Does Interpretation Debase Art?

While reading Lisa C. Roberts' article "Changing Practices of Interpretation" for my Museum Education and Interpretation class, I found myself presented with the question: "Does interpretation demean art by turning it from an aesthetic phenomenon into a social or historical construct?" This was something I hadn't really thought of before. Usually when visiting museums, I tend to read and appreciate the wall text that accompanies the exhibit. However, there are several occasions (particularly when the labels are too verbose) when I'm just not in the mood to spend half an hour reading the text, and would much rather observe and enjoy the object in front of me. But does wall text inhibit visitors' appreciation of the art and somehow demean their aesthetic enjoyment of the works?

One side to this argument is advocated by John Walker of the NGA, who compared a work of art to a musical composition. What he meant by this was that art should be a source of enjoyment, of happiness, not necessarily a piece of historical evidence. In his opinion (and in the opinions of those who agree with him), visitors to a museum should not be bombarded with information, but instead allowed to appreciate the art from primarily an aesthetic standpoint.

The flip side of this debate raises the question of whether museum visitors will better understand and find pleasure in the art if they are more knowledgeable about it. Many museums today include in their mission statements clauses about their duty to be places of learning for the public. Without providing visitors with some sort of information (whether through wall text, pamphlets, videos, or other media), they might be lost navigating through exhibits of Munch prints or Aboriginal sculpture.

Upon discussing Roberts' article with my class, one of the topics that came up was the idea of Visual Thinking Strategies, a method of teaching critical thinking and encouraging art appreciation merely through looking at art and discussing what one sees. The VTS method relies on observation and questions to create a dialogue about the artwork. It does not, however, provide learners with historical background or context on the artist or the work. While I am certainly no expert on VTS (though I would love to learn more!), it seems to me that there is a piece missing from this puzzle. And unsurprisingly, my gut reaction to our class discussion of these unconventional methods also helped me unravel my opinions regarding the aesthetic vs. information debate. In a word: balance. Sometimes observing a work of art for its pure beauty or emotional impact is valuable and even necessary. Other times more context and information is needed to fully appreciate an object. So essentially what I'm advocating here is moderation. I don't want to go to a museum where I'm barraged with superfluous information, but I would like some context on what I'm looking at. If you have a problem with labels, don't read them. No one is forcing you.