Museum aesthetics? why?
April 24, 2015 6:12 PM Subscribe
It's grey with TIMES NEW ROMAN and lots of ellipses.....where and when did this develop?
I was visiting Mt Vernon last weekend, and it hit me...museums all across the country have a similar look. Walls are dark grey. Track lighting accent things meant to be seen. Words with BIG IDEA are painted on the walls, with smaller ideas in italics, followed by ellipses, which lead to a significant art object highlighted with dramatic, yet soft, lighting. Everything seems upscale and 'museum-y' and artsy. When and where did this aesthetic develop? It seems very different than early 20th century display cases, or the Aqua dioramas of the 50s/60's.
I also see this aesthetic in Columbia's old 'MasterWork' LP labels....dark grey center with times new roman typefaces. The 'Classical Barbra' LP cover(s) show a similar museum aesthetic.
I was visiting Mt Vernon last weekend, and it hit me...museums all across the country have a similar look. Walls are dark grey. Track lighting accent things meant to be seen. Words with BIG IDEA are painted on the walls, with smaller ideas in italics, followed by ellipses, which lead to a significant art object highlighted with dramatic, yet soft, lighting. Everything seems upscale and 'museum-y' and artsy. When and where did this aesthetic develop? It seems very different than early 20th century display cases, or the Aqua dioramas of the 50s/60's.
I also see this aesthetic in Columbia's old 'MasterWork' LP labels....dark grey center with times new roman typefaces. The 'Classical Barbra' LP cover(s) show a similar museum aesthetic.
This is sort of a boring version of interpretation, but as you say, common, especially in history museums. There are a lot of constraints on museum wall text that are not immediately obvious. I work in museums (NOT a designer) and amaze even myself by obsessing over things like how thin the verticals are on a given font, or a heavy dollop on the end of a serif. We have to think about people of all visual abilities, so we're thinking about people reading standing up, reading at a distance, sometimes older and dealing with cataracts and the like. The choices for fonts that are easily readable at seventy-six points on a wall from eight feet away are less varied than you might think. Then, too, we think about what fonts communicate. Some fonts are too flip for a given content, or too heavy and serious, or too modern, or too old-fashioned, and so on. Usually we'll have designers work up three or so text style variations and tape it up on the wall and choose from there.
I haven't been to Mt. Vernon (which is a shame, but anyway) but I know enough about them to know that they are also going to be on the more conservative end of graphical presentation. History museums are more conservative in design than any other type of museum, and Presidential sites are among the most hidebound of history museums. They don't want to jar or offend anyone, and they have to be properly reverent. From what I can see on Google Images of Mt. Vernon signs, they've got a combination of script and neoclassical typefaces, so you can see how they thought that made sense: script connotes colonial, neoclassical the dominant design style of his time.
As far as Big Idea - there is a whole lot of research on interpretive communication in text. We know that most people don't read all or even a fraction of the text in exhibits. A minority of people do, but not all. Most people do a scanning pattern where they take in headers and then scan lower chunks to see if anything interesting. So we think about the person who is just going to graze their eyes around the room, and what do we want them to see? If they take away nothing else, hopefully it's the Big Idea, and maybe a little flavor from some callout text.
Finally, Thorzdad nails it that museums go through design trends like anything else. Check out Charles and Ray Eames' 1961 design for Mathematica; it is on view still today, and looks like it could have been designed last year. Some places are bolder than others. IN general museum design lags behind commercial design, but is influenced by it. There's a lot of overlap with publication design. In the 20th century the biggest influence was major industrial exposition design - museums just followed suit. There's so much to say about it that you kind of have to stop there, unless you have more specific questions. The type of formal exhibtry you're describing does pretty much date to the early '60s.
posted by Miko at 9:28 PM on April 24, 2015 [12 favorites]
I haven't been to Mt. Vernon (which is a shame, but anyway) but I know enough about them to know that they are also going to be on the more conservative end of graphical presentation. History museums are more conservative in design than any other type of museum, and Presidential sites are among the most hidebound of history museums. They don't want to jar or offend anyone, and they have to be properly reverent. From what I can see on Google Images of Mt. Vernon signs, they've got a combination of script and neoclassical typefaces, so you can see how they thought that made sense: script connotes colonial, neoclassical the dominant design style of his time.
As far as Big Idea - there is a whole lot of research on interpretive communication in text. We know that most people don't read all or even a fraction of the text in exhibits. A minority of people do, but not all. Most people do a scanning pattern where they take in headers and then scan lower chunks to see if anything interesting. So we think about the person who is just going to graze their eyes around the room, and what do we want them to see? If they take away nothing else, hopefully it's the Big Idea, and maybe a little flavor from some callout text.
Finally, Thorzdad nails it that museums go through design trends like anything else. Check out Charles and Ray Eames' 1961 design for Mathematica; it is on view still today, and looks like it could have been designed last year. Some places are bolder than others. IN general museum design lags behind commercial design, but is influenced by it. There's a lot of overlap with publication design. In the 20th century the biggest influence was major industrial exposition design - museums just followed suit. There's so much to say about it that you kind of have to stop there, unless you have more specific questions. The type of formal exhibtry you're describing does pretty much date to the early '60s.
posted by Miko at 9:28 PM on April 24, 2015 [12 favorites]
Since I traveled with my dad, a museum director, around the country in the 1970s visiting various historic sites and museums, this was definitely a thing that was developing around then, but primarily found in urban museums. Ironically, I would say that the NPS historic sites had a big role in distributing it around the country, as well as the Smithsonian and their traveling exhibition program.
I distinctly remember, for example, when the King Tut collection visited the Field Museum in Chicago, and really jump-started the renovation of their galleries from the antiquated "stuff on a shelf, typewritten labels" approach. Tut was also instrumental in the new approach museums have taken since using special 'blockbuster' exhibitions to bring in the general public.
In general, I would suggest that a place like Mount Vernon must cater to the lowest common denominator in many ways. (The Smithsonian got in really hot water about 20 years back with its Enola Gay exhibit, which got excoriated for being unpatriotic by talking about Hiroshima from the point of view of the Japanese, even a little bit on one wall. This is likely stingingly recalled by federal employees as the last thing they want to have happen is their exhibit being discussed on the floor of Congress.) Anything to do with sensitive American history topics is going to need a very middle-of-the-road approach. For a Civil War site, for example, well, half your visitors are probably going to have some connection to the South, so you have to do a sedate BROTHER AGAINST BROTHER form of interpretation.
There are reasons for this somewhat subdued interpretative style. The large fonts act as pulls to draw casual viewers toward the interpretive text [note how one of those words is more meta than the other, though only the most academic of sources would use both], when many will more or less just "skim" an exhibit by looking for interesting objects. So in a physical sense you want to design your exhibit so that at least some people will go HERE before they go THERE. Even then, I think about a Titanic exhibition I saw where the only thing I'll ever remember was this chunk of the hull.
There is one other consideration with historic sites and artifacts. Intense lighting can damage them over time, so may be avoided for those reasons. The exhibition signage is going to need to account for that.
posted by dhartung at 1:47 AM on April 25, 2015 [3 favorites]
I distinctly remember, for example, when the King Tut collection visited the Field Museum in Chicago, and really jump-started the renovation of their galleries from the antiquated "stuff on a shelf, typewritten labels" approach. Tut was also instrumental in the new approach museums have taken since using special 'blockbuster' exhibitions to bring in the general public.
In general, I would suggest that a place like Mount Vernon must cater to the lowest common denominator in many ways. (The Smithsonian got in really hot water about 20 years back with its Enola Gay exhibit, which got excoriated for being unpatriotic by talking about Hiroshima from the point of view of the Japanese, even a little bit on one wall. This is likely stingingly recalled by federal employees as the last thing they want to have happen is their exhibit being discussed on the floor of Congress.) Anything to do with sensitive American history topics is going to need a very middle-of-the-road approach. For a Civil War site, for example, well, half your visitors are probably going to have some connection to the South, so you have to do a sedate BROTHER AGAINST BROTHER form of interpretation.
There are reasons for this somewhat subdued interpretative style. The large fonts act as pulls to draw casual viewers toward the interpretive text [note how one of those words is more meta than the other, though only the most academic of sources would use both], when many will more or less just "skim" an exhibit by looking for interesting objects. So in a physical sense you want to design your exhibit so that at least some people will go HERE before they go THERE. Even then, I think about a Titanic exhibition I saw where the only thing I'll ever remember was this chunk of the hull.
There is one other consideration with historic sites and artifacts. Intense lighting can damage them over time, so may be avoided for those reasons. The exhibition signage is going to need to account for that.
posted by dhartung at 1:47 AM on April 25, 2015 [3 favorites]
. The large fonts act as pulls to draw casual viewers toward the interpretive text [note how one of those words is more meta than the other, though only the most academic of sources would use both],
It's not just academic, but a very practical distinction. When you plan text for a gallery there are several kinds of text needed - interpretive, wayfinding, instructional, credits, etc. - and all are written, edited, and presented differently. So it's worth making the distinction - it clarifies that you are talking about exhibition-content-carrying text.
posted by Miko at 4:39 AM on April 25, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's not just academic, but a very practical distinction. When you plan text for a gallery there are several kinds of text needed - interpretive, wayfinding, instructional, credits, etc. - and all are written, edited, and presented differently. So it's worth making the distinction - it clarifies that you are talking about exhibition-content-carrying text.
posted by Miko at 4:39 AM on April 25, 2015 [2 favorites]
Because I have Podcast for any and all occasions, the podcast the Allusionist did a great episode where they interviewed a museum display designer. Found here
posted by KernalM at 5:54 AM on April 25, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by KernalM at 5:54 AM on April 25, 2015 [2 favorites]
A couple weeks back I heard a curator of a collection of antique musical instruments talk in some detail about their motivation for using a particular gray on the walls. It boiled down to needing a neutral color to accommodate both warm and cool finishes on their keyboard instruments while remaining aesthetically pleasing and unobtrusive during concerts.
posted by Diagonalize at 8:08 AM on April 25, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Diagonalize at 8:08 AM on April 25, 2015 [1 favorite]
« Older What are some good NGOs protecting workers' rights... | GRR Stupid Samsung monitor!!! Why can't I turn it... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
Museum display aesthetics and techniques evolve over time like any other creative discipline, responding to changes in technologies and improved understanding of how people can best absorb the message of the displays.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:36 PM on April 24, 2015 [3 favorites]