4 ms·

Art can take the form of an interactive installation. Perhaps that's what she thought was the case here.

Freak_NL 10y ago
This strikes me as an interesting case of failing communication in museums and art galleries. How is a visitor supposed to tell if something is supposed to be interacted with or not? This is not much of a problem in any museum with antique art — the common mantra being „touch nothing; at all” — but with contemporary art the lines often get blurred. Some pieces do explicitly invite viewers to interact in some way, but how is a visitor supposed to tell which installation is interactive and which is merely using inviting descriptions?
- aninhumer 10y ago
  Moreover, one could consider that uncertainty itself to be part of the art.
- TuringTest 10y ago
  IMO museum curators should embrace that blurriness rather than fight it; it provides for interesting stories like the ones told in the article (I just love the party aftermath being cleaned up as rubbish); and that kind of misshappenstances at museums has become a trope all by itself. Science museums have certainly followed that route, and I think they're better for it; becoming interactive makes for better learning. For those really valuable objects that could be damaged by willing interaction, there should be some kind of physical protection anyway.
  - Freak_NL 10y ago
    I'm not sure that the insurance companies would agree with that sentiment. :) Certainly, in such museums focussed on interactivity and a child-friendly experience, this is the (commendable) modus operandi, and it works exceptionally well. Contemporary artists and curators at modern art museums, however, seem to have been pushing for less physical demarcation around their exhibits. Ground covering installations are sometimes placed right in the path of visitors (who are often caught up in their imagination admiring some other piece of art), with no barrier or warning in place. With art installations that actually are intended to be interactive, I never feel comfortable interacting with them because of this air of ambiguity. Doesn't help that this may have very well been the artist's intent in the first place…

This strikes me as an interesting case of failing communication in museums and art galleries. How is a visitor supposed to tell if something is supposed to be interacted with or not? This is not much of a problem in any museum with antique art — the common mantra being „touch nothing; at all” — but with contemporary art the lines often get blurred. Some pieces do explicitly invite viewers to interact in some way, but how is a visitor supposed to tell which installation is interactive and which is merely using inviting descriptions?

aninhumer 10y ago
Moreover, one could consider that uncertainty itself to be part of the art.
TuringTest 10y ago
IMO museum curators should embrace that blurriness rather than fight it; it provides for interesting stories like the ones told in the article (I just love the party aftermath being cleaned up as rubbish); and that kind of misshappenstances at museums has become a trope all by itself. Science museums have certainly followed that route, and I think they're better for it; becoming interactive makes for better learning. For those really valuable objects that could be damaged by willing interaction, there should be some kind of physical protection anyway.
- Freak_NL 10y ago
  I'm not sure that the insurance companies would agree with that sentiment. :) Certainly, in such museums focussed on interactivity and a child-friendly experience, this is the (commendable) modus operandi, and it works exceptionally well. Contemporary artists and curators at modern art museums, however, seem to have been pushing for less physical demarcation around their exhibits. Ground covering installations are sometimes placed right in the path of visitors (who are often caught up in their imagination admiring some other piece of art), with no barrier or warning in place. With art installations that actually are intended to be interactive, I never feel comfortable interacting with them because of this air of ambiguity. Doesn't help that this may have very well been the artist's intent in the first place…