 |
| Art Museum of Estonia. One reads on the label: "Villu Jaanisoo, 1963 / Chair I - II, 2001. Motor tyres. Art Museum of Estonia". (Photo: Maria Vlachou) |
Last
Saturday I attended a small conference entitled “The audiences of MNAC”
(National Museum of Contemporary Art – Museum of Chiado), on the occasion of
the 20th anniversary of the reopening of the museum after the fire in Chiado
(Lisbon). During the almost three hours of presentations and debate, in which
little was said about the audiences, I sat next to a label that was related to
the work of art exhibited on the wall. One could read:
“Mockba, 2004
Oil on canvas, oil on
acrylliv sheet
VPV Collection”
I looked at it a number of
times as I was listening about the history of the museum in the last 20 years
told by its directors (very interesting details I was not aware of), its
collection, the name it should have, its purpose, the building that should house
it, etc. I looked at the label thinking that the work exhibited did not mean
something to me either aesthetically or conceptually, but, curious in
undestanding if there was something more to it, something I could not grasp, I
would have liked to have something more (and more interesting) than those three
lines. After all, the option to exhibit that work of art had a reason behind it
and I would have liked to understand better.
It happens to me many times
in museums. I am that kind of visitor who has got a number of diplomas, but
does not pretend to know and to understand all languages and to be able to
unveil every mystery. I am also that kind of visitor who feels self-confident,
who doesn´t feel embarrassed (or stupid) in admitting that he doesn´t understand,
that he would like to know more, to have more interesting and relevant
information, in an undestandable language. I tend to think that the person who
opted to put that label on the wall doesn´t understand (and perhaps is not
interested in understanding) who I am and what I am looking for. Thus, I am
that kind of minority visitor. Many others feel stupid and blame themselves for
it. They don´t come back, they lose their interest, they retract, they don´t
“dare” again, they never take their children.
I was faced with this issue a
number of times in the last weeks. When visiting Vhils´ exhibition at the
Electricity Museum, I found in one of the rooms a label repeating six times
“Laser-carved old wooden doors”, followed by the dimensions of the doors. What
is the purpose of such a label? Why and who was it made for?
Another recent visit was at
the Municipal Museum of Aljustrel, which tells the story of the mines in that
area of Portugal. A story told in this way:
 |
| The translation is mine. Apologies for any gross mistakes. |
Another exhibition that
caught my attention was that of Helen Mirra at Culturgest. It´s an exhibition
of strips made of fabric and painted in single colours. At first glance, they
don´t mean much to me and this was the reason why I was very interested in
getting more information. When I fould it in the brochure, it became clear to
me that my curiosity was not going to be satisfied and that this exhibition was
not for me.
 |
| Extract taken from the brochure. |
In the various training
courses I gave in the last two months, we discussed in length communication and
language. At times the trainees, although they would recognize that the
language used was not efficient and the story told was not that interesting,
they would express incomprehension as to how this communication could take
another form, one that would fulfill the museum´s or the exhibition´s
objectives and at the same time meet the visitors´ needs, the majority being
non-specialists.
The example of two Portuguese
convents comes to mind: the Convent of Tomar and the Monastery of Alcobaça. They
both aim to tell visitors the story of the building they find themselves in,
nevertheless, the approach, the option of the story to be told is clealy
distinct. Which serves the needs of the museum AND the visitors
better?
 |
| Texts from panels at the Convent of Tomar. |
 |
| Texts from panels at the Monastery of Alcobaça. |
It´s not impossible to
communicate differently, to say interesting things in a simple way. By simple, I don´t mean to say
infantilising, turning banal, compromising the scientific quality of the
information that is being shared. What is truly impossible is to continue
listening to politically correct statements on how museums are for everyone, how
they need to be relevant, welcoming, to create a feeling of belonging in
people, while at the same time in practice we continue to despise and
depreciate the needs of those same people, we continue to offend their
intelligence. I believe it is perfectly legitimate to do an exhibition for
experts, one of the many target audiences a museum or an exhinition is called
to serve. But one must admit this, so that the rest of the audience may
consider to be “warned”. To continue writing in order to communicate with
specialists, while saying that the exhibition is for all increasingly
indicates, in my point of view, a certain lack of honesty on behalf of those
responsible. The theory is good, it is clear, we all know it. What does it take
to put it into practice? And more, do we wish to put it in practice?
Still on this blog
No comments:
Post a Comment