> Their stated purpose was to make it more accessible. The reasoned that the neoclassical architecture and old-style font made the space intimidating to people who didn’t hold those things to be part of their culture and that it was out of tune with the increasing diversity of their collection and programs.
Can put this under the dictionary definition of insanity. Or someone needed justification to get paid without doing any real work.
>The reasoned that the neoclassical architecture and old-style font made the space intimidating to people who didn’t hold those things to be part of their culture and that it was out of tune with the increasing diversity of their collection and programs.
The whole purpose of an actually inclusive "Museum of Fine Arts" should have been the opposite: to make people appreciate, understand, and enjoy things that they don't feel are "part of their culture", expand their cultural horizons and lift their tastes.
Not to excise things they don't identify with, and feed them "safe" stuff tailored to them. That's entertainment.
This is especially true for religious art. Many think religion is not "apart of their culture" because they haven't learned their own history. A museum ought to show the newer generations the good parts of what came before; be it in Islam, Buddhism, Christianity and others.
Yes. To conceive of a museum of fine arts, you also need to have a culture that has a sense of different relative worths of both artistic styles and art artifacts. What belongs to a museum vs what doesn't, what is fine art vs what is commercial crap or kitch, and so on. One that believes in informed curation - curation being the very core of what a museum does.
Of course this requires an era where the opinion of people devoted to studying, discussing, and creating fine art isn't supposed to be equally respected to that of Joe Sixpack, Jaqueline Middlebrow, Joy Belieber, Arthur Incel, or Random J. Person, where everything is up to personal taste.
I don't care for the use of terms that imply appreciating the fine arts is somehow on a "higher plane" and places those who do so above those who don't, but I do think it's worth acknowledging that it takes significant time and effort to develop such appreciation, and that the rewards are subsequently substantial. Personally I've invested significantly in the study and appreciation of Western classical music and I believe what I've gained from that could not be achieved simply by listening to top 40 hits on the radio - but I don't believe those who do only the latter are in anyway "lower" on any sort of ranking system, just that their brains are wired differently, and their cultural background etc. is such that it probably wouldn't make sense for them to make the same investment into music appreciation that I have. It's almost certainly true that they've invested considerably into appreciating other worthwhile aspects of life that I haven't - we can't do it all!
I want to say it makes complete sense to me. It's well known that museums are seen as unappealing to many demographics and the image of association with elitism and colonialism plays a huge role in that. Changing the style choices of museum communications towards ones which are further dissociated from those issues seems like ab obvious first step towrads increasing the perception of inclusivity.
I would ask anyone who is labeling it as "insane" what their own background is how European it is before they dismiss efforts to appeal to groups with other histories, and often painful ones as they relate to European history.
My background is non white child of poor immigrants to the US from a country that used to be ruled by the UK. I just found it unbelievable that anyone would associate a font with “elitism” and “colonialism”. And my family prioritizes going to museums, even in London, where many of my family live even though that is in the country that oppressed them.
I have heard elders complain about the proliferation of the English language itself to be a cause for decline in fluency of the native language, but I can almost guarantee no one has ever thought about the influences of a font. I mean there are actual fish to fry here, starting with legislation, monetary consequences, property rights…I do not see how fonts moves the needle at all, except patting oneself on their back.
> I can almost guarantee no one has ever thought about the influences of a font.
Maybe not but we know that they do affect people's perceptions whether they're conscious of it or not.
I think it's fantastic that your family was engaged with museums while you were growing up but we also know that there's a demographic divide in engagement across the wider
population. In the UK more than half of white families visit museums annually but for black families that's closer to one in three.[0]
> I mean there are actual fish to fry here, starting with legislation, monetary consequences, property rights
100% but those issues are beyond the operational scope of an individual museum trying to improve its engagement.
Of course fonts and their styling represent a feeling. Serif fonts don't represent elitism and colonialism to me, but maybe to some people they might and some museums might want to get away from that. Some serifed logos feel old and stodgy and sometimes updating those gives everything a fresher feel. A museum representing modern art most certainly wants to feel modern and in sync with the current zeitgeist.
Fonts, colors, wording, architecture, etc. all have influences on you, me, and everyone else. They are a form of language and communication and you can both update fonts at the same time as legislation and everything else.
It is insane because this alienates the demographics that appreciate everything you are denouncing here: European history, art, culture, colonialism, civilizational accomplishment etc. Everything that created the very art housed withing the museums.
Even if one is not apart of this heritage, this should be respected as the foundation of the art itself.
> European history, art, culture, colonialism, civilizational accomplishment etc. Everything that created the very art housed withing the museums.
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic here? Many museums are stuffed with objects taken from around the world, often forecfully. There was such pressure on other cultures to provide objects for Europe that there's even a display in Rotterdam's Wereldmuseum of fascinating objects from the Congo that were made with an intentionally brutal "primitive" aesthetic because that's what the Europeans wanted from them. They even went to the trouble of inventing rotuals associated with these objects.
I guess you could argue that those pieces were somehow created through European colonialism, but even then the designs and implementation were all Congolese.
I think the people who appreciate colonialism are indeed being denounced very intentionally by more and more of the world's cultural insitutions. It's very much intentional.
I don’t question the motivation to be welcoming, but a good motivation doesn’t make a good design.
The result is denuded and unmoored. It’s as soulless here in Boston as it would be if the aesthetic infected cultural institutions in Tokyo or Addis Ababa.
I bet the people in charge meant well, they just did a bad job.
Beauty and soulfulness are very subjective, but I think the way to judge this design is by how successful it was at helping perceptions of inclusivity. I'm not sure if this particular institution publishes data about visitor demographics but I'm sure they have an internal understanding of the value of this change.
Yeah, if they were very well-managed that have metrics not only for success but also for potential loss. And then an honest qualitative evaluation to see changes—good and bad—in the things that are hard to measure but nonetheless important.
I’ve seen very few firms of any sort do that well.
> It's well known that museums are seen as unappealing to many demographics...
So what? These people don't have to go there. There's a whole bunch of places and things I find unappealing, so I don't seek it out.
By destroying culture, you're also robbing people who would appreciate it from an experience. And people who appreciate something can come from all kinds of backgrounds.
Museums can be very inspiring and educational places and can also increase the sense of wellbeing in visitors. Most have it as an aim to bring access to these benefits to a wide range of people. There's also many issues to including contemporary artists from non-traditional background which is a shame for both the creators and people who would potentially enjoy their work.
I'm not sure how an institution using a different typeface with the aim of being more inclusive is "destroying culture" to such a degree that it should be a serious consideration when weighed against the benefits. Could you explain further what you meant by that?
Of course the people who enjoy these things can come from any type of background but first they have to fell welcome to even experience them. Currently in my native country the research shows that white people are almost twice as likely to visit a museum in the first place compared to black people. I personally find that a real shame because I think everyone can benefit from visitng them.
Nobody cares about a font, but if you read the thread you'll see that it's also the architecture that is "oppressive" in the eyes of the ideologues. When you're destroying architecture you're destroying culture. The same technocrats who has filled the world with the most depressing brutalist architecture are claiming that some mysterious "others" suffer greatly from the classical looks of museums.
> Of course the people who enjoy these things can come from any type of background but first they have to fell welcome to even experience them.
And in what way would somebody feel unwelcome by a font? Why is a serif font less welcoming than a sans serif font? When you do the thinking for other people and when you're feeling oppressed on their behalf, maybe you should instead re-evaluate what you're doing. Are you as an enlightened hacker able to appreciate different cultures, expressions, and even typefaces with a cool self-distance, while people who are lesser than you have to be baby-sat by other enlightened individuals that protect them from unfamiliar columns and serifs?
> Are you as an enlightened hacker able to appreciate different cultures, expressions, and even typefaces with a cool self-distance, while people who are lesser than you have to be baby-sat by other enlightened individuals that protect them from unfamiliar columns and serifs?
That's quite a lot of nasty to put onto me and I would ask you not to do that.
I'm not doing anyone's thinking. The position that typography carries associative and emotional weight is not novel here. I think you know very well that serif fonts carry a sense of formality and even authority that sans fonts don't.
I'm also not the one making these changes. I'm not sure why you think these decisions are being left up to me and people like me. The MFABoston has quite a robust inclusivity policy and they not only take on board research on these issues but they also facilitate direct contact where possible from people from various groups outside of their own sphere, including experts and service users/potential service users. Further to that they are also committed to a diversity and inclusivity policy with regards to their staffing, offering things like bias training to staff as well as offering staff "employee resource groups" that support staff who are members of societal groups that face systemic barriers to having their voices heard in order to help them overcome those barriers.
If you have any ideas on things they're missing you can contact them via their website.
> When you're destroying architecture you're destroying culture. The same technocrats who has filled the world with the most depressing brutalist architecture are claiming that some mysterious "others" suffer greatly from the classical looks of museums.
Which technocrats are these? The psychology of architecture is also not a novel idea, but it feels like you're speaking with incredulity here? Deyan Sudjic's The Edifice Complex is a fun book about this. There's a reason the White House looks how it does, it's communicating something and it's asking certain behavioural norms from the people who step inside.
I'm not sure what architecture is being destroyed. Here in Europe such buildings are generally protected from significant redevelopment becaues they're rightly recognised as cultural heritage in and of themselves. Is this a real issue?
> That's quite a lot of nasty to put onto me and I would ask you not to do that.
There is a fully saturated air of superiority in the arguments that you are making and defending. How can you and others take it for granted that people referred to as "many demographics" would at all feel at unease with serif fonts? That sounds 100% made up, because it is. It might be easier to just make up how other people are supposed to feel, instead of getting to know these strange "others", that are just like you.
Why not put yourself in the situation? Let's say you went to a foreign place from yours to visit an important public building. This can be a temple, palace, church, mosque, or even a serif-using museum. Would you find it reasonable to demand they change their architecture and their fonts for you to feel welcome? Would you agree with local custodians, if they argued that you don't have the capacity to appreciate the original style, or would you find it demeaning? Classical Roman style architecture is foreign to my culture, and I greatly appreciate when I can visit such a place, why in the world would I feel unwelcome? That would be like getting mad at the light fixtures.
> I think you know very well that serif fonts carry a sense of formality and even authority that sans fonts don't.
Not at all. Serif fonts are printed in novels, while sans serif fonts are used in forms from the tax office. But even if we entertain that idea, so what? Some places are formal, and every human has the capacity to behave formally and be in formal places – if they chose to.
> Which technocrats are these?
> I'm not sure what architecture is being destroyed.
People who are professionals in city planning. I guess it's ordered differently everywhere under different names. They are technicians and they are making the decisions - hence technocrats. A ton of buildings were torn down during the 1900s to make room for brutalist shoeboxes. What's left is usually protected, as you mention.
> There is a fully saturated air of superiority in the arguments that you are making and defending.
I asked you not to do this, but you're continuing to do so and trying to justify it. I won't engage in this way. Any sense of superiority/inferiority or thought prescriptivism that you're sensing in what I'm saying is something you've projected onto me. I'm talking only about accessibility. This exchange has been bizarre.
I apologize if I interpreted wrongfully your reasoning. I did ask how a serif font is supposed to have the properties described, or why anybody should feel unwelcome by classical architecture, but without much answer IMO.
Can put this under the dictionary definition of insanity. Or someone needed justification to get paid without doing any real work.