I enjoyed reading many of the posts in your blog. Just to add I do find comfort in the most traditional forms of organization. Place of origin first, time period and artist second, subject third. I have a tendency to want everything in its place, organized by facts, regardless of any perceptions of theme, intent, contrast, or anything else

Even so, I do find comfort in the most traditional forms of organization. Place of origin first, time period and artist second, subject third. I have a tendency to want everything in its place, organized by facts, regardless of any perceptions of theme, intent, contrast, or anything else. But, if we always ‘know where everything goes’, there would never be any interpretation, new insights, or altering analysis, which are what makes each museum different and interesting in the first place.

I think there will always be a struggle about how to do it ‘the right way’, and that should be rejoiced. If a museum can be introspective, then no placement is ever final. An artwork will be reinterpreted continually. It’s a good thing!

Perhaps the success of museum collection shouldn’t be judged by the pieces individually, or how they’re arranged by category, but by how they function as a whole. How should a visitor feel when he walks out of an exhibit? and what pieces could be assembled to instill that feeling in the visitor?

Certainly this approach is problematic too, since emotions are subjective and the artist’s intent can’t always be discerned. There are, however, threads that run through seemingly unrelated works, and to make those threads more evident by positioning them near one another might make for a more interesting trip to the museum.