As I write this, the entire staff is busily preparing for the opening of The Secret Life of Art. Our goal with the exhibition is to “lift the curtain” on those activities of the museum that people have asked most about, from how the museum collects art to what the staff considers when writing – or recording – information about the art. This information conveyed by the museum, appearing in many formats including labels, brochures, audio tours and even docent tours, and generally falls under the rubric of museum “interpretation”.
In keeping with an exhibition theme - learning more about how decisions are made in museums - I offer this short essay about the word “interpretation” in museums (which has been used for well over fifty years), and whether that name for the educational practices we undertake might be outdated. In the “Handbook for Museums” (Edson and Dean, 1994) museum interpretation is described as “the process of making something understandable or of giving something a special meaning.” Though all good interpretation is described as a “two-way street” between the museum and the visitor, what does the word itself imply?
Although we have gotten used to the term “interpretation” in the museum world, what message we are giving our audiences by using it? According to the dictionary, interpretation is “an explanation of the meaning of another's artistic or creative work”. By using the term “interpretation”, are we giving the message to audiences that art requires an intermediary to translate it for the public? In fact, when we present interactive tours and ask visitors their reaction to art, aren’t we telling them it is valid to interpret art themselves, based on their own life experiences?
Current media, including the Internet, invites audiences more and more to participate in unmediated discussions. This unquestionably leads to much uninformed and less-than-useful dialogue. It also empowers some people to be part of discussions in which they thought they had no role because of perceptions about their background, education, or social status. Isn’t this an empowerment that museums should embrace, particularly as they seek to expand and diversify their audiences? Is one of the reasons that some people are intimidated by museums because they feel that their response to the works may not be “right”? For good examples of inviting visitors to express their thoughts, see the educational components in The Secret Life of Art for the Marisol and the Gottlieb.
Providing information about art in many formats and for visitors of every age and background is critical to the mission of the museum as an educational institution. Should, however, museums re-think the word “interpretation”, recognizing it as a relic from a past time in which art needed to be “translated”?
Please let us know your thoughts!
Susan Leidy
