Just before the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art’s grand re-opening in 2017, Chief Content Officer Chad Coerver posited that the wall label wasn’t enough for the average visitor. Instead, he argued:
“...what visitors really need is a story – a memorable way to connect with a fundamentally foreign object.”
In advocating for more appealing and accessible art stories in the SFMOMA, Coerver echoed almost a decade of transformation in art interpretation, wherein museum staff across departments worked to shift the visitor’s conceptualization of art as well as their experience of it.
From 2002 to 2010, three art galleries in particular in North America engaged in interpretive transformations: the Detroit Institute of Art (DIA), the Art Gallery of Ontario (AGO), and the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (MFA). These three art institutions also share similar mission statements that can be boiled down to: engage people with art and help them to make meaning from it.
 |
| The Detroit Institute of Art did indeed pilot a new model of interpretation in the early 2000s. (Source) |
The DIA undertook a major re-installation project from 2002 to 2007. This endeavor was guided by an interpretive approach that emphasized experiences with art rather than lessons in art history, and the objective was to support visitors’ efforts to engage with art by telling stories and making connections with universal human concerns. In a study conducted at the DIA to evaluate the efficacy of this new interpretive strategy, evaluators found three main ways for visitors to find meaning: discovering something familiar or something to which they could make a personal connection, learning or discovering something new, or (less frequently) expressing a preference for the subject or medium of the artwork.
On the whole, the evaluators discovered that the most common way visitors found personal meaning in the galleries was to relate first to the visual aspects of the art through their own experience and then to utilize the museum’s provided interpretation to go further with their understanding. As such, it was important for the interpretation to provide relevant, meaningful information about the artworks that would support personal meaning.
 |
| The AGO re-displayed the majority of its collections in an effort to position art as political, using them to discuss issues and ideas facing visitors currently. (Source) |
The AGO also launched a redevelopment project in 2002, which culminated in their reopening with a newly extended building and fully re-displayed collections in 2008. The transformation at the AGO was oriented around questions posed by Judy Koke, Deputy Director of Education and Public Programming: why is the visitor here, and what do they need out of their visit?
Interpretation at the AGO located the answer to those questions in personal meaning and connection. At the time, the AGO abandoned the practice of displaying art by historical chronology and instead displayed their collections through issues and ideas. This was a fascinating departure from conventional practice, as it necessitated that the artworks on display needn’t be the most prestigious or most famous but rather those that best illustrated the ideas and issues posed in that particular space.
This approach served the AGO’s purposes quite neatly, for – much like the DIA – they hoped not only to develop an understanding of art historical chronologies but to inspire personal connections with art. Artworks were designed to function as departure points for exploring the broader story within a gallery space.
 |
| The MFA situated art as socio-objective. As such, they explore how any given artwork functioned or else represents a facet of society or social practices. (Source) |
Most recently, the MFA opened the Art of the Americas wing of their institution in 2010. The wing itself was imposing: it comprised of four floors and forty-eight galleries, as well as four “Behind the Scenes” galleries. The brochure detailing this portion of the museum implored visitors to design their own path according to their own interests and needs. Furthermore, visitors were encouraged to make use of the central gallery on each floor, which were designed to provide a broad brushstroke of the level’s theme and contents.
Barbara T. Martin, Alfond Curator of Education at the MFA, noted that museum staff had begun to realize that the visitor needed a way in. To the notion that objects speak for themselves, unfortunately prevalent in museums, she said: “when you say that the object speaks for itself, usually you’re someone with a PhD who has read a lot of words to get to the point where the object can talk to you.” This is not, as you might imagine, a very easy point to get to, nor a very accessible one! As such, the MFA rather appropriately took a more informal and conversational tone with their interpretation.
The goal, according to Benjamin Weiss, Head of Interpretation, was not for visitors to read the walls, but for the walls to speak to visitors. The MFA didn't aim to change what they said: it was to re-frame the questions – changing “what is this thing? to “why am I looking at this thing?” It was to ask – and to answer – why we should care.
The point, Martin stated, was for visitors to feel empowered to engage with the artworks on display by giving them the tools to do so. But more crucially, it was important that visitors know that “there isn’t some mysterious practice that you’re supposed to know if you’re in this kind of place.”
 |
| The SFMOMA similarly re-evaluated the interpretation of their collections between 2013-2017, when they underwent massive physical and programmatic transformations. They too found a need for personal connection in their galleries. (Source) |
Much like Coerver, these institutions found a need for stories: stories written and told by the institution but also those brought into the gallery space by visitors. The DIA, the AGO, and the MFA embraced the necessity of re-framing how visitors experienced art, and they did so through museum interpretation that emphasized the relevance of art and the personal connections that visitors can make to any number of artworks. So, the question is: in re-interpreting, re-displaying, and re-framing art, do we make art galleries more appealing and accessible spaces for those of us who may find art to be fundamentally foreign? Maybe, maybe not. But it certainly offers visitors a new way to engage with art on display, and that is not an insignificant thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.