I Would Be Very Interested In Hearing The Museum Design Rant

I would be very interested in hearing the museum design rant

by popular demand: Guy That Took One (1) Museum Studies Class Focused On Science Museums Rants About Art Museums. thank u for coming please have a seat

so. background. the concept of the "science museum" grew out of 1) the wunderkammer (cabinet of curiosities), also known as "hey check out all this weird cool shit i have", and 2) academic collections of natural history specimens (usually taxidermied) -- pre-photography these were super important for biological research (see also). early science museums usually grew out of university collections or bequests of some guy's Weird Shit Collection or both, and were focused on utility to researchers rather than educational value to the layperson (picture a room just, full of taxidermy birds with little labels on them and not a lot of curation outside that). eventually i guess they figured they could make more on admission by aiming for a mass audience? or maybe it was the cultural influence of all the world's fairs and shit (many of which also caused science museums to exist), which were aimed at a mass audience. or maybe it was because the research function became much more divorced from the museum function over time. i dunno. ANYWAY, science and technology museums nowadays have basically zero research function; the exhibits are designed more or less solely for educating the layperson (and very frequently the layperson is assumed to be a child, which does honestly irritate me, as an adult who likes to go to science museums). the collections are still there in case someone does need some DNA from one of the preserved bird skins, but items from the collections that are exhibited typically exist in service of the exhibit's conceptual message, rather than the other way around.

meanwhile at art museums they kind of haven't moved on from the "here is my pile of weird shit" paradigm, except it's "here is my pile of Fine Art". as far as i can tell, the thing that curators (and donors!) care about above all is The Collection. what artists are represented in The Collection? rich fucks derive personal prestige from donating their shit to The Collection. in big art museums usually something like 3-5% of the collection is ever on exhibit -- and sometimes they rotate stuff from the vault in and out, but let's be real, only a fraction of an art museum's square footage is temporary exhibits. they're not going to take the scream off display when it's like the only reason anyone who's not a giant nerd ever visits the norwegian national museum of art. most of the stuff in the vault just sits in the vault forever. like -- art museum curators, my dudes, do you think the general public gives a SINGLE FUCK what's in The Collection that isn't on display? no!! but i guarantee you it will never occur, ever, to an art museum curator that they could print-to-scale high-res images of artworks that are NOT in The Collection in order to contextualize the art in an exhibit, because items that are not in The Collection functionally do not exist to them. (and of course there's the deaccessioning discourse -- tumblr collectively has some level of awareness that repatriation is A Whole Kettle of Worms but even just garden-variety selling off parts of The Collection is a huge hairy fucking deal. check out deaccessioning and its discontents; it's a banger read if you're into This Kind Of Thing.)

with the contents of The Collection foregrounded like this, what you wind up with is art museum exhibits where the exhibit's message is kind of downstream of what shit you've got in the collection. often the message is just "here is some art from [century] [location]", or, if someone felt like doing a little exhibit design one fine morning, "here is some art from [century] [location] which is interesting for [reason]". the displays are SOOOOO bad by science museum standards -- if you're lucky you get a little explanatory placard in tiny font relating the art to an art movement or to its historical context or to the artist's career. if you're unlucky you get artist name, date, and medium. fucker most of the people who visit your museum know Jack Shit about art history why are you doing them dirty like this

(if you don't get it you're just not Cultured enough. fuck you, we're the art museum!)

i think i've talked about this before on this blog but the best-exhibited art exhibit i've ever been to was actually at the boston museum of science, in this traveling leonardo da vinci exhibit where they'd done a bunch of historical reconstructions of inventions out of his notebooks, and that was the main Thing, but also they had a whole little exhibit devoted to the mona lisa. obviously they didn't even have the real fucking mona lisa, but they went into a lot of detail on like -- here's some X-ray and UV photos of it, and here's how art experts interpret them. here's a (photo of a) contemporary study of the finished painting, which we've cleaned the yellowed varnish off of, so you can see what the colors looked like before the varnish yellowed. here's why we can't clean the varnish off the actual painting (da vinci used multiple varnish layers and thinned paints to translucency with varnish to create the illusion of depth, which means we now can't remove the yellowed varnish without stripping paint).

even if you don't go into that level of depth about every painting (and how could you? there absolutely wouldn't be space), you could at least talk a little about, like, pigment availability -- pigment availability is an INCREDIBLY useful lens for looking at historical paintings and, unbelievably, never once have i seen an art museum exhibit discuss it (and i've been to a lot of art museums). you know how medieval european religious paintings often have funky skin tones? THEY HADN'T INVENTED CADMIUM PIGMENTS YET. for red pigments you had like... red ochre (a muted earth-based pigment, like all ochres and umbers), vermilion (ESPENSIVE), alizarin crimson (aka madder -- this is one of my favorite reds, but it's cool-toned and NOT good for mixing most skintones), carmine/cochineal (ALSO ESPENSIVE, and purple-ish so you wouldn't want to use it for skintones anyway), red lead/minium (cheaper than vermilion), indian red/various other iron oxide reds, and apparently fucking realgar? sure. whatever. what the hell was i talking about.

oh yeah -- anyway, i'd kill for an art exhibit that's just, like, one or two oil paintings from each century for six centuries, with sample palettes of the pigments they used. but no! if an art museum curator has to put in any level of effort beyond writing up a little placard and maybe a room-level text block, they'll literally keel over and die. dude, every piece of art was made in a material context for a social purpose! it's completely deranged to divorce it from its material context and only mention the social purpose insofar as it matters to art history the field. for god's sake half the time the placard doesn't even tell you if the thing was a commission or not. there's a lot to be said about edo period woodblock prints and mass culture driven by the growing merchant class! the met has a fuckton of edo period prints; they could get a hell of an exhibit out of that!

or, tying back to an earlier thread -- the detroit institute of arts has got a solid like eight picasso paintings. when i went, they were kind of just... hanging out in a room. fuck it, let's make this an exhibit! picasso's an artist who pretty famously had Periods, right? why don't you group the paintings by period, and if you've only got one or two (or even zero!) from a particular period, pad it out with some decent life-size prints so i can compare them and get a better sense for the overarching similarities? and then arrange them all in a timeline, with little summaries of what each Period was ~about~? that'd teach me a hell of a lot more about picasso -- but you'd have to admit you don't have Every Cool Painting Ever in The Collection, which is illegalé.

also thinking about the mit museum temporary exhibit i saw briefly (sorry, i was only there for like 10 minutes because i arrived early for a meeting and didn't get a chance to go through it super thoroughly) of a bunch of ship technical drawings from the Hart nautical collection. if you handed this shit to an art museum curator they'd just stick it on the wall and tell you to stand around and look at it until you Understood. so anyway the mit museum had this enormous room-sized diorama of various hull shapes and how they sat in the water and their benefits and drawbacks, placed below the relevant technical drawings.

tbh i think the main problem is that art museum people and science museum people are completely different sets of people, trained in completely different curatorial traditions. it would not occur to an art museum curator to do anything like this because they're probably from the ~art world~ -- maybe they have experience working at an art gallery, or working as an art buyer for a rich collector, neither of which is in any way pedagogical. nobody thinks an exhibit of historical clothing should work like a clothing store but it's fine when it's art, i guess?

also the experience of going to an art museum is pretty user-hostile, i have to say. there's never enough benches, and if you want a backrest, fuck you. fuck you if going up stairs is painful; use our shitty elevator in the corner that we begrudgingly have for wheelchair accessibility, if you can find it. fuck you if you can't see very well, and need to be closer to the art. fuck you if you need to hydrate or eat food regularly; go to our stupid little overpriced cafeteria, and fuck you if we don't actually sell any food you can eat. (obviously you don't want someone accidentally spilling a smoothie on the art, but there's no reason you couldn't provide little Safe For Eating Rooms where people could just duck in and monch a protein bar, except that then you couldn't sell them a $30 salad at the cafe.) fuck you if you're overwhelmed by noise in echoing rooms with hard surfaces and a lot of people in them. fuck you if you are TOO SHORT and so our overhead illumination generates BRIGHT REFLECTIONS ON THE SHINY VARNISH. we're the art museum! we don't give a shit!!!

More Posts from Iknowhowtrianominaworksbutimlazy and Others

iknowhowtrianominaworksbutimlazy

3 months ago

I know it’s not hard to point out reactionaries hypocrisy when it comes to like safe spaces or hug boxes or whatever but genuinely how much of an echo chamber do you have to exist in for you to think this is a reasonable thing to say

305K notes View Post

iknowhowtrianominaworksbutimlazy

5 months ago

This site is an AMAZING resource for writing canon ASOIAF. It lets you look up any word to see if it is used in the book - do they have weeks, months, oil lamps, bed bugs, fiddles etc. etc. in Westeros?

This site has the answer!

asearchoficeandfire.com

A Search of Ice and Fire

Search the full text of Game of Thrones and A Song of Ice and Fire books

85 notes View Post

iknowhowtrianominaworksbutimlazy

11 months ago

if i see one more article, post, or news anchor talking about how joe biden is old, i'm putting my fist through a window. i feel like i've gone through the fucking looking glass.

this is project 2025, trump's plan for what he'll do if elected. whatever you think is in there, it's worse. watch a breakdown of the highlights here. this man wants to unravel the fabric of our democracy for good - this all aside from his vitriolic hatred of poc, his determination to start ww3, and the fact that he can't string a sentence together without telling outrageous and easily verifiable lies. his administration will start their crusade to exterminate trans people on day one, and they won't stop there.

do not talk to me about how joe biden is old, as if that could ever matter to me more than my life or the lives of my friends and family. my little sister is 14, she's trans, and i don't know what to tell her when we talk about politics, because one of these people wants her dead and the other one is old and some of you are still acting like those problems are equals.

i can't fucking stand this. i'm not hearing it this time, we are not repeating 2016. refusing to vote is not an act of protest, it is an act of complacency, and our most vulnerable will suffer for your negligence. vote like your life depends on it, because for some of us, it really fucking does.

26K notes View Post

iknowhowtrianominaworksbutimlazy

4 months ago

When I was younger and more abled, I was so fucking on board with the fantasy genre’s subversion of traditional femininity. We weren’t just fainting maidens locked up in towers; we could do anything men could do, be as strong or as physical or as violent. I got into western martial arts and learned to fight with a rapier, fell in love with the longsword.

But since I’ve gotten too disabled to fight anymore, I… find myself coming back to that maiden in a tower. It’s that funny thing, where subverting femininity is powerful for the people who have always been forced into it… but for the people who have always been excluded, the powerful thing can be embracing it.

As I’m disabled, as I say to groups of friends, “I can’t walk that far,” as I’m in too much pain to keep partying, I find myself worrying: I’m boring, too quiet, too stationary, irrelevant. The message sent to the disabled is: You’re out of the narrative, you’re secondary, you’re a burden.

The remarkable thing about the maiden in her tower is not her immobility; it’s common for disabled people to be abandoned, set adrift, waiting at bus stops or watching out the windows, forgotten in institutions or stranded in our houses. The remarkable thing is that she’s like a beacon, turning her tower into a lighthouse; people want to come to her, she’s important, she inspires through her appearance and words and craftwork. In medieval romances she gives gifts, write letters, sends messengers, and summons lovers; she plays chess, commissions ballads, composes music, commands knights. She is her household’s moral centre in a castle under siege. She is a castle unto herself, and the integrity of her body matters.

That can be so revolutionary to those of us stuck in our towers who fall prey to thinking: Nobody would want to visit; nobody would want to listen; nobody would want to stay.

Tags

disability representation let‘s support each other

155K notes View Post

iknowhowtrianominaworksbutimlazy

11 months ago

„Are you for real(?) (…) there was a war! (…) which started immediately after Lucerys‘ death.“ if there was no war at the time of Lucerys‘ killing it wasn‘t a warcrime as War crimes can only be committed during an armed conflict qualified accordingly under international humanitarian law. (See link cited above)

It is literally in the name. The text says During NOT immediately preceding or causing.

Now the obvious point you seem to be making is an analogy to Pearl Harbour but the attack itself is usually qualified as a crime against peace under Section III of the 1907 Hague Convention, which defines the responsibility of all signatories as needing to engage in negotiation and issue a final ultimatum before declaring war,(with regards to Imperial Japan and Pearl Harbour the Charges in the Tokyo Trials counts 1-53 deal with crimes against peace with only the last teo counts dealing with warcrimes and crimes against humanity. ) see https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/NR/rdonlyres/A9B8696D-FF7E-4CF0-90B0-F47C4C2D9EAB/283891/Totanichapter_correctversion.pdf page 9 of pdf and 154 of book.

https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/NR/rdonlyres/A9B8696D-FF7E-4CF0-90B0-F47C4C2D9EAB/283891/Totanichapter_correctversion.pdf

But the Green Council actually do offer an ultimatum, making that comparison null and void and I think IRL you would have some trouble convicting anyone on the Green Council of the crime of aggression/crimes against peace. In Response Rhaenyra issues a formal declaration of war, in the show she orders the Velaryon fleet to Blockade Kings Landing and shelters Rhaenys both of which constitutes a hostile act towards the Greens even before the Greens have time to do anything, giving a reasonable ground to declare that she was not negotiating in good faith.

„And wih his death the war of ravens came to an end the war of fire and blood began in earnest.“

Meaning: this is where hostilities proper start NOT where the war itself starts. War had been declared prior and it had been declared by the blacks, as I pointed out and cited in one of the points you left unadressed. Wars usually begin with a declaration of war not with immediate hostilities.

My friend you were the one to bring Alicents opinion on the matter into this. And even if you were correct (I don‘t believe you are) it does not exclude me from being correct as well. Her not valuing human life does not mean she considered herself and her faction not in a state of war.

Regarding Otto, yeah, that is literally what that quote means. As far as it being a war crime, see above.

I‘m very curious where you got that impression from, becuse we see the Greens seconds after then not at all for nearly two weeks. Otto bot bringing it up at Peace talks doesn‘t mean it isn‘t an important issue, just one that might be counter productive.

In fact Rhaenys not being offered a pardon might indicate them caring a bit more than you seem to think.

Calling an envoy, a soldier and a threat, is quite literally the dumbest thing you can say. They are basically postmen with diplomatic immunity. It really sums up the extent of intelligence I have come to expect from team green fans. Lucerys was innocent and he will keep being it, murdering him was a war crime + king slaying being a taboo.

You can take your stupid posts somewhere else. Him saying "I will not fight you" isn't a joke, he is representative of borros's enemy and his only Job is to take a letter and bring back an answer, if he joins in fighting he starts a war.....like aemond did.

88 notes View Post

iknowhowtrianominaworksbutimlazy

11 months ago

alicent shouldnt stripe rhaenyra out from her birthrights and rhaenyra shouldnt do that for alicent's kid either, because other lovely anon: friendly reminder that in HOTD all rhaenyra's kids are bastards and her natural heir is aegon... sooo... yeah, i'd say they are even. 👍

Sure they're even! I'd dare say that in Alicent's eyes, Rhaenyra's cold indifference for her siblings and her future hurts as much as her childhood betrayal did all those years ago... Because Rhaenyra herself could have acknowledged and recognized Alicent's fears about her children and done something about it... formed an "I-will-never-under-any-circumstances-hurt-your-children-and-my-siblings" pact, but she wanted Aemond "to be sharply questioned" instead, and insisted on naming Jacaerys her heir which further jeopardized Aegon and his siblings because everyone knew they were the real male Targaryen heirs who could be easily used by anyone who disliked Rhaenyra as pawns to claim the throne from her. As long as the legitimate male heirs were alive, and Rhaenyra continued the stance of enmity, hostility, and complete disregard toward them, they would remain a threat and challenge to her reign and claimants to the throne, and Alicent would do everything in her power to make sure they stayed alive by having Aegon sit that throne himself.

36 notes View Post

iknowhowtrianominaworksbutimlazy

11 months ago

ready to defend my dysfunctional family

287 notes View Post

iknowhowtrianominaworksbutimlazy

1 year ago

Welcome to yet another episode of DISTURBING Things I Notice in HOTD:

Today’s installment is on bloodlust and dermatillomania (tw!) as expressed by our two key figures of the Dance, Rhaenyra and Alicent, and their similarities between Daemon and Criston respectively (pls bear with me on this).

First up, even though we have seen many scenes of bloodshed in the show, I want to mainly talk about the two scenes of bloodlust we have seen with Rhaenyra in episode 3 where she kills a boar, and with Alicent when she cuts Rhaenyra's arm at Driftmark.

Welcome To Yet Another Episode Of DISTURBING Things I Notice In HOTD:

Why, though, do I say bloodlust? Because it describes a desire for bloodshed and carnage, often aroused in the heat of battle or the moment, leading to uncontrolled slaughter and torture. The perfect example of this description is Criston's killing of Joffrey at Leanor's & Rhaenyra's wedding because it was moved by a desire for bloodshed further motivated by Criston's emotional turmoil, it was aroused in the heat of the moment because Joffrey provoked him, and, most importantly, he had lost control. This means that Criston is not generally like that; had he not lost control, he would not have performed the act.

The exact OPPOSITE is Daemon's cold-hearted killing of Vaemond: there was no underlying desire, the moment was not heated, nor was he personally attacked, and he did not display any loss of control. This means that he did not need any provocation to perform the act. In other words, bloodlust and bloodshed are in general part of Daemon's character.

I think that the analysis of these two extremes helps in understanding where Alicent and Rhaenyra lay in the spectrum of bloodlust.

Starting off with the scene at the hunt where she slays the boar, Rhaenyra ticks all the boxes for bloodlust: a desire for bloodshed because of the hunt, arousal in the heat of the moment because she was attacked by the beast, which then results in uncontrolled slaughter. Yet, that doesn’t seem to have any effect on Rhaenyra, as we see her walking back to the camp, completely drenched in blood. Her sight stuns and terrifies spectators, Alicent included, but Rhaenyra's detached attitude toward carnage resembles that of Daemon's. I am not saying that bloodshed and carnage are part of her character to the extent that they are a part of Daemon’s, but she and he both display a higher tolerance to the sight, thought and feel of the act.

Let's get now to the scene at Driftmark and the confrontation between Alicent and Rhaenyra. Alicent, too, ticks all three of the boxes for bloodlust at that moment: a desire for bloodshed because of the maiming of her son, arousal in the heat of the moment because her concerns are not taken seriously, and loss of control that results in obtaining the Valyrian steel dagger and cutting Rhaenyra's arm. However, Alicent shows how horrified she is that the situation has gotten out of control, and she drops the dagger. Later on, we see her remorse which mirrors Criston's, who wanted to commit suicide. They both understood the lengths of their actions and were devastated.

And what about Rhaenyra when she gets cut in that scene? She is once again oblivious to the pain, staring Alicent dead in the eyes which terrifies Alicent even more. I have a few reasons as to why.

First of all, Alicent suffered from dermatillomania growing up, which is a mental health condition where a person compulsively picks or scratches their skin, causing injuries or scarring. Also known as excoriation disorder or skin-picking disorder, this condition falls under the category of obsessive-compulsive disorders (OCDs) and can be triggered by anxiety. There are several scenes where we see that same anxiety permeate Alicent and her resort to dermatillomania, as early as episode 1 (this is where her brother Gwayne is fighting with Daemon):

What science says is that such behavior is anxiety-induced, a clinical condition, and even though she could stop it if she chose to, it is not that easy or simple. Alicent was addicted to the numbing pain as a relief from her anxiety but she loathed herself for its destructive nature. She was often made fun of it by her father who told her that she was "destroying herself." We see that as her confidence grew in the later episodes, and when she was released from the strenuous puppeteering of Otto, she was able to overcome the habit.

To my eyes, this is why it is shocking for Alicent to a) cause pain to Rhaenyra and b) to see Rhaenyra oblivious to such pain. The fact that Rhaenyra doesn’t even flinch, when Alicent hated herself for causing harm to her own body for years and when she already hates herself for losing her temper, confirms to her Rhaenyra’s absolute callousness. Yes, she, who lusts after what she wants and knows no limits, and whose ambition runs thicker than blood, does feel entitled to Aemond’s eye.

In fact, Alicent barely recognizes Rhaenyra at this moment. Alicent has just become afraid of herself, and of the newly discovered bloodlust she didn’t know she had, and seeing Rhaenyra show no reaction to the pain, Alicent becomes doubly afraid of Rhaenyra. The one who stares deeply into her eyes and shows her that she cannot hurt her. Who tells her that she can take in much more. Who is not like Alicent, to become consumed by pain. Rhaenyra is a warrior, and she is capable of showing her heartlessness when necessary. And that’s when Alicent understands that she doesn’t know Rhaenyra anymore. Alicent becomes even more afraid of her, and the person she has become. The person she could potentially turn into when provoked.

This is what absolutely terrifies yet humanizes Alicent, who already hated herself for causing injury to herself, and who hates herself now for causing injury to Rhaenyra. Yet Rhaenyra won't let her hurt or pain show like Alicent does, and she is used to causing injury without feeling anything; just like Daemon.

*added the coloring to keep track of the many lines of thought happening here

222 notes View Post

iknowhowtrianominaworksbutimlazy

11 months ago