Now that I’ve come up with a better, more organized way of presenting my data, I have begun transferring previous data from past visits into the new format.

Thus far, I have been to MoMA 2 times and am anticipating being able to go at least 2 more times before summer.  It has been particularly interesting to see the changing of the exhibitions and the museum space itself. Even in the course of 2-3 weeks, an entirely new exhbition opened and took the place of one that I went to before. Having a direct comparison of two different shows was incredibly interesting to compare how the shows were arranged and presented.

I’ve been also noting the ways that museum chooses to organize it’s spaces/exhibits and my opinions of best practices in their exhibitions. As I have mentioned before, I have found that MoMA’s general approach in their online seminars has been encouraging deeper understanding of art through open-ended questions and letting the viewer feel free to explore an image how they see fit. As a result, it is not expected that every piece on display have a label going into depth about the artist/piece itself. By doing so and telling the viewer direct information, the viewers ability to separate their own thoughts/opinions of the work can be tied to the information they are given. However, that is not to say that this is always the best practice. As I’m sure we all know, Modern Art is extremely complex, with different eras and styles involved, all of which can have deeper meanings. There have been exhibitions that I have gone too at MoMA in which, as someone unfamiliar with the work being displayed, explanations would have helped me better understand various art styles and movements, and how the artists related to such movements.  It ultimately leads to a constant back and forth of just how much information should be given, and perhaps furthermore, in what way can it be presented. Put too much information, and the viewers can lose sight of their own interpretation or even become overwhelmed by the information presented. Likewise, having no information presented can easily overwhelm a viewer and create feelings of confusion and even doubt of understanding a piece. There is no one simple solution- it is all about being aware of your audience and how they can perceive information. The issue I have found at MoMA is with such a variety of different people visiting, the demographics of who sees a work is too vast to be able to specify one way of really learning/teaching.  Contrary, while my own students do differ in learning styles, I at least have the per-existing knowledge of what works best for each students.

I currently am in the process of getting ready for my next visit to MoMA- this includes looking more at exhibitions that are on display and preparing questions to address in my next visit. I only got to go to MoMA once in March unfortunately, but I am planning on going back there at last 3-4 more times by June. Doing the 2nd visualization really got me thinking about specific observations to make/keep note of while I am at the museum and that has certainly helped in preparing me for my next visit.I am continuing to use photographs as direct observations, but am planning on visually tracking my observations while actually at MoMA.

I am also continuing to utilize the digital resources offered by MoMA and looking closer at specific ways pedagogy is based. I have found in particular that when teaching educators, MoMA encourages inquiry-based learning through open-ended questions and room for interpretation. Yet at the same time, I have also found some descriptions at the physical site of MoMA that give direct information about the work/artist and that is leading me to consider the role that inquiry-based learning has and in what type of environment it should be offered (in a formal, educator-led setting or a casual, open setting for everyday viewers). It certainly leads to thinking more about my own pedagogic approaches and when I utilize specific learning techniques/approaches versus when I do not.