NY Times Article Review

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/arts/design/26curious.html

The article that I am reviewing is about the Curious George Exhibit at the Jewish Museum. It is a new addition that talks about the history behind the story and the authors Margret and H.A. Rey. The exhibition is a collection of letters, books and drawings from their life. The article gives the story behind Curious George and where he came from. The Reys started off married in France in 1939, the two Jewish-Germans lived in a castle owned by some friends. Soon World War II started and they knew that they needed to stay inside the castle and hide from the public's view. This is where Curious George came in, the couple spent their spare time putting together a book about a monkey named Fifi (who became Curious George). Eventually their neighbors saw the couple in the house and called the local authorities on them. They came right away and inspected to find some bomb making materials but were surprised when they arrived to find an art studio with paintings of a silly monkey. This was the first but not the last time that the couples creation of the children's book would save their life.
When people go and visit the exhibit they don't just learn about the history of the books. They also learn the history of one couples journey to escape the Nazis. This exhibit was chosen to be placed in the Jewish Museum because of all of the hardships that the Reys endured and how they were singled out because of their beliefs. It is an inspirational story that keeps the interest of the viewer. The Reys were forced to travel the world and not find a place they were able to call home because of their Jewish heritage. They had created the idea of Curious George from the notion that consequence were everything during the time they lived in. They thought that there was no better way of showing that than by creating a monkey that had the curiosity of a five year old. The exhibit was named 'Curious George Saves the Day' because George saved the day in his adventures just like the paintings of him saved the lives the Reys.
The exhibit itself is shown in a gallery fashion so as you walk through the French style doors you see many of the original drawings from H.A. Rey. The walls are painted a yellow that help bring out the vibrant colors of the drawings. One important feature of the exhibit is that a lot of the drawings are moved lower than a typical exhibit because of the amount of youthful viewers.
I found this exhibit very interesting because I had never known anything about the creator of Curious George. I believe that the article gives an insightful experience of what he went through during a time that Jewish people face persecution. The exhibit seems as though it not only displays his works in an appealing fashion but also gives the view a great story as well.

The Architecture is the Museum

When going to a museum for the first time the very first thing that everyone notices is the building that houses the museum. From the moment that you see it for the first time the viewer starts to create a vision of what the museum as a whole looks like. Each museum that I have gone to in the past I feel as though the architecture has played a vital role in creating a more authentic experience.
One of the museums that I have been to that the architecture has played an important role was OMSI. I remember the first time going to OMSI, pulling up in my car to a large industrious looking building. The building from the outside was brick for the most part and had a giant smoke stack on top. I instantly thought that I was going to a factory. To my surprise when I went inside, I observed that everything was very modern looking and brightly lit up, it was as though that the outside of the building gave a complete different image to it. The inside was very open and you could see all around which greatly enhanced my experience there. The exhibits were influenced by the architecture of the building. One of the exhibits that was greatly influenced by the architecture was the submarine that they have. If the museum had been built in a different place not near a river or didn't have as many exits/entrances this would not be the same. Being in a submarine actually underwater made the experience that much more enjoyable. It would have not been nearly as memorable if it had been on land. Another example of OMSI's exhibits being impacted by the architecture would be the interactive science room where you actually get to perform experiments or use the equipment they have. The room that houses all of this is massive and gives a person the feeling as though they are outside because the room is so large. In this room I remember making helicopter out of simple items and flying it inside not worrying if it hit the ceiling because it would be nearly impossible. If the room had been small this would be nothing special of an exhibit and not so memorable.
My memories of going to museums like OMSI would not be the same if it had not been built the way it was. The experience that I had at OMSI proved to me that the architecture is the museum.

Success within a museum

Success within a museum is difficult to assess and has no clear answer. The term “success” is relative depending on who you talk to; each person that has anything to with a museum, be it a patron or the director all want to get something different out of it. Weil tries to break down how to measure success of a museum using four different pieces of criteria: purposiveness, capability, effectiveness and efficiency. Using these four aspects of a museum he is able to explain how it is possible for a self-evaluation. I do agree with him that all of this is necessary to gauge success for museum staff. I however find it difficult to use this to gauge success for patrons at a museum.
One aspect that I have felt that is overlooked in many museums is the ability to engage with the viewer in an interactive environment. I do understand that not all museums are capable or should actually do this, but at the same time too many museums are simply created around the uniform idea that you just observe an exhibit, then move on to the next one. For example when I go to the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry or OMSI, I feel as though I am more knowledgeable walking away from an exhibit because I have had some interaction with it. A few years back when I went there, they had a exhibit on earthquakes and the destruction they do. They had many different interactions with the patrons of the museum such as walking into a house that would replicate certain magnitudes of earthquakes. This combined with pictures of the results of an earthquake made me truly understand what it was like to go through what the people of the picture did. I would have not been able to have the same experience at the exhibit if there was not the room that replicated an earthquake, I most likely would have just moved on to the next exhibit. Exhibits that engage the patron can simply leave a more lasting affect than one that is only for viewing.