Paul-A-R12

David Weinberg’s essay on Josiah McElheny’s work entitled An End to Modernity is very much like the text that accompanies museum exhibits: it is an attempt to explain in words what has already been depicted visually with the hope that the objects will be better understood and appreciated. Having background knowledge about an object of art will certainly add to the depth of understanding, but at the same time it places limits on our own interpretation of the objects. Once we find out that the artwork was inspired by the Lobmeyr chandeliers that hang in the Metropolitan Opera House, we may begin to see them only as chandeliers, rather than as star clusters, atomic particles, solar energy bursts or whatever else we may freely perceive. We become enmeshed in facts that tether our imagination. We also become mere recipients of knowledge rather than participants in the artistic process. We are guided to the truths rather than discovering them ourselves. As Saul Carliner pointed out in his essay, Reflections on Museums 3: Different Ways of Learning from Museum, everyone has their preferred method of moving through a museum and experiencing what is presented there. Some people just like to look at the exhibits, others have to read all of the information provided. Perhaps just looking at the objects of An End to Modernity would suffice. If the artist would not find that satisfying, he should perhaps supply a graphical explanation on a wall nearby that would inspire observers to seek further information in the form of a textual explanation. The trap would be set. You could decide to enter it or not.