- Going off of Hannah’s number 3, I would think that along the lines of the principle of Economy, that yes I understand not over sharing information and interpretation of a piece of work if it stands alone, or is the only one of its possible interpretation in an exhibit. But one would think that if there is a larger exhibit then multiple interpretations would be the smartest thing to do. If a large quantity of people are coming through an exhibit the more interpretations there are of the works as a whole should enable the audience as a whole to connect to the work in ways that are more indepth and personal?
- William Ruben over the years had a rather successful career as a curator. How is it that a man who had previously been able to curate exhibits with great success managed to be so far off the mark of an acceptable exhibit? He seems to have taken little no interest in the historical purpose and intent of the object. How does this lack of interest in purpose affect the viewer’s interpretation of the works?
- All of these native objects are seen outside of the traditional setting that they would have been viewed in. Traditionally they would have been seen “in closed dark spaces” and often times viewed “under the influence of ritual… and often alcohol or drugs” (47). How does this vast difference in viewing change the meaning of the objects, and furthermore, is the modern person able to view these objects and understand the meaning behind them.
- If the human instinct to divide oneself into groups ( wolves versus wolves prey (9) or as seen in the Stanford prison experiment, guard versus prisoner) is there a way to overcome an action that seems to simply be a part of human life and experience?
- There seems to be an entire set of works of art that are created using extremely non tradition, and more bodily fluid materials (34). Is this medium of art creation still used today, or was it simply done in reaction to past events, if so what would drive someone to create art with their own bodily fluids.