The Family" and wrote up a brief explanation of it/her life to go online for visitors. This is what I turned into Nina to review. I also got to show off my wicked awesome photocopy skills when a different curator gave me this ridiculous project.
Ok so he tells me wants me to find all the articles/essays listed in this artist's bibliography (Eric Aho - look him up he does gorgeous landscapes http://ericaho.com/). We are talking 30+ things here and I already have 7 projects I'm working on. But he tells me I don't need all of them exactly just the good ones. Right because I'm supposed to what, skim read all of these (assuming I can even find them online) and find the good ones?? And what makes a good one? I am sure our definitions of that are different. He then gives me a foot high stack of haphazardly stacked exhibition catalogues/papers/folders saying it is what the artist sent him so maybe a bunch of it is in there. (Sidenote: this is EXACTLY what I am talking about - curators don't know how to communicate). So I go back to my desk and loving a good challenge/chance to prove I am an organization master, dig into the mess before me. Within 2 hours I have a finished/given up on finding anything more. About 11 articles/essays were in the mess and nothing I found online was accessible for free. So I categorize the ones I have, binder clip them with a list of what is included, restack all the stuff neatly and give it back to the curator. Fun project.
Also this week I met the docent staff and am very thankful for my time at Ten Chimneys working with those docents. It has prepared me for these docents, who are equally particular and fussy about details and I kind of love it. It's a constant challenge to work with all of the unique personalities and address their needs (when reasonable). You are never bored when you manage a volunteer docent staff.
There you are, all caught up on my week. See I needed to veg out to Dexter/Sherlock when I got home because those meetings were tense and I had curators needing things done. I will not get so severely behind again, although it has been nice to sit here in Eric's apartment (visiting the brother this weekend) watching the snow fall on Quincy, curled up in a blanket and writing this blog :)
No comments:
Post a Comment