On Mar 19, 2009, at 1:24 AM, Michael Brady wrote:
Trivializing ? Yes -- but I'm sure that effect was intended by a
top team of
marketing consultants -- to make the museum feel more accessible
and a more
likely destination for family entertainment.
Is there something wrong, or perhaps deficient, with making a museum
"more accessible" for "entertainment"?
I'd like to address this notion again (Miller remark first and my
comment in reply): should we categorize the motivations to embrace any
undertaking, in this case, the experience and appreciation of art?
Should we grade those motivations across a range of purity or nobility
of purpose? In other words, is it wrong to stir up enthusiasm to visit
a museum by making it equivalent to "entertainment"? Is the interest
of one who visits the museum because of the Picasso blockbuster or the
>gasp< picture of a nude woman *descending* as staircase, likes what
he or she sees there, and then goes on to be a more frequent indulger
in art--is that interest suspect?
What about a diametrically opposite tack? What about the person who
goes to see that outrageous bronze statue of a naked man obviously
made from a life cast? or those drop cloths with paint drips that some
drunk framed and called a "painting"? Or a nude woman *descending* a
staircase ... seen from the other side, even! What if the person flies
into the museum in a huff, is surprised by what he or she sees there,
and then goes on to be a more frequent indulger in art--is that
person's motivation suspect, too?
This is the museum licking her lips to make them a bit more alluring,
or flexing his biceps to make them a bit more impressive, or striking
a pose meant to convey amiability and friendly hospitality. What's
wrong with that ... even if the museum licked its lips or flexed its
biceps or struck a pose because a make-up assistant or personal
trainer or posture coach suggested it?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[email protected]
