By Leigh Dale
Traditionally, museums have a super intimidating aura, built with marble columns to look like huge temples worshipping the Gods of Smarter-than-Thou, and are not known for welcoming passersby into their warm and nurturing arms. (Well, maybe you and I weren't scared off because we're all cultured and shit.) So there's been a movement in the last few years to invite more interaction between exhibitions and visitors -- not just moving and manipulating parts of the exhibition, but doing related activities, making your own artwork, offering your own thoughts. Personally, I think this democratization of a historically-supremacist institution is fantastic. Also, it's fun to touch stuff.
But in August, journalist / professional crankypants Judith Dobryznski complained in the New York Times about how museums are no longer contemplative spaces, and instead look desperate by turning to hands-on experiences.
Then, on Slate, the director of the DeCordova Sculpture Park and Museum offered this rebuttal, defending the movement toward more joyful experiences with art.
Since then, in the world of museum nerdery, there’s been an epic battle of the blogs, often devolving into childlike name-calling. But I think what’s important to remember here is that there is no one type of audience; certainly some will prefer more reflective experiences in a museum, and some will prefer to be stimulated. But I suspect there’s enough room in this world for more than one type of museum.
