For a reading so packed with theory, I was pleasantly surprised by the way “Introduction” managed to ground itself in the tangible. We are encouraged to read the world about us, looking past the obvious to discern the relationships encoded in the scenery. Having just read selections from Barbara Field’s Race and Ideology for another class, I was struck by the fact that this idea of broadly accepted understandings of the world today being constantly reproduced carries across discipline lines. It pushed me to think more deeply about how deceptively concrete buildings can seem. They are mutable, even when preserved. An institution like the Metropolitan Museum of Art becomes even more interesting when considered as such. It is defined as much by the people who visit it as by the objects in the collection.
Jerome Krase
February 15, 2017 — 11:39 am
Smart people think alike…. Yes, the new museumology and related approaches to cultural productions recognizes the interaction between, in one case, the viewer and what is viewed. One simple approach, mine, is to consider where “meaning” comes from– the thing itself emanating meaning or the recipient of stimuli interpreting it, based on prior learning, and assigning the meaning to it.