I remember visiting the Cantor Arts Center at Stanford when I was in elementary school. There was an indoors museum full of old vases, paintings and other artifacts (I don’t really remember the specifics) “enshrined” in glass boxes. There were likely also what Anna Baccaglini calls “tombstone” labels next to each exhibit, but I highly doubt my elementary school aged self cared to read them. Or even if I did read them, I definitely did not “link[…] personal narratives to objects’ narratives” as Baccaglini argues that exhibits should encourage people to do. What sticks out much more in my otherwise hazy memory of the Cantor Arts Center is the outdoor Rodin Sculpture Garden, a cluster of bronze human figure statues by Auguste Rodin. The ability to get my face close to these statues and run my fingers across the sculpted made the difference between apathy and ‘engagement’ for me. I cared enough about who Rodin was and whether the statues were original (they weren’t) that I remember searching this up after returning home.

From a child’s perspective, Baccaglini’s argument that being able to physically touch museum exhibits has validity to it. Of course, it’s much harder to translate vases/paintings into a touchable exhibit, but I feel like younger children are a demographic that tends to be overlooked by museums. Tombstone labels use academic language that would fly completely over a child’s head. As Baccaglini argues, museums have transitioned into placing more weight on its social/educational goals, but I don’t think museums have evolved significantly to engage younger children. Shayna mentioned during class today an exhibit/museum that showcased children’s interpretation of art — I absolutely loved that concept and think it can be scaled into something bigger that could change museums’ engagement with younger children.

(sorry this is late!! I admittedly forgot that there was homework due today.)