Comments on: Physical Interaction with Artwork in Museums: What is Appropriate and What Will Get You Fired

By: Seiko

Seiko — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 05:03:19 +0000

Very interesting post. Thanks for sharing. Lots of great questions are asked.
Personally, I'd like to hear what the artist thinks of all this. Yoko?;. All the best!!

By: Bryce Peake

Bryce Peake — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:03:05 +0000

Thanks for the quick read- I pulled it off of twitter.

I think another way to look at this is as a performance piece, much like some of Warhol’s work. Thinking about Yoko’s work, it’s not the thing on the wall that’s important, its the concepts that the interactors embody. I think this power struggle between authority and community might be part of this piece, and that Yoko would be elated.

That being said, it seems as if we’re talking about more than appropriateness of action. By the idea above, the guards action warrants a artistic reaction, and is not really an assault on the work, but an aspect of it. It seems like we’re confusing that with the morals and ethics in performing the piece. and that my friends, is a whole ‘nother can o’ worms.

By: Jonah

Jonah — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:22:28 +0000

Very interesting post. Thanks for sharing. Lots of great questions are asked.
Personally, I’d like to hear what the artist thinks of all this. Yoko?

By: Nina Simon

Nina Simon — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:36:57 +0000

Toast,
If you read the SLOG article Colleen linked, you’ll see that it’s more complicated – she WAS off-duty, but she was also quite intentionally creating her own piece of art. In some ways, it’s even more interesting when a visitor takes things into her own hands…

By: Morning Toast

Morning Toast — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:22:03 +0000

OK, so you’re saying that employees of an art museum are not allowed to interact/enjoy the art in that museum?

So lets say the guard came back after hours and then played with the art, that would have been acceptable?

It seems the Yoko work lives under different rules than your normal “hang on the wall” art since it asks people to get involved. So shouldn’t the treatment of the work by everyone (employees included) be different too?

It’s unfortunate that a business does not encourage their own people to enjoy and participate the business they do. That’s like telling a TV anchor they’re not allowed to enjoy or watch television.

By: Nina Simon

Nina Simon — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:06:02 +0000

I’m particularly intrigued by your comments about the ambiguity of what the “right” type of participation is in a piece like this. When SFMOMA hosted their Art of Participation show, the guards clearly struggled with this question. I had one guard tell me I could only follow the artists’ prescriptive instruction sets, even though the instructions were often absurd or self destructive (getting high in a fridge?). Museums that host shows of this type need to be really clear with floor staff about what their and visitors’ roles are – it shouldn’t be up to guesswork by guards or visitors. Unclear expectations can lead to confusion, confrontation, and frustration on the floor and headaches for administration.

By: mjwrites

mjwrites — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:21:50 +0000

The original article states that, “In the end, Mae probably got what she wanted: an experiment in “drawing attention to the work of curators,” which she describes as a major component of her work.” As I understand it, Mae was on duty at the time of her interaction with Ono’s piece. I’m sure that in part, this could have been a significant reason why she was fired. Does this make it right? No, but the museum had hired her to do one thing and that was to guard, as you imply in your post, and any digression from her duties are in violation of her job description. She was not being paid to act in an artistic capacity, but to allow the work to grow spontaneously. Apparently the museum believed she could not respect boundaries, the boundaries between artist-art-audience, and the boundaries between her work and her calling. This appears to be a case where many people claim to have very legitimate reasons for doing what they did, and the museum just happens to have more authority in this situation. Thank you for the post!