Remerciez-le!

Remerciez @Admin pour avoir partagé cet document gratuitement, de la manière la plus simple, en partageant sur les réseaux sociaux.

Museum Vol XXII, n° 3/4, 1969 Public attitudes toward modern art Attitudes du p

Museum Vol XXII, n° 3/4, 1969 Public attitudes toward modern art Attitudes du public à l’égard de l’art moderne .- M . U S E U M MUSEUM, successor to Mouseion, is published by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization in Paris. MUSEUM serves as a quarterly survey of activities and a means o f research in the field of museography. Opinions expressed by individual contributors are not necessarily those of Unesco. MUSEUM, qui a succtdé à Mouseion, est publit à Paris par l’Organisation des Nations Unies pour l’tducation, la science et la culture. MUSEUM, revue trimestrielle, est à la fois un’ périodique d‘information et un instrument de recherche dans le domaine de la musCographie. Les opi- nions exprimees par les auteurs ne reflktent pas nkcessairement celles de l’Unesco. .&. i BOARD OF EDITORS 1 COMITÉ DE RÉDACTION Grace L . McCann Morley Georges Henri Rivière . Hugues de Varine-Bohan, Director International Coiincil o f Mtíseimzs I Directeur, Conseil interna- tional des mides Raymonde Frin, Editor, Programme Specialist, Monrmeets and Museiims Section, Unesco / Rédac- tetir en chef, spécialiste drr programme, Section des mot~i~ments ef mfisées, Unesco Anne Erdos, Sd-Editor, Monrmzents and Mirse~~ms Section, Unesco 1 Secrétaìre de rédaciion, Section des morimtents et musées, Utiesco M U S E U M Each number: $3 or 18/- (stg.). Annual subscription rate (4 issues or corresponding double issues): $10 or Go/- (stg.). E A 1 Le numtro : IO F. Abonnement annuel ( 4 num6 ros ou numéros doubles Cquivalents) : 35 F. Editorial and Publishing Offices / Rédaction et edition: Unesco, place de Fontenoy, 75 Paris-7e (France) o Unesco 1970 SHC.69/Iv.Io~/APSR Prìntea’ in Swìtxerland Presses Centrales Lausanne S.A. PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD MODERN ART AYALA ZACKS: hn%vductìon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DUNCAN F. CAMERON: A case history . . . . . . . . . . . . DAVID S. ABBEY: Procedwes and results of the stuc$ . . . . . . . . THEODORE ALLEN HEIWICH: Problem andìnterpreta~ons . . . . . . WILLIAM J. WITHROW: Practical ìnzplìcatìons ofthe Toronto stm& . . . . Appendixes I. Questìonnaìre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . Iistruciions for the applìcatìon of the questionnaire . . . . . . . . List and methods of the card grozpìngs and rankings 1 Liste et modes de groupement et de classemem’ des cartes (T. A. HEINRICH) . . . . . . . . . . ATTITUDES DU PUBLIC A L’GGARD DE L’ART MODERNE AYALA ZACKS: hztrodztctìon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DUNCAN F. CAMERON: Historìque e t étzde . . . . . . . . . . DAVID S. ABBEY: Méthodes e t résultats de l’enquête . . . . . . . . THEODORE ALLEN HEINRICH: Problèmes et interprétations . . . . . . WILLIAM J. WITHROW: Incidemes pratiques de Z’étude de Toronto . . : . Annexes I. Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Instrtictions relatives à Z’utìfisation dzd questiomaìre . . . . . . . . ANATOLI TARASENKO: Lenin Museum in the Soviet Union Les muées Lénine A r t educatìon room ìn the NatìonaZ Museum o f Cuba, Havana 1 L a sale dìdac- tìque du Musée national de Cuba, L a Havane . . . . . . . . . . D A N ~ L E GIUUDY : The ChìZdren’s Museuíz, MarseìZle L e Mmée des enfants, Marseìlle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . en Union soviétique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MUSEUM NOTES [ CHRONIQUE The one-hundredth anniversary o f the NatwaZ History Mz~eíwn, Genoa 1 L e cen- tenaire dzt Mzde d’histoire naturelle de Gênes . . . . . . . . . . International exchange of art .€?changes internationaux d’azvres d’art . . . Public nttitades towayd modem nyt The idea of t h i s stua) goes back to 1 7 6j. A working groitp cofnposed of Canadian experts was edisted its initiator, the IC0iI.f Continittee for il4useunis of ilfodern Art, to carry oztt the project. This working grot@ worked itz close co-operation with the Canadian ICOílf Coni- inittee while the Canadian National Con.imissìon for Unesco, through a grant made b y that organip5on, helped to finance the first phase ?f the stzta). During the meeting of the ICOiV Coinmittee for Musezints of hfodertz A r t held in Brussels (9-12 Deceniber 1 7 67), two members of the alorkitg groztp, Dztncan F. Cameron a d Theo- dore A. Heinrich, reported otz the programitie of Phase II of the stu4. The aim of this new progranme i s az attempt to develop further bpotheses inferred during the $rst phase of the stds. To this effect: I . The working groztp w i l l m e the reproductions of 2 oth-centztîy paintings which elicited h%h levels of reaction, either negative or positiue. 2. TiiIen&$our pailrtings will be med as the basis for dìscztssion ìa a series of tape-recorded, tivo-hour, gt-oitp interuieivs. E&h t to twelve people will take part in each group discu.rsioa and each group will be selected to shoiv differences between age, education and socio-economic class. The tape recordings uiill be anabsed from the uieiupoints 0 3 ' art histog!, qualitative semantics and groztp &amics. This hkhh palitatiue and su~ectìue research method has prouen effective in studykg attitudes itz other areas. The interaction iuithin grottps appears to briyforth expression of feelings at greater depth thm can be reached throzgh person-to-person interuiews or the tise of structured questionnaires. The analyses of the grotlp interuieivs will be 9nthesiTed in a report to the ICOiZf General Assembly to be held h z Paris, in 1771. It i s also planned to prodtrce a ntttlt$de-screen, audio- uisual presentation itsing selections from the actual recorded discussions and slides of the works of art being discussed. The Canadian Sub-Comniittee for the Stu4 of Public Attitudes towards Modern Art started the second phase of research in December 1 7 67. The ICOM Committee jòr ilfuseunis of Afodern Art, dnring its mee ting in Deceniber last, appoitzted an itzternational working group whose task will be to folloiv the secondphase and stinndate other st14dies such as that of Toronto, following the sanie methods, in other totvns in the world. museum No 314 I969 Volume XXII Introduction A matter of increasingly urgent concern among those closely associated with mu- seums as professionals, board members or volunteer workers is the evident gap be- tween the general public and nearly all forms of contemporary expression in art. There is gratification in the numbers of people who do patronize museums and exhibitions of modern art. That immediate gratification is apt to disguise facts of a more disquieting nature. The public for new art represents a relatively small fraction of all museum visitors. The total museum-visiting public represents only a lesser fraction of the total popu- lation. The potential public for all types of museums grows at a rate suggesting that it is much larger than was once thought. People stay away from museums for many reasons, but principally because of ignorance, apathy or indifference, compounded in some cases by poor experiences that produced boredom or bewilderment. Those who are regular visitors have a native curiosity that has been stimulated by enriching experiences. But the museum specializing in or to some degree involved with modern art faces some problems not associated with other types of museum. Conspicuous among these are the absence of the majority of visitors to museums offering a broader diet and attitudes of open hostility on the part both of some actual visitors and of those who mention dislike of modern art as the excuse for avoiding contemporary mu- seums. Less obvious is the role played among actual and apparently enthusiastic visitors by fashion. We are disturbed to realize that, in a world absorbed with advances in the sciences and medicine, for example, a world prepared to accept and reward real or fancied progress, is probably less charitable toward real or fancied developments of an equally experimental nature in the arts. That the former are not in fact any easier to under- stand is beside the point. Where experimenters in the sciences and theorists in such fields as economics and communications may expect to be accepted with all the cre- dulity accorded by the mediaeval public to miracles, the creative artist and the museum which exhibits him may expect a large share of indifference if not rejection by the public at large. The ICOM Committee for Museums of Modern Art has long puzzled over this disparity and the many uploads/Finance/ public-attitudes-towards-modern-art.pdf