What we take from art is personal; what we take from visitor communication (museum interpretation) is also that, but hopefully driven by set of messages that allow the curator and museum director to know they have value for money, by virtue of the fact that their visitors are more knowledgeable on leaving their establishment than they were when they arrived.
In The Times 28th Jan 2020, on page 3 – so quite important news in the scheme of things, competing with Prince Andrew, the self-exiled Sussex’s, yet more negative posturing from the EU over Brexit negotiations, and the dangers of smart motorways – a one-column piece was to be found telling us that the Arts Council of England has decided to cease using the term “artist” in favour of “creative practitioners”.
Their argument is that an “artist” is often viewed as, “…someone associated only with either the visual arts or ‘high art’, such as ballet or opera.”.
The article also says, “…the report frequently refers to ‘culture’ instead of ‘the arts, museums and libraries’ as part of the efforts to be ‘inclusive’ of the activities it (The ACE) supports.”.
For me two points arise from this.
First, it’s great that museums – and by extension therefore, historic properties, and other forms of heritage attractions – are recognised as part of the wider “(art and) culture” to be valued by The ACE. All of us (I hope) who work in the heritage and cultural sector should welcome any initiative to make “art” more inclusive for all and to try to broaden its appeal.
Rebranding a term, even if it’s just a single word, is never going to be easy. It will take time and, I suggest, a shift in generational understanding of meaning, to do this, but there is no doubt some visitors feel automatically unexcited, unconnected or even excluded if you mention “art” as an expression of display and/or content.
Secondly, the great news is that I already see ourselves, myself, as a “creative practitioner”.
Actually, I see us as artists too but that is probably because we work in creative media, where communication and art collide, marry, and co-exist in many forms, sometimes happily, sometimes with varying degrees of friction.
All the time, we are charged by our clients with making a piece of visitor communication as creative as possible, by extrapolation as “artistic” as can be. (I’m ignoring the ubiquitous desire for a “wow” factor here!!)
Crucially for us, for me, this must be balanced by, indeed led by, making the communication work.
There’s no point at all in creating a beautiful video for example, if nobody understands its messages.
The difference for us as “creative practitioners” is that what hitherto “artists” have done is to create a piece that is perhaps the opposite of that. Something that is to be interpreted by its viewer (or listener), to be thought provoking, to allow its content to be different things to different people. This is fine in an “art gallery” where a painter is allowing us to take from his or her art sometimes obvious but often hidden messages.
By way of direct example, Dame Mary Beard discussed in the same paper, on the same day, how we should interpret the female nude.
For us, Communication is King. However, within the interpretative mix, there is room for “art”. We often ask clients what sort of delivery style they envisage.
“Academic/Educational or Artistic?”, is one of those questions. That’s not to say that the two are mutually exclusive, but generally speaking an artistic bias will lead to a less didactic approach.
Those of us who remember the “Enchanted Palace” installation at Kensington Palace, which was considered to err towards artistic rather than academic will know a very good example.
Pic from Wildworks, creators of Enchanted palace
But artists have also been involved in their own right, over and above “practitioners” of interpretation! No names, no pack-drill, but we had one client who commissioned a “video artist” to create a piece of an exhibition, rather than using us as “video producers”.
I was a bit miffed at the time and even more so when I saw the result of the so-called artist’s endeavours. A less artistic piece was hard to imagine, but because he had called himself an “artist” apparently it was a beautiful creation – never mind the fact that it neither communicated nor provided anything thought provoking, or simply even “pretty”!! Not bitter at all!!!!
However, the point is that as creators of visitor communication, an artistic approach should always be considered as one end of a sliding scale.
So, for me as a “creative practitioner” now redefined officially to include being an artist, I welcome the sentiment behind the rebranding.
“Art” has always taken may forms. From cave paintings to Tracy Emin’s unmade bed.
And who knows if the cave paintings of our ancient forbears, were art or communication – “Buffalo live near here”, or “Do you like my painting”?
What we take from art is personal; what we take from visitor communication (museum interpretation) is also that, but hopefully driven by set of messages that allow the curator and museum director to know they have value for money, by virtue of the fact that their visitors are more knowledgeable on leaving their establishment than they were when they arrived.
