In Detroit, art museum loosens up

It seems to me that there is nothing so effective as the 'old way' for showing, for example, chronological development of a given artist or set of artists. Some of us will always be interested in that and I don't want to see such formats completely disappear - not that anyone here is suggesting that. There are limitations in the mode, and in the newer exhibition style as well. I look forward to the delights of the new mode; that is, I do now. I don't see it as dumbing down. We'll see what I think in five years.

That this is taught at university now is not a surprise.

My first experience with the "new mode" of museum presentation was at the Washington Museum of natural History about a decade ago. The marvels that I remembered as a boy had been transformed into a sequence of 'guided' walk-thrus, each a diorama of some favored point or interpretation of the natural world - all polluted with then contemporary facored political cant. Overall a very depressing experience that took away the wonder of discovery, replacing it with heavy-handed indoctrination.

I suppose this new approach can be done better in other applications. However, its essential characteristic is the attempt to guide the interpretation and understanding of the viewer. While that can, in principle, be a very good thing, it also opens the doors to a host of all-too-common failings.

Right again.

I agree with this for the most part. However, remember, all the dioramas were usually the interpretations of a small group of interpreters or scientists. WItness how the way that dinosaurs were depicted as sun warmed "Day lizards" tail dragging monstrosities . Nobody ever gave one thought about how and the hell could these things get so big on a metabolism rate of a turtle?

I think that the new way of presenting "the web of life" in the NAtural History arenas, forced more careful looks to the collateral topics.

I like the way some art museums decide to create shows from different curatorial viewpoints. I still like the "Grand hAll" of art galleries like the Columbus Ohio, Philly, The West Wing of the national GAllery. In those kind of galleries, I can dismiss entire areas of art inthat I have little interest. (I generally just fly by the BAroque and Early Byzantine and jumpr right to the Italian and Duitch Mannerists, then to Goya, Imporessionism and on to AMerican art. When I go to an art museum, Im usually pretty sensitive of how much slow walking I can take without heading back to the hotel

Before the renovation, we saw Claudel and Monets works. From sculptures to love letters . What made it more fabulous was the listening device the museum provided for us. At each exhibit it gave a detailed explanation. Like a story.

When I went to that Velasquez Manet (etc) exhibit that I mentioned, I listened to the recording the first time around, or maybe not. I think I walked the whole show fast and then got the headphone thing. Then gave it back and did my usual my-own-thing study over a few days. I guess I like those recordings being available, but usually I don't use them. Did buy the book (terrific photos, I thought, plus all the explication).

I did some exhibit design back in the very early eighties, a land-use exhibit. We didn't do so much what George was talking about, lead people with our own essays, but we did lead by what we picked to show in images and printed material. Had we more money, people, and time, we would have had more artifacts of the various land use episodes tucked in as part of the show, not all so unlike in concept the early post by Walter showing a painting and a dining table. I'm not so sure anything like that is so new under the sun. It's new as a way for a major art museum to organize.

I think at least some of the exhibits I saw at the opening of the LA Getty were mixed that way as well. Hard to remember just now, but I have some photos in some box...

art and politics (Walter)
Actually, Walter Hinteler,

Politics and sociology do matter when it comes to art and the display of it.