It amazes me how many museum professionals are visually impaired, or at the very least communication-impaired. It is enough in their mind to just hurl imagery at us without any underlying architecture. Gallery design is not unlike book design. Exhibits should lead the eye but still let it wander.
As for the labels refered to in the column, when I was a curator intern at a college museum in the 1980s we used to use an IBM selectric ball font on a neutral tone tweed-finish paper stock. The font was one of the largest ones available and we set the pitch (tracking) wide so the letters wouldn't run together visually when viewed from a distance. We had wide margins around the type so the placards didn't look jammed together. Admittedly a low-tech solution by today's standards, we were concerned with the same issues as today. Even then it was a real struggle getting museum brass to recognize the need for even the primitive standards we had put in place. I like the suggested fonts in the article. I'm forwarding the article to our local museum.
Submitted by ScottWilson on Thu, 01/25/2001 - 08:11.
It's amazing how often I find situations in which type is used, but which I have not considered from a typographical standpoint. Thanks for the helpful analysis.
there would have been a few type samples instead of the links. However, I see gallery exhibits several times a month and agree that most artists or curators pay no heed to the descriptive tags. OTOH,
the tag should not be so 'readable' that it attracts more attention than what it captions. Interesting dilemna, and thanks for the article.
i would gather that most artists would disagree with this "description as important as the art" idea. the purpose of an art museum is very different from that of a science museum or history museum. yes, on one level it is meant to educate about the historical context of each artist, but what the real focus should be on- is the experience of viewing the art. THAT is what an art museum is about. and as much as I too love good info design, I would much prefer to not have my peripheral taken up with signage and text while viewing a great piece of art, which I may point out, could possibly have no correct viewing distance or perspective. these sound like plans for an art book, not an art museum.
I, for one, like to know the title. Since I like contemporary and 'modern'ish work, the subject matter is generally abstract. In that instance, the title is the most graspable part of the work, and can very well serve as an evocative springboard to deeper and more fruitful contemplation.
Mmmm...fruitful...
Oh, sorry. Anyway, I saw a Jasper Johns/Franz Kline/Robert Rauschenberg show in Seattle a couple months ago, and the placards were well type-set. I couldn't read them at a distance, but that didn't bother me.
John Holmes
Submitted by John Holmes on Fri, 01/19/2001 - 08:59.
A good point!
This is an often overlooked issue
They key is communication
It amazes me how many museum professionals are visually impaired, or at the very least communication-impaired. It is enough in their mind to just hurl imagery at us without any underlying architecture. Gallery design is not unlike book design. Exhibits should lead the eye but still let it wander.
As for the labels refered to in the column, when I was a curator intern at a college museum in the 1980s we used to use an IBM selectric ball font on a neutral tone tweed-finish paper stock. The font was one of the largest ones available and we set the pitch (tracking) wide so the letters wouldn't run together visually when viewed from a distance. We had wide margins around the type so the placards didn't look jammed together. Admittedly a low-tech solution by today's standards, we were concerned with the same issues as today. Even then it was a real struggle getting museum brass to recognize the need for even the primitive standards we had put in place. I like the suggested fonts in the article. I'm forwarding the article to our local museum.
Good, sensible advice
It's amazing how often I find situations in which type is used, but which I have not considered from a typographical standpoint. Thanks for the helpful analysis.
Perfect if. . .
there would have been a few type samples instead of the links. However, I see gallery exhibits several times a month and agree that most artists or curators pay no heed to the descriptive tags. OTOH,
the tag should not be so 'readable' that it attracts more attention than what it captions. Interesting dilemna, and thanks for the article.
a book with a view
i would gather that most artists would disagree with this "description as important as the art" idea. the purpose of an art museum is very different from that of a science museum or history museum. yes, on one level it is meant to educate about the historical context of each artist, but what the real focus should be on- is the experience of viewing the art. THAT is what an art museum is about. and as much as I too love good info design, I would much prefer to not have my peripheral taken up with signage and text while viewing a great piece of art, which I may point out, could possibly have no correct viewing distance or perspective. these sound like plans for an art book, not an art museum.
Uh, so cranky. Sheesh.
I, for one, like to know the title. Since I like contemporary and 'modern'ish work, the subject matter is generally abstract. In that instance, the title is the most graspable part of the work, and can very well serve as an evocative springboard to deeper and more fruitful contemplation.
Mmmm...fruitful...
Oh, sorry. Anyway, I saw a Jasper Johns/Franz Kline/Robert Rauschenberg show in Seattle a couple months ago, and the placards were well type-set. I couldn't read them at a distance, but that didn't bother me.
John Holmes