In “Wondrous Difference”, Alison Griffiths focuses on the development of the Natural History Museum in suggesting that museums are socially constructed public spaces which were created to enforce behavioral norms including “dress, decorum, and comportment” (Griffith 2002, 9). Museum space is intended as a socially enforced public space that is accessible to everyone. Shared among the public, there is an assumed social and behavioral code to which museum patrons are expected to conform, i.e. speaking quietly or preferably not at all, walking through the exhibit in the same direction and pace, and keeping a certain distance between observers and art-objects. These codes are behavioral ways to delineate the public nature of the museum.
By conforming to these codes, one highlights the distinction between how one behaves in the public space, and how one behaves in private. In our particular museum experience, despite the existence of this distinction, we found a wide range of public and private behaviors. Some patrons followed the social code to refrain from talking, and walked through the exhibit at a generally slow but steady pace, periodically stopping to take in a particular piece of art and perhaps share some commentary with the person with whom they came. For example, one couple we observed walked through the exhibit space carrying on a passionate conversation regarding their relationship. The conversation was private due to its the content, but also in the sense that they were only addressing each other, paying little attention to their surroundings. The conversation nonetheless took place in a public space with many people around-- it was a private conversation with a public audience in mind, breaching the boundary between public and private.
Although the couple broke the social museum code of silence while observing art, they followed the general walking direction, the pace, and the museum etiquette of stopping periodically to seem as though they were engaging with the art. It seemed almost as if the assumption that other patrons’ attention would be directed to the exhibit made the space feel private enough for them to have that conversation.
Another example of the play between public and private was a group of ten women guided by a tour guide. These ten women looked like they were in their early to mid 30’s, all were well-groomed and stylish. The guide was not affiliated with the museum, and her clothing style, age, and general appearance blended in quite well with the ten women who were listening. The guide took them through each exhibit room, giving detailed explanations to each piece she found particularly salient. The guide had a gentle but well-projected voice that carried easily, and the tour group formed a formidable presence in each exhibition room. We noticed whenever the guide took the ten women into the room, conversations amongst other museum visitors would quickly die down, and soon move onto the next room. It was almost as if by being so publicly present, the guide’s voice combined with the force of the women’s group marked an exhibit room their own, in other words private. The women would casually make some friendly comments or jokes with each other, and every now and then one of the museum visitors would surreptitiously follow the group to listen in for a little bit. In that sense, this privately formed group-- they all seemed to know each other, and the guide was not provided by the museum-- was performing their art observing in public.
In short, we observed that while museums seem indubitably public, the boundary between public and private was constantly challenged and permeated.
By conforming to these codes, one highlights the distinction between how one behaves in the public space, and how one behaves in private. In our particular museum experience, despite the existence of this distinction, we found a wide range of public and private behaviors. Some patrons followed the social code to refrain from talking, and walked through the exhibit at a generally slow but steady pace, periodically stopping to take in a particular piece of art and perhaps share some commentary with the person with whom they came. For example, one couple we observed walked through the exhibit space carrying on a passionate conversation regarding their relationship. The conversation was private due to its the content, but also in the sense that they were only addressing each other, paying little attention to their surroundings. The conversation nonetheless took place in a public space with many people around-- it was a private conversation with a public audience in mind, breaching the boundary between public and private.
Although the couple broke the social museum code of silence while observing art, they followed the general walking direction, the pace, and the museum etiquette of stopping periodically to seem as though they were engaging with the art. It seemed almost as if the assumption that other patrons’ attention would be directed to the exhibit made the space feel private enough for them to have that conversation.
Another example of the play between public and private was a group of ten women guided by a tour guide. These ten women looked like they were in their early to mid 30’s, all were well-groomed and stylish. The guide was not affiliated with the museum, and her clothing style, age, and general appearance blended in quite well with the ten women who were listening. The guide took them through each exhibit room, giving detailed explanations to each piece she found particularly salient. The guide had a gentle but well-projected voice that carried easily, and the tour group formed a formidable presence in each exhibition room. We noticed whenever the guide took the ten women into the room, conversations amongst other museum visitors would quickly die down, and soon move onto the next room. It was almost as if by being so publicly present, the guide’s voice combined with the force of the women’s group marked an exhibit room their own, in other words private. The women would casually make some friendly comments or jokes with each other, and every now and then one of the museum visitors would surreptitiously follow the group to listen in for a little bit. In that sense, this privately formed group-- they all seemed to know each other, and the guide was not provided by the museum-- was performing their art observing in public.
In short, we observed that while museums seem indubitably public, the boundary between public and private was constantly challenged and permeated.
No comments:
Post a Comment