museum review essay

National Council on Public History

Exhibit and museum reviews and review essays.

All questions regarding review proposals, submissions, editing, and publication should be directed to [email protected] .

The exhibit review section of The Public Historian was established to report on and evaluate current historical exhibits, including performances, living history, and historical built environments. The journal reviews both exhibits that receive wide public attention (e.g., exhibits in large nationally known museums), and works in smaller institutions and other contexts, such as community or neighborhood centers. This section contains a mix of single item reviews and multi-item review essays, as well as thematic or comparative essays focusing on regions, special-interest audiences, or methodological issues. Review essays compare two or more exhibits or museums, treating the relevant subject in more depth than would be possible in a short review.

In reviewing public exhibits, it is especially important that reviewers understand the intended purposes and audience of the exhibition and the institutional context in which it was produced (e.g., large or limited budget, availability of artifacts, time or other constraints imposed by the institution). Contact the exhibit curator to gather pertinent information on the exhibition’s goals, its audience, and the conditions (budgetary, social, etc.) under which it was mounted. Only in this way can a fair evaluation of a historical exhibit be made.

• Your review should briefly report on the exhibit (subject matter, main themes, form) as well as evaluate its effectiveness. Evaluation should take into consideration the accuracy of content and setting and the effectiveness of presentation and overall design (e.g., visual quality, conveyance of text, use of sound, and the meshing of these components).
• Reviewers should consider other aspects of the exhibit, such as the use of experimental interpretive techniques and the role played by historians in the creation of the exhibit.
• What can you do in the exhibit that you cannot do in traditional history presentations?
• Is the curator enhancing public knowledge and debate on the subject area covered?
• What might other professionals learn from this effort?

Please avoid passive-voice constructions, overly complex sentences, jargon, and redundancies. We may return for revision any review in need of severe editing, and we reserve the right to reject any review submitted for publication.

All reviews are edited to conform to the TPH house style and standard literary usage to achieve greater economy of space and clarity of meaning. Please consult The Chicago Manual of Style for guidance.

NUTS AND BOLTS

• Write your review as an Microsoft Word document. (NOTE: We cannot process WordPerfect files.)
• Use 12-pt. font and double-space the review.
• Unless otherwise agreed upon between reviewer and editor, reviews should be 1000-1200 words long (four to five double-spaced pages). We will shorten, or return for revision, any review of excessive length. Length restrictions vary in the case of review essays, to which we apply the standards of articles.
• Provide the following information in your introductory heading: title of exhibit/museum; name of curator/historical consultant; sponsor/publisher; date of display/publication; and any further information that would help to identify or credit responsible parties.

The Whitney Plantation. John Cummings , Founder; Ibrahima Seck , Academic Director; Ashley Rogers , Director of Museum Operations; Monique Johnson , Assistant Director of Museum Operations; Laura Amann , Director of Communications. December 8, 2014–On going. http://www.whitneyplantation.com/.

• Illustrations, photographic or drawn , are encouraged, and will be included whenever possible. If taking your own photographs, SET YOUR CAMERA TO THE HIGHEST RESOLUTION to guarantee print quality images. Please supply images as electronic tiff files sized at 4” wide, with a minimum 300 dpi. When submitting your illustrations/photographs, please use either of the the following two options: If using Dropbox or Google Drive, place your files in a Dropbox/Google Drive folder and share the folder with me ( [email protected] ). If not using Dropbox or Google Drive, please upload your files with the following online submission form:  http://www.jotform.us/form/42676450679164 . All photos and other artwork must be accompanied by captions, credits, and a letter (or e-mail message) of permission from the holder of the copyright (if applicable).
• The Public Historian uses the footnote style, spelling, and punctuation format of The Chicago Manual of Style and The American Heritage Dictionary . Footnotes will appear as endnotes, and must be double-spaced.
• Email your completed manuscript as a Microsoft Word document to [email protected] .

Once your manuscript has been submitted you will receive an acknowledgement, then later a copy-edited version of the review and/or galley proofs. Please promptly approve or request changes in the typescript and/or galleys. You will receive one copy of the journal issue containing the review; authors of review essays will also receive twenty-five free offprints.

NOTE: Please keep TPH informed of any changes of address, so that edited reviews and future requests may reach you promptly.

  Thank you for your contribution to The Public Historian .

Sign Up to Receive News and Announcements Emails from NCPH

• Only members receive our weekly e-newsletter, but on occasion we send news and announcements to broader audiences. This includes information about our annual meeting and other events, advocacy alerts, and opportunities in the public history field.
• Name * First Last
• Annual Meeting Information
• NCPH News and Announcements
• NCPH Advocacy Efforts
• News and opportunities from NCPH Affiliates
• I have read and understood the Privacy Statement
• Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

You may unsubscribe or change your preferences at anytime by emailing [email protected] Cavanaugh Hall 127, 425 University Blvd., Indianapolis, IN 46202-5140 (317) 274-2716 [email protected]

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Arts and Entertainment
• Art Studies

How to Write an Art Exhibition Review

Last Updated: December 29, 2023 Approved

How to Draft Your Review

How to revise your review, best practices for viewing an art exhibit, expert q&a.

This article was co-authored by Kelly Medford and by wikiHow staff writer, Danielle Blinka, MA, MPA . Kelly Medford is an American painter based in Rome, Italy. She studied classical painting, drawing and printmaking both in the U.S. and in Italy. She works primarily en plein air on the streets of Rome, and also travels for private international collectors on commission. She founded Sketching Rome Tours in 2012 where she teaches sketchbook journaling to visitors of Rome. Kelly is a graduate of the Florence Academy of Art. wikiHow marks an article as reader-approved once it receives enough positive feedback. In this case, 95% of readers who voted found the article helpful, earning it our reader-approved status. This article has been viewed 301,841 times.

Art exhibition reviews provide a description and critical analysis of an art exhibit. This helps visitors know what to expect from the exhibit and gives feedback to the artist. To write an effective art exhibition review, visit the exhibit, take detailed notes, and talk to the artist, a docent, or a curator, if possible. Then, discuss your observations and opinions in your review and revise your work before finalizing it.

Things You Should Know

• Provide the who, what, where, when, and why of the exhibit in your introduction to paint a clear picture for the reader.
• Give a detailed description of the exhibit, including how each piece is displayed, so readers can know what to expect.
• Take a critical look at the exhibit and offer your opinions on the exhibit. Mention if it was successful in portraying its core themes and ideas.

• Write, “Agatha Tompkin’s The Friends You Have opened at the Contemporary Art Center on Friday, August 23rd and runs through November 1st. Her watercolors and mixed media works explore modern relationships and how communities differ.”

• You might say, “Tompkin’s watercolors are grouped on two adjacent walls in simple 11 by 14 in (28 by 36 cm) black frames. Hanging on the opposite walls, her mixed-media work consists of 5 by 7 ft (1.5 by 2.1 m) canvases that are arranged in a line. Visitors can walk alongside the artwork for a visual experience.”

Tip: While many artworks are meant to be viewed, there are other ways to interact with art. Sometimes art is meant to be listened to, and you may be immersed in an installation. Think about how you’re interacting with the artwork in this exhibit.

• Explain the artist’s stated thesis and how well they expressed it in their exhibit.
• Identify parts of the exhibit that worked well. If there were works that didn’t support the main idea, explain how the artist could have better incorporated them.
• Consider how this exhibit relates to art history as a whole. Where would it fit in? How does this art compare to existing works? How does it express common themes?

• For instance, a curator may not face any unique challenges while hanging framed oil paintings on a wall. However, they might struggle with installing a sculpture that hangs from the ceiling or an installation that has moving parts.
• You might write, “While the framed watercolors were easy to hang on the exhibit walls, the curators struggled to install the single mixed-media sculpture that Tompkins created from found objects. The sculpture is designed to look like it’s floating between the ceiling and the floor, so it must be hung using thin wires.”

• If this is for class, your instructor likely told you which style guide to use. Format your paper and any citations that you use according to the rules for that style guide.

• Don’t ask someone who’s unfamiliar with art exhibition reviews to critique your paper because they may unintentionally give you bad advice.

• Reading your review aloud will help you spot areas that don’t flow well. Re-write these sentences to make them better.

• Try to get someone else to proofread it for you because it’s hard to spot your own errors.

• If you have any questions, ask your instructor so that you don’t accidentally make an error on your assignment.

• Make several passes through the exhibit so you can make new observations and connections between the works.
• Look at the art from different angles and distances. While it’s important to examine each piece closely, you also want to take in the entire exhibit as a whole to see how the artist evoked their theme.

• Document how the artist created each image, such as how they used lines, shapes, colors, shading, textures, patterns, and light. You’ll use this information to develop your discussion on form.

Ask yourself questions like:

Why are the works of art ordered or arranged this way?

Does a particular work stand out from the rest?

Is there a theme or a subtext to the exhibition?

Does the theme or thesis become obvious as I walk through the space?

How is this exhibition different from others I've seen?

• Ask yourself questions like the following: Based on what I see, what do I think the artist is trying to say? What does the exhibit make me think about? How do I feel?

• Ask a docent questions like, “What was the artist hoping to achieve in this exhibit?” “What inspired the artist to create these works?” and “What are the core pieces of this exhibit?”
• Ask a curator questions like, “Why did you arrange the artwork like this?” “What challenges did you face while installing the exhibit?” and “What instructions did the artist give for hanging their work?”

• For instance, do you notice visitors avoiding a certain piece? Are they drawn to some pieces more than others? Which pieces are generating conversation? What types of comments do you overhear?
• If you’re planning to publish your review, ask fellow visitors to give you quotes that you can use for your review. Get their name so you can credit them.

• Wait until after you view the exhibit so that your initial impressions aren’t influenced by the artist.

Tip: Read the artist statement for more insight into what inspired the exhibit.

• Your review should focus on your own ideas, not on what other people said.

• Read art exhibition reviews written by professional critics to help you understand the typical format. [15] X Research source Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0
• Always have materials ready for taking notes or recording conversations. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0
• Don't overuse superlatives. If you fall into the trap of calling every artwork you see "breathtaking," "magnificent" or "flawless," you'll soon come off as an uninformed critic. Likewise, calling everything you dislike "appalling," "disgusting," or "terrible" will undermine your ideas. Thanks Helpful 1 Not Helpful 0

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://www.ocadu.ca/Assets/content/teaching-learning/WLC/Online+Resources/Writing+Art+Reviews.pdf
• ↑ https://ualr.edu/art/art-history-resources/papers-and-projects/guidelines-for-analysis-of-art/
• ↑ http://arthistoryteachingresources.org/2017/09/museums-writing-exhibition-reviews/
• ↑ https://www.uwgb.edu/malloyk/art_criticism_and_formal_analysi.htm
• ↑ http://www.csus.edu/indiv/o/obriene/art112/Readings/Writing_a_Review_of_an_Exhibition.pdf

About This Article

To write an art exhibition review, start with an introductory paragraph that introduces a thesis about the exhibit. Then, break the body of your review up into individual sections that each focus on specific artwork in the exhibition. In each section, make sure you include descriptions of the art, your analysis and interpretation of the artwork, a consideration of the space it was displayed in, and finally your evaluation. To conclude your review, write a conclusion that ties together your main points and summarizes your review. To learn how to analyze and critique an art exhibit, scroll down! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Prabuddha Ghosh

Jun 7, 2019

Did this article help you?

Jessica Perez

Oct 9, 2017

Nov 7, 2016

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Don’t miss out! Sign up for

wikiHow’s newsletter

Browse Course Material

Course info.

• Dr. Janis Melvold

Departments

• Comparative Media Studies/Writing

As Taught In

• Academic Writing
• Technical Writing

Learning Resource Types

Science writing and new media: explorations in communicating about science & technology, assignment 1: a critical review.

Due: Session 5

Length: ~1250 words

For this assignment you will write a critical review of an exhibit at the Boston Museum of Science .

The purpose and target audience of your review: Who are you writing for and why?

Here’s the scenario:

Imagine there’s a journal devoted to the topic of communicating science—let’s even imagine that the journal has that very title, Communicating Science . The journal caters to a broad audience of scientists, science teachers, students interested in STEM fields, and science writers. The editors of this journal are planning a special issue on the topic of communicating science through museum exhibits. You have been invited, as an MIT student, to contribute to this issue by submitting a review of a Boston Museum of Science exhibit. You may choose to write about any exhibit you want.

The purpose of the review is to provide an analysis and assessment of this exhibit, showing how it succeeds or falls short in engaging and conveying scientific ideas and information to its target audience.

Format and Content of the Review

The review should be written in the form of an essay.

It should include:

• A brief overview of the Boston Museum of Science and your views about the role of science museums
• A more detailed description of the exhibit you’re focusing on (e.g., its topic, content, design, aims, target audience(s))
• An analysis of the exhibit’s strengths and weaknesses
• An assessment of the overall success of the exhibit in achieving what you see as the designers’ intent

Organizing the Review

The review should have a discernible introduction (providing context and a framework for critique); body (consisting of your description and analysis of the exhibit); and a summary/conclusion (underscoring the main idea of your review).

You may use section headings to highlight key points. The paper should be either 1.5 or double-spaced, using a standard 12 pt. font and standard margins. It should also include a descriptive title.

Evaluating an Exhibit: What Should You Consider?

Consider the exhibit in light of the ideas discussed in the Semper article, “ Science Museums as Environments for Learning ,” as well as your own ideas about science museums.

Here are some questions to consider:

• What is the topic of the exhibit and what is its basic purpose?
• Is this an appropriate topic for a science museum?
• Who is its target audience (or audiences)? How can you tell?
• Are the scope and depth of the exhibit’s content appropriate for the target audience(s)?
• What forms of media are used to present information? Are they effective? Why or why not?
• How is the exhibit organized (e.g., historically, topically, thematically)? Does the method of organization seem logical and clear?
• What do you notice about people visiting the exhibit and their responses to it?
• Does the exhibit actively engage the audience? If so, in what ways? If not, why?
• Is the exhibit aesthetically appealing?
• Are there gaps in the coverage of the topic?
• Is the content accurate and up to date?
• Are aspects of the exhibit confusing?
• Do you have ideas about how the exhibit could be improved?

Take notes! You can even take pictures!

Using and Citing Source Material

If you draw on any idea, concepts, or facts from the Semper article, be sure to cite them and include a complete bibliographic reference to the article at the end. You are not expected to do additional research or consult other sources of information for this paper.

Suggestions for the Process of Writing

Thinking and planning are important (and often underappreciated) aspects of the writing process. You’re likely to find that the actual writing will be easier if you devote plenty of time to thinking about and sketching out your ideas and key points.

Using your recollections and notes, list the key points that you want to include in your analysis. Identify a central unifying theme for your review . Then you’ll be ready to sketch out the organization of each section and to see how the sections fit together into a coherent critical review. (The structure might change as you’re drafting the piece.)

And remember that you will have the opportunity to revise the essay after receiving feedback on the first version.

You are leaving MIT OpenCourseWare

Museum Review Essay: Pergamon Altar

• November 28, 2022

The Pergamon Altar

Museum Review Essay: Introduction

The virtual tour of the Pergamon Museum in Berlin is filled with magnificent historical pieces that represent Ancient Greece’s Hellenistic era and much more. The Pergamon Altar, The Market Gate of Miletus, The Ishtar Gate were all monumental works of art; however, the one that drew my attention most was the piece that gave the museum its’ name; The Pergamon Altar. The Pergamon Altar was built in 2nd Century BC, in Pergamon which is now in Turkey’s territory. It took six years to unearth all the bits of this Altar, and after the excavation, the German government brought this piece to Berlin with Turkey’s permission. This piece was so outstanding and grand; the government built a new museum for it. Archeologists and art historians worked together at the reconstruction and gifted the world with the Pergamon Altar. The Altar depicts one of the most significant wars of Greek mythology, the battle between Gods and Goddesses of Olympia and Titans. Two leading center figures that are sculpted are Zeus and Athena, but the Altar is carved with an abundance of details that you find every time you examine it.

Body Paragraphs

The reason why I chose this artwork was mainly because of these two pieces. Zeus and Athena stand ever so mightily opposite each other, fighting multiple titans. It’s archaism and classiness blend harmoniously with Hellenistic art’s preeminent characteristic: the deep adoration for the human body. Its’ nobility comes from the great love of the artists that is engraved in every curve, muscle, carve, and expression. You can see the drama of the war just by looking at the Gods and Titans’ faces. This piece holds so much power that it still mesmerizes its beholder after thousands of years. Even though we cannot see Athena’s face, control spreads from her body, from the way her hand grasps Alcyoneus’ and his mother Gaia’s hair. Even if it is reversed, Athena’s shield Aegis is still the center of this work, and it is crafted with such attention that everything seems to revolve around it.

The piece manages to express victory through postures while conveying drama through faces. In Gaia’s face, you can feel the complete terror and helplessness, but when you lay your eyes, Athena, calmness fills your soul. In his side, Zeus is also fighting with numerous giants, surrounded by his symbolic animals, such as the eagle. A torch is stuck at a giant right beneath Zeus’ knee, and it is written on the informative text that Greeks used lights as a symbol of Zeus’ lightning. Zeus is the most significant metaphor of heroism as the king of all Olympians, and in my opinion, this piece conveys it most compellingly. Zeus’ side portrays a heroic side of the war while Athena’s portray balance.

As you walk up the stairs, you meet with another feeling of the same fight; agony. Figures are swelling all over the stairs, resting knees, with their spines arched from the weight of the war, agony prominent in their faces. I was almost uncomfortable when I studied them but also mesmerized how brilliantly these three aspects of war were depicted in this piece. It is an excellent reflection of authority and who pays the price of the battles.

Museum Review Essay: Conclusion

After all, the concepts that the Pergamon Altar represents are still relevant to this day, and the way it was conveyed requires such talented craftsmanship that one can feel the empowerment in their veins just by a virtual tour. These two features are what make the Pergamon Altar timeless and monumental. In other words, one can readily conclude that our future generations are as well likely to appreciate the outcomes of intellectuality and the complexity of human beings.

Recently on Tamara Blog

Essay on Animal Farm by Orwell – Free Essay Samples

“Animal Farm” by George Orwell is a literary masterpiece that tells the story of a group of farm animals who rebel against their human farmer and establish a socialist community based on the principles of equality and mutual respect (Orwell, 1945). However, over time, the pigs who lead the revolution gradually become corrupted by power and begin to oppress and exploit the other animals, ultimately turning the farm into a totalitarian state.

Essay on Cyberbullying – Free Essay Samples

Bullying is an aggressive behavior that is intentional and repeated, aimed at causing harm or discomfort to a person, and often takes place in social environments such as schools, workplaces, and online platforms. Cyberbullying is a relatively new form of bullying that has emerged with the widespread use of technology and the internet. Cyberbullying refers to bullying behaviors that occur online or through electronic means, such as social media, text messages, and emails.

Essay on Nature vs. Nurture – Free Essay Samples

The debate over nature versus nurture has been a longstanding topic of interest among psychologists and other scholars. The two concepts, nature and nurture, are frequently used to explain human development and behavior.

Lord of the Flies Essay – Free Essay Samples

Veterans have played a critical role in the history of the United States, serving their country in times of war and peace. Despite their sacrifices, many veterans face significant challenges, including physical and mental health issues, homelessness, and unemployment.

Why Veterans Are Important – Free Essay Samples

American dream essay – free essay samples.

The American Dream has been a central concept in American culture for decades, representing the idea that anyone, regardless of their background, can achieve success and prosperity through hard work and determination. The concept of the American Dream is rooted in the country’s history and has been promoted in various ways, from the founding fathers’ beliefs to the post-World War II era.

• Survey 1: Prehistory to Gothic
• Survey 2: Renaissance to Modern & Contemporary
• Thematic Lesson Plans
• AP Art History
• Books We Love
• CAA Conversations Podcasts
• SoTL Resources
• Teaching Writing About Art
• VISITING THE MUSEUM Learning Resource
• AHTR Weekly
• Digital Art History/Humanities
• Open Educational Resources (OERs)

Survey 1 See all→

• Prehistory and Prehistoric Art in Europe
• Art of the Ancient Near East
• Art of Ancient Egypt
• Jewish and Early Christian Art
• Byzantine Art and Architecture
• Islamic Art
• Buddhist Art and Architecture Before 1200
• Hindu Art and Architecture Before 1300
• Chinese Art Before 1300
• Japanese Art Before 1392
• Art of the Americas Before 1300
• Early Medieval Art

Survey 2 See all→

• Rapa Nui: Thematic and Narrative Shifts in Curriculum
• Proto-Renaissance in Italy (1200–1400)
• Northern Renaissance Art (1400–1600)
• Sixteenth-Century Northern Europe and Iberia
• Italian Renaissance Art (1400–1600)
• Southern Baroque: Italy and Spain
• Buddhist Art and Architecture in Southeast Asia After 1200
• Chinese Art After 1279
• Japanese Art After 1392
• Art of the Americas After 1300
• Art of the South Pacific: Polynesia
• African Art
• West African Art: Liberia and Sierra Leone
• European and American Architecture (1750–1900)
• Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth-Century Art in Europe and North America
• Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Sculpture
• Realism to Post-Impressionism
• Nineteenth-Century Photography
• Architecture Since 1900
• Twentieth-Century Photography
• Modern Art (1900–50)
• Mexican Muralism
• Art Since 1950 (Part I)
• Art Since 1950 (Part II)

Thematic Lesson Plans See all→

• Art and Cultural Heritage Looting and Destruction
• Art and Labor in the Nineteenth Century
• Art and Political Commitment
• Art History as Civic Engagement
• Comics: Newspaper Comics in the United States
• Comics: Underground and Alternative Comics in the United States
• Disability in Art History
• Educating Artists
• Feminism & Art
• Gender in Nineteenth-Century Art
• Globalism and Transnationalism
• Playing “Indian”: Manifest Destiny, Whiteness, and the Depiction of Native Americans
• Queer Art: 1960s to the Present
• Race and Identity
• Race-ing Art History: Contemporary Reflections on the Art Historical Canon
• Sacred Spaces
• Sexuality in Art

Museums: Writing Exhibition Reviews

Alexis Clark

September 1, 2017

AHTR Weekly Categories

• Announcement
• Digital Humanities
• Equity in Education
• Lesson Plan
• Online Teaching
• Student Voices
• Teaching Strategies
• Uncategorized
• Writing About Art

Recent Posts

• Re-Teaching Rapa Nui
• Revealing Museums — Together
• Baptism by Fire: Tips and Tactics from My First Time Teaching Remotely
• Can COVID-19 Reinvigorate our Teaching? Employing Digital Tools for Spatial Learning

Teaching art history, as with any discipline, comes with a set of obstacles: from the intellectual (how to make the past relevant to the present); to the technical (the problems of the digitization that distort image quality, scale, and size); and to the practical (the prickly but persistent question of what one does with an undergraduate degree in the history of art). What an art historian does—whether an undergraduate in a general education course or a tenured professor—is develop, extend, and/or deconstruct a discourse. Writing exhibition and book reviews plays a fundamental part in this discourse, as evidenced by the robust and vibrant community of scholars who submit reviews to H-France Review , Nineteenth-Century Art Worldwide , and the many other online and traditional print resources available in the field. For undergraduates (as the newest members of the field), I think that writing exhibition reviews can ensure their critical participation in that discourse. Exhibitions, in their appeal to broad and specialist audiences alike, are texts that tell their own stories about art, that increase students’ appreciation, and that catalyze further research into art history.

In my upper-level undergraduate course, Nineteenth-Century Art and Visual Culture, I asked my students to visit and review the Cincinnati Art Museum’s exhibit, Van Gogh: Into the Undergrowth with the intention that they would learn to put their classroom-based knowledge of art history into practice. I provided a series of prompts  for when they began the assignment. First, writing these reviews taught them to apply their research of the Barbizon School, Impressionism, and Symbolism—these had been studied in class prior to the trip—to analyze the exhibition’s claims and contents. Writing these reviews permitted them to apply their research in a directed way. Second, this exercise required students to repeatedly and thoroughly revise their work and write in a way that addressed non-specialists (like them). Finally, writing these reviews fulfilled my course’s overall pedagogical aims around visual analysis, research, and the recursive process of writing and editing.

Visual Analysis. Seeing is doing. Object-based analysis— technical properties, aesthetic qualities, and preservation issues—remains critical to art history as a discipline and acts as the starting-point for writing reviews. After taking a quick curator-led tour of Van Gogh: Into the Undergrowth , students took notes on the artworks of their choice; notes on these artworks would later form the foundation for ekphratic descriptions in their reviews.

About Undergrowth with Two Figures , the van Gogh painting that supplied the title for the exhibition, the first student-reviewer carefully describes how perfectly framed between several trees (and positioned rather unnaturally) stand a man and woman. The two are in line with the trees, and while not central to the composition, become the focus of the painting. It is through this couple that the viewer attempts to enter both the knotty forest and the equally thorny psyche of the artist. The composition is unsettlingly foreshortened, with dark sky between the crowded lines of trees in the background and cropped trees whose endless rows of trunks create an unsettling space that is somehow infinite yet enclosed. What is so unsettling here is that, though the painting depicts the outdoors, the viewer seems to enter a cramped nocturnal scene.

The student’s beautifully written formal analysis works through the technical and aesthetic properties of the painting and the biography of van Gogh, in order to effectively translate the painted image into written word. In addition to taking notes about the individual artworks, students were to attend to the organization and structure of the exhibition and then, in their reviews, interweave their analysis of the organization with their observations and analyses of the artworks. Deftly, the second student-reviewer scrutinized how the inclusion of works on paper drawn from the Cincinnati Art Museum permanent collection and placed at the end of the exhibition “seemed incongruous with the [content in the] rest of the exhibition.”

Researching . While writing exhibition or book reviews does not always require outside research, it is expected that reviewers write as experts, specialists, or, at the very least, well-informed members of the discipline. It is not sufficient to read only what had been literally written on the walls. So, while Van Gogh: Into the Undergrowth included extensive wall texts as well as quotes from van Gogh’s correspondence, the best reviews, as I emphasized to my students, tend to also assess the claims made in the catalogue and other print ephemera, websites, and audio tours. The catalogue especially helped each of the three student-reviewers to better understand the connection posited between van Gogh and his Barbizon predecessors.

  Any outside research conducted to write these reviews was to lead the students to position the exhibition within the historiography around the Barbizon School, Post-Impressionism, and van Gogh. In this way, students learned to see exhibitions as scholarly interventions and their reviews as their own type of intervention. I thus worked with students to locate biographies, translated art criticism and correspondence, and secondary sources that would permit them to write authoritatively and confidently. The third student-reviewer, for instance, researched primary sources, including criticism by Albert Aurier, to assess whether the Cincinnati exhibition deconstructed the myth around the life and work of van Gogh.

Workshopping, Revising, and Editing . Perhaps more than any other type of art-historical writing at the undergraduate level, reviews provide students with an opportunity to develop an individual perspective and stake a position in the field. Students formulated their thesis in the context of this one exhibition, which in turn acted as an automatic framework for their research and arguments. So, where the first student-reviewer contends that the exhibition resulted in “the production of a new legend of van Gogh as an artist dependent on his relationships (both personal and artistic),” the third student-reviewer, in comparison, observed that

By displaying a variety of depictions of nature by different artists in conjunction with those by van Gogh, the exhibition emphasized the artist’s interest in the relationship between humanity and nature, beyond the emotional relationship captured by other artists in his Symbolist circle.

Yet this exercise also required students to take a position, all the while maintaining a professional tone that eschews exaggerations and generalizations. Striking a balance between criticism and collegiality can be difficult for the most seasoned writer; but, for undergraduates with limited knowledge of the field, its historiography, and its participants and constituencies, this presented an especial challenge. For that reason, in my course, students read other exhibition reviews on van Gogh and members of the Barbizon School—they even read reviews that I had authored—to start to learn how to develop the appropriate tone. So, when that second student-reviewer presented potential pitfalls to the final room in Van Gogh: Into the Undergrowth , she requested that the curatorial team make “more discerning choices” and noted that “this room would have benefited from the addition of wall texts explaining each artist’s connection to van Gogh.” Taking such diplomatic tact required my students to mature as writers and thinkers.

I believe that this exercise not only bridged the gap between the classroom and the intellectual community beyond, but also had the fortunate pedagogical effect of prompting students to build new connections to art, art history, and their classmates. Observing the students post-trip, it was apparent to me that they formed bonds, even friendships and that those reluctant to contribute to in-class discussion became more enthusiastic participants in the course, primarily, I think, because they felt more a part of the field and, equally, more a part of the classroom community.

FinalVanGoghFilm

While my past classes have taken museum trips to write formal analyses, writing these exhibition reviews ultimately proved more successful, as testified to in this short film of students’ responses (link). Exhibitions and exhibition reviews provide students with an automatic structure in which to situate their formal analyses and observations about the exhibition structure and story, while also providing them with parameters for their research and arguments. Were I to do this exercise in the future, I may require students to read a bibliography in order to better prepare for their trip and undertake their post-trip research. Still, writing these reviews (see examples of the reviews here ) taught my students—many came to my course with limited or no knowledge of art history—how to become student-authors, student-educators and, ultimately, student-art historians.

Previous Post

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

AZ Writing | Sample Essays, Example Research Papers and Tips

Free essay samples, research paper examples and academic writing tips for students

Art Museum Review Essay

The Norton Simon Museum is a grand and distinctive museum with a wide array of artworks. The artworks are arranged in categories based on their medium, time of creation, and themes. The exhibits are located in a contemporary mid-century building that contrasts with the aged and prominent artworks. The museum has a collection of European, Asian, and Contemporary art, including paintings, sculptures, woodblock prints, and tapestries. The museum incorporates the private collection of Norton Simon who had amassed a great number of European, Southeast Asian, and Indian artworks, which is why it is a great place for the real art connoisseurs.

The museum is located in an urban setting at 411 West Colorado Boulevard in Pasadena, California. The building of the museum clearly contrasts with the surrounding gardens. The museum is located near The Ventura Freeway, which is the main east-west route through Ventura County to the north. The highway and the adjoining streets allow the museum to be a central tourist destination for many travelling visitors. A Wells Fargo bank is located on the other side of Colorado Boulevard. When visiting the museum, the visitors can also stop near the B.P.O.E building with a unique façade of red and black brick. Even though the building’s urban location might be off-putting or intimidating for potential visitors, the museum collection should motivate the visitors to attend the exhibition to learn more about the unique collection of Norton Simon. The museum and the city are both quite adept at promoting the artworks located at the museum (“Norton Simon Museum”). There was a time the museum grounds were floundering. However, there has since been a revival (“Simon Says”). The museum itself is very much different than the rest of the area.

The museum structure easily stands out from the rest of the nearby structures. However, the building does not overpower the surrounding structures, which is why the location has a balanced flair. The museum is both elegant and refined compared to the somewhat monotonous surrounding buildings. A concrete wall also surrounds the edge of the museum’s grounds. It separates the museum from the sidewalk near the street. The wall is just a separator since it is low and does not block the view of the museum’s building. The profile of the museum clearly rises above the bushes and the wall that separate the grounds from the outside world.

The layout of the museum is fairly simple. The outside is actually much richer in color than the inside. The outside has several sculptures and beautiful trees. The ponds and streams are scattered throughout the complex. The inside of the museum has a muted style. The museum’s space is open and easy to navigate by foot. Potted plants and bushes are located in throughout the location. The floors, walls, and ceilings are painted in muted earth tones, which is why all the focus in the museum is on the exhibits. Beige and taupe are the most common colors in the museum. The paintings, however, have rich and contrasting colors. The artworks are reasonably positioned throughout the museum. For example, most art pieces are located about two feet apart. The information placard is located to the right of each painting. The layout of the paintings and sculptures is fairly consistent throughout the museum.

When it comes to the third question, the 19th century artwork room is emblematic of what is described above. The earth tone colors noted before are consistent in this room. The walls are a dark gray with a hint of blue. The floor is pine-colored wood. The ceiling is light and decorated with different lighting fixtures. The benches are collated to one side of the main room and the entrance is wide and well positioned. Many paintings have the same general color scheme. It is obvious that they are paintings, as opposed to photographs. However, the color choices are consistent with what a person would have seen or what a color photograph would look like if they were an option in those days. These artworks are clearly present as a group for two reasons. First, they are from the same time and art history periods. Second, they all have the same level and form of color, settings and style. The way the other patrons view and react to the art is very interesting.

When it comes to the fourth question, people often see different pieces of art from different perspectives. They can get rather close or they can stand at a distance. Some of the art pieces can be viewed while sitting on a bench. There is plenty of room for more than one person to see the same art. People are able to go from one area to the other with little restriction. In viewing the people that were there, it is clear that they were calm, taking their time and able to enjoy themselves at their own pace. There was no one rushing them along or forcing them to spend the exact amount of time in front of each painting. Due to the size and scope of the museum, most areas had only a few people at the same time. There are individual examples of art that caught the author’s eye.

The museum also included a wide array of paintings. Canoe on the Yerres River by Gustave Caillebotte is one of the most interesting yet simple paintings in the museum that depicts a person rowing in a boat along a serene lake. The artist skillfully depicts the effects of the rippling water and uses light to create a tranquil atmosphere of the painting. The Seine at Charenton depicts carefree people walking along the Seine River in France. The scene shows people’s contentment with the surroundings and reflects the tranquility of a scenic stroll. However, the only thing that disturbs the scenic landscape is dirty emission from the nearby factory. The Entrance to the Port of la Havre by Claude Monet shows several ships on the choppy waters (“Home Norton Simon”). Most of the boats are sailing ships; however, the painting also depicts a couple of rowboats, whoing that the port is used not only for commercial purposes.

Gustave Caillebotte’s painting The Yellow Boat is similar to his first work while it has the same style and setting. However, the boat now floats in the open waters and the person is positioned backwards. Berthe Morisot’s painting also has a water-related setting. In a Villa at the Seaside depicts a landscape that overlooks the nearby coast and a woman with a child who are sitting at the porch. They are enjoying the coastline view in a formal setting, which is why the painting also shows the bourgeois position of the middle class and the privileges of the artist’s family. Low Tide, Berck is another seaside painting that depicts the unique landscape of the beaches of Normandy and the surreal effect of light in the evening. The painting includes a number of people meandering at the edge of the ocean. Mouth of the Seine at Honfleur by Claude Monet is very similar to the painting La Havre. The orientation of the picture is different. However, it still depicts the fishing boats that are departing into the ocean. Cloudy skies show the severity and unpredictability of the nature and its ability to change in a fleeting moment. Marine by Gustave Courbet is similar to Louis-Eugène Boudin’s work Low Tide, Berck. The Normandy coast experiences a low tide, but the heaviness and the lack of clear emotions shows the raw nature of the landscape. Cliff at Etretat, the Porte d’Aval, another Courbet’s work, is sharper, more profound, and realistic in nature. The painting depicts a coast with a cliff, creating a semi-circle along the left edge of the profile. The final painting, The Pont des Arts, Paris by Pierre-Auguste Renoir also has sharp edges and shapes, which are both strictly defined and realistic in nature.

When it comes to the sixth and seventh questions, the two similar Caillebotte works easily come to mind. A lone person in a boat is the basis for both artworks. However, the works are also different in several ways. For example, color is the main point of focus in both works. In The Yellow Boat, the boat itself is yellow, which is why it immediately attracts the viewers’ attention. Canoe on the Yerres River also uses yellow as an accent color, even though it is less noticeable. The tips of the oars and the hat the boat rider wears are yellow, but the objects do not detract attention from the painting itself. As noted before, the painting The Yellow Boat work uses a perpendicular perspective. Canoe on the Yerres River, on the other hand, focuses on a parallel perspective and the front of the boat. Another distinction includes the characters at both paintings. The man’s face in Canoe on the Yerres River is hidden, whereas the character’s face in The Yellow Boat is clearly visible. The paint itself and the level of clarity are the same. The use of reflections and shimmering on the water is also very similar. They both show the people who love to boat and are content in the moment.

In conclusion, the Norton Simon Museum has numerous fascinating pieces of art, but Low Tide, Berck and The Seine at Charenton are the paintings that stood out the most in the museum. The two paintings depict a clear and serene scene. However, they do it in unique and realistic ways. The Seine at Charenton depicts people enjoying the coast. However, the filthy factory is clearly not hidden or obfuscated. Low Tide, Berck clearly depicts an evening setting without any aggressive or artificial light, which allows the painting to remain still and contrived. It is easy for an artist to make the painting either completely negative or completely positive (“Home Norton Simon”).. However, combining the “good” and “bad” in a unique way makes the paintings more realistic and structured. Too often, art focuses on the extremes. The author wants to see what life was really like for the artists and the other people who lived during that time.

As far as you know, all free essay samples on museum review topics are plagiarized and cannot be used as your own art paper. If you need a high-quality custom museum review essay written from scratch, you should hire professional academic writers for assistance!

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Review Essay: A Future for Museums?

2011, Museum Anthropology Review

Related Papers

Nora Sternfeld , Luisa Ziaja , Christine Haupt-Stummer , Charles Esche , Lynhan BALATBAT-HELBOCK

On the occasion of the 20-year anniversary of the /ecm Master Program in Exhibition Theory and Practice at the University of Applied Arts Vienna Thursday, May 5, 2022, 10am–9pm The museum is dead. Long live the museum. This, or something similar, could be the brief summary of numerous conferences, debates, and publications in the field of curating and museum studies over the past 20 years. The critique of the museum has been widely discussed. We have heard a lot about crisis and departure, we have heard about “tired museums” and the “end of the museum,” only to debate in that same breath untapped possibilities for thinking about the museum in new and different ways – as a space of assembly and as a contact zone, as a place of criticism, polyphony, and negotiation. Something seems to be on the move, and so it is not surprising that talk of the “museum of the future” is booming. Claims of diversification, digitalization, and democratization have become ubiquitous, while at the same time institutions are more than ever focused on privatization, economization, competition, and precarization. How can we as critical curators and museologists think and act within these contradictions? And how can critical theory become critical practice?

Katarzyna Murawska-Muthesius

Kylie Message , Eleanor Foster

Metascience

Jim Endersby

Kylie Message

Mónica González Machorro , María Ángeles Muñoz Ramos , Blanca Gallostra

The present work attempts to address museum's role nowadays, and how to take advantage of its educational potential. To do so, it goes through the institution's history, its birth and the recent crisis caused by the Cultural Revolution of 1968. Furthermore, it also studies new theories about how museums should appeal to its public, in order to communicate what its works of art have to narrate about them. Lastly, the paper ends with a proposal on the Museum of the University of Navarre, a young museum of contemporary art. Index

Horizontal Art History and Beyond

Katarzyna Murawska-Muthesius , Magdalena Radomska

Anales del Museo Nacional de Antropología

Brian Durrans

... Behind the scenes: museums and selective criticism. Autores: Brian Durrans; Localización: Anales del Museo Nacional de Antropología, ISSN 1135-1853, Nº 1, 1994 , págs. 97-114. Fundación Dialnet. Acceso de usuarios registrados. ...

Museum and Society 5(3)

Conal McCarthy

DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)

RELATED PAPERS

The New England journal of medicine

Jennifer Woyach

Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences

Rita Jacinto

Dusan Polomcic

International Journal of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering

isaac aigbedion

Revista Ciência Agronômica

Deyzi Gouveia

Small Business Economics

Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo

Pedro Huapaya

T. Buscheck

Journal of Applied Physics

Fida Rehman

Oliver Moravcik

2008 IEEE International Symposium on Service-Oriented System Engineering

Acta Scientiarum. Human and Social Sciences

Silvio Roberto Stefano

Samantha Nyovanie

Journal of Applied Oral Science

Circular Economy and Sustainability

Reinalda Blanco Pereira

Nature Cell Biology

Yie-Hwa Chang

Rev. Cuerpo Med. HNAAA

Poster presentations

Aaron Daugherty

Chemistry & Biodiversity

Ramon Eritja

Terrestrial, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences

Char-shine Liu

Cadernos de Educação, Tecnologia e Sociedade

Juan Montes

Journal of Clinical and Medical Images

united prime

Nicoletta Pedemonte

Journal of virology

Iamara da Silva Andrade

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

American Journal of Archaeology  | The Journal of the Archaeological Institute of America

Editorial Policy

• AJA Historical Timeline
• Access the AJA
• Permissions & Reprints
• Advertise With Us
• Sign Up for e-Update
• Support the AJA
• AJA Open Access Policy
• Book Reviews
• Books Received
• Review Articles
• Museum Reviews
• Necrologies
• Volume Indexes
• Volume Indexes Archive
• Additional Content
• Supplementary Content

Author Guide

• Learning Resources

You are here

• Guidelines for Museum Reviewers

Museum exhibitions make important contributions to archaeological scholarship and are one of the most important ways that our field communicates with the wider public. For these reasons, museum exhibitions deserve examination by specialists. The AJA seeks to publish critical reviews of important exhibitions, museum installations, and other public displays of archaeological knowledge in the United States and abroad.  Museum reviews are usually published in the printed journal and always appear as open-access content on the AJA website ( www.ajaonline.org ). Each museum review is part of a quarterly issue of the journal and appears in the table of contents for that issue.

An AJA museum review should not simply offer a listing of the contents of an exhibition or new gallery installation but should instead assess its strengths and weaknesses and locate the exhibition or installation within current scholarship and museum practice. Reviewers should draw attention to serious problems of selection, interpretation, and errors of fact. It is also helpful for reviewers to indicate the audiences for which the exhibition seems appropriate. Comments are encouraged on the value of the catalogue as a permanent record of an exhibition and as a work of scholarship.  Comments are also encouraged on the value of the website or other electronic publications.  Additional suggestions about museum reviews can be found in “A Letter from the Editor of the Museum Reviews” ( AJA 122.1 [2018]).

Museum Reviews follow the AJA’s Policy on the Publication and Citation of Unprovenanced Antiquities ( AJA 124.2 (2020) 175-7; www.ajaonline.org/submissions/antiquities-policy ). When mentioning a specific object, reviewers should follow the same requirements as authors of articles, reports, and notes. In addition, reviewers should state whether or not the exhibition contains objects acquired after 30 December 1973 that lack prior documentation or evidence of legal export from the country of origin. Reviewers should also provide a link to the acquisitions policies of the museum or exhibition venue.

Reviewers are invited by the Museum Review Editor or the Editor-in-Chief, but suggestions of appropriate exhibitions for review are welcome.  Publication of reviews is contingent upon acceptance by the Museum Review Editor and Editor-in-Chief.  The AJA reserves the right to edit reviews for content and length. Examples of reviews in past issues of the AJA may serve as models (see open access museum reviews ).

Museum Review Submission

A museum review should be submitted as an MS Word file, should be typed double-spaced in 12-point Times New Roman font with 1-inch margins on all sides, and should conform as much as possible to AJA Museum Review Format and Style .

A museum review will not be accepted and scheduled for publication until a  signed author warranty  and written permission to reproduce any copyrighted figures have been received.

When a museum review has been accepted for publication, it will be copyedited, typeset, and proofread. The AJA will communicate with the reviewer during the copyediting stage; page proofs will then be emailed to the reviewer with instructions for making any final corrections. While the reviewer may clarify or modify page proofs in minor ways, no major revisions are permitted. Corrected proofs should be returned within one week of receipt.

The reviewer will receive one electronic PDF copy of the review. Reviewers may also print copies of their reviews directly from  AJA Open Access .

Museum Review Format and Style

Reviews of temporary exhibitions should be preceded by a heading listing the exhibition or gallery installation to be reviewed. For example:

Unearthing the Truth: Egypt’s Pagan and Coptic Sculpture , Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, 13 February–10 May 2009, curated by Edna R. Russmann.

Roma: La Pittura di un Impero , Scuderie del Quirinale, Rome, 24 September 2009–17 January 2010, curated by Eugenio La Rocca, Serena Ensoli, Stefano Tortorella, and Massimiliano Papini.

If the exhibition is accompanied by a catalogue, the bibliographic information should be included. For example:

Unearthing the Truth: Egypt’s Pagan and Coptic Sculpture , by Edna R. Russmann. New York: Brooklyn Museum 2009. Pp. 91, color figs. 44. ISBN 978-0-87273-162-2 (cloth). $19.95.

Roma: La Pittura di un Impero , edited by Eugenio La Rocca, Serena Ensoli, Stefano Tortorella, and Massimiliano Papini. Milan: Skira 2009. Pp. 333, b&w figs. 71, color figs. 172. ISBN 978-88-572-0425-3 (paper). €38.

Reviewer Information

At the end of the review, reviewers should include their name in the exact format in which they would like it to appear, department (optional), institution, location, and email address. Or, if the reviewer is an independent scholar: their name in the exact format in which they would like it to appear, Independent Scholar, location, and email address. Authors who wish to present their information differently are welcome to discuss it with us.

Text and References

A review should run approximately 4,000 to 5,000 words. Notes and accompanying bibliography are permitted. See also the list of AJA abbreviations of titles of periodicals and standard reference works. Works not listed should be written in full.

A museum review may be accompanied by up to five figures. Authors may include up to five additional figures to appear as online-only supplementary material. No figures will be published without written permission from the copyright holder. See  Figure Preparation  on the AJA website for more information.

Additional Formatting and Style Information

For other matters of style and format, AJA Museum Reviews should follow the guidelines for all contributors to the AJA: http://www.ajaonline.org/submissions .

​ Printer-Friendly Version

• Editorial Policy and Statement of Purpose
• How to Cite Objects
• Initial Submission
• Revised Submission
• Article Format
• Editorial Style
• Bibliographical References and Notes
• Figure Preparation
• Table Preparation
• Guidelines for Book Reviewers
• Standard Reference Works
• Journals and Book Series
• Forms and Checklists

• My UW-System
• Student Life
• Schools & Colleges
• Centers & Institutes
• Leadership Team
• For Faculty and Staff
• For Researchers
• Request Info
• Give to UWM

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Powerful Ideas. Proven Results.

College of Letters & Science Art History

Review of a museum/gallery show guidelines, review of a museum / gallery show.

For this assignment you are required to write a critical review of an art exhibition in a local gallery or museum. You may write about a current exhibition in the place where you are serving your internship, provided that the exhibition was not curated by anyone affiliated with the UWM Art History Department. You must attend the exhibition in question at least once. If the museum charges admission, attach your ticket to the completed assignment.

Guidelines: A critical review should not simply rehash the contents of the exhibition. Rather, it is an opportunity to evaluate the argument or thesis of an exhibition and how well the exhibition makes its case.

You are encouraged to search for reviews of your chosen exhibition both in print and online media in order to consider the opinions of other critics, but your own voice and opinions should emerge clearly in your review.

Citations for this exercise must conform to the Chicago Manual of Style, 15 th or 16 th edition.

Your review must include:

• The name of the institution, the title of the exhibition, the name of the curator(s), and any other information salient to the production and presentation of the exhibition as a whole.
• A description of the works of art that comprise the exhibition and an account of their layout within the exhibition space.
• An analysis of the thesis or central argument of the exhibition. What contribution did the curator(s) hope the exhibition would make? Does the exhibition offer a new interpretation of the objects or materials displayed?
• An analysis of the challenges faced by the curator(s) or institution in the creation and realization of the exhibition. Do you think this was a difficult project to realize? What sort of choices or risks might have been involved, and what contingent factors (budget, time, loan expenses, etc.) might have affected the outcome of the exhibition?
• Your evaluation of the exhibition as a whole. Does the exhibition achieve its stated objectives? What questions or issues does it leave unresolved? This is not necessarily a matter of “yes” or “no.” You may conclude that the exhibition was more successful in some respects than others.

You are strongly encouraged to visit the UWM Writing Center before submitting this assignment.

Review Essay: A Future for Museums?

Article sidebar, main article content, article details.

Authors who publish with Museum Anthropology Review (MAR) agree to the following terms: 1. As outlined in the journal’s Consent to Publish Agreement, authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License ( CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 ) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. 2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal. 3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in their home institutional repositories or on their personal website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. 4. While MAR adopts the above strategies in line with best practices common to the open access journal community, it urges authors to promote use of this journal (in lieu of subsequent duplicate publication of unaltered papers) and to acknowledge the unpaid investments made during the publication process by peer-reviewers, editors, copy editors, programmers, layout editors and others involved in supporting the work of the journal. More information may be found in the journal’s Consent to Publish Agreement which must be signed and delivered to the editorial office prior to publication.

Eric Gable, University of Mary Washington

Book Review Essay

• Get Citation Alerts
• Get Permissions
• Download PDF

Care-ful Participation in Museums: A Review of The Museum as a Space of Social Care by Nuala Morse

Care-ful Participation in Museums

• A review of The Museum as a Space of Social Care by Nuala Morse.

The activist, radical, or socially just museum: 1 the discipline of museum studies has a tradition of aiming to push (the idea of) a conservative institution into a progressive, just, and relevant mold that stands in close connection to society. As the world grapples with multiple crises, the museum's relevance depends on multiple perspectives and internal change. Climate crises and their global and local impacts have brought forward ideas of how museums might positively contribute to change in society, all the while working to decrease their own environmental footprint. 2 Healthcare crises, brought about by neoliberal and austerity politics, have fostered new connections among cultural and health institutions. 3 Racial justice crises have provided new urgency for museums to critically examine their contribution to historical and current injustices. 4 In the meantime, museum practitioners in Northern America have successfully begun to organize themselves into unions, fighting injustices as they find themselves in exploitative positions. 5 As the COVID-19 pandemic further changed the world drastically over the last one and half years, discussions on the museum institution's relevance will take new directions.

Published in the middle of these crises, The Museum as a Space of Social Care at once provides us with theory and vocabulary that will prove helpful during the coming years. In the book, Nuala Morse provides close insight behind the scenes at the Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums (TWAM), following the tradition of Sharon Macdonald's museum ethnography (2002). More specifically, Morse provides an account of the institutional and emotional lives of the outreach team of the UK-based institution. The monograph mostly uses data generated as part of her PhD project, placing it within a theoretical framework she developed over the following years ( Morse 2020 ; Morse and Munro 2018 ). Staying close to this empirical data, she shows us museum professionals connecting with people outside the institution through community engagement efforts, framed as a practice of social care.

Morse refrains from sweeping statements about the social role and responsibility of a museum to society, and provides instead a close reading of relational practices that together can be interpreted as representing how museums can be social. Upon reading her monograph, we found that Morse is largely successful in building an argument that community engagement is about care, and we are inspired and convinced by her way of turning her empirical study into a theoretical argument for a logic of care in museum spaces. Her argument is largely based on practice and the voices of practitioners. As a result, the book is not about the museum institution and its place in and relevance to society, but rather about the inner workings of a specific museum in building relations with others and becoming a space of social care.

Grounding her argument in professionals’ practices, Morse convincingly discusses not only what should happen in museums, but also what is already taking place right now. She takes on the critique Helen Graham (2012) voiced about research on museum participatory practices being stuck in a critique-contest impasse and shows what is possible if we focus in on practice. Doing so, she presents an honest account of museum staff and their work without passing judgment, using their words to build a case for critically examining the institution and discussing community engagement in a way that is both very specific and can be applied on a wider scale.

We write this review as four PhD students collaborating in a research project about participatory memory practices. 6 With an interest in how those practices take place in museums, our own research informs much of our argumentation. Throughout the review, we at times directly reflect on our own empirical studies, as well as share some of our discussion with other PhD students and with Morse about her research. 7

The Museum as a Space of Social Care spans seven chapters divided into four parts. Morse first sets up the academic context in which she conducts her study and frames her argument; then she discusses the experiences of her informants—community engagement workers—in parts two and three, using an institutional and emotional lens respectively; and finally, she brings together the argument built throughout the book: community engagement is about the practice of care. Her argument presents the possibility of a new type of logic from which to approach museum work: a logic of care. Morse works with a perspective on care she takes from anthropology, mostly building on Annemarie Mol's work (2002, 2008), and refers to feminist and geographic research by drawing on ideas such as landscapes and geographies of care ( Conradson 2003 ; Milligan and Wiles 2010 ), affective labor ( Hardt 1999 ), and ethics of care ( Tronto 1993 ; Held 2006 ). The review takes the following structure: first, we discuss the way Morse moves beyond writing about good or bad participation, by successfully setting up the argument and staying close to her informants’ experiences and language. Then, we examine the ways in which Morse frames her argument in relation to theories of space and care. Finally, we investigate the proposed connection between practices, ethics, and logic of care in order to look at her ability to move beyond the case study example.

• Beyond Good and Bad Participation

Morse offers a new perspective on the debate about participatory museum practice by outlining two different approaches: the logic of contribution and the logic of care. Part I, “The Participatory Turn in Museums,” is dedicated to developing this division in reference to the existing body of literature. She provides a sound literature review, which we recommend for researchers and practitioners to get an overview of the current discourse. Following the “problem of engagement,” Morse delineates a conflict between the democratizing promise and persistent inequalities in participatory practices. She rightly points out that arguing a good/bad dichotomy leads to a dilemma in which more participation would be needed to solve the problem of participation. Instead of aiming for this ideal, Morse invites us to change the perspective and focus on the underlying logics of participation. Reviewing ideas that have shaped theories of engagement in museums, such as James Clifford's “contact zone” (1997) or Sherry Arnstein's “ladder of participation” (1969), she identifies center/periphery and choice/control dynamics that are most frequently brought up in describing how community engagement can change the museum institution. Morse summarizes this argumentation as a logic of contribution, in which community engagement and other participatory practices are envisioned to benefit the museum. Morse presents this logic in order to develop a counter proposal throughout the book, by reframing participation within a logic of care that is contextual, specific, and relational. Proposing some community engagement as practicing care while recognizing the overlap with contributory projects in museum spaces, Morse offers a nuanced and fruitful way of looking at participation.

At times, we long for an explicit perspective of the author to tell us what her opinion is. As Morse aims to make her point more tangible by giving examples of “care-ful” community engagement, she tends to be skewed towards telling a positive story. However, the moment that one difficult example is brought up—the challenge of creating a safe and welcoming space in a workshop located in a drug and alcohol misuse support center where participation was part of a court order—the relational and situational complexity of community engagement becomes strikingly clear. Intrinsic motivation is often assumed in participatory projects, but when this starting point changes due to obligatory presence or, in the case of one of our research projects, because for the paid participants this is a job, the relationships change. 8 Since Morse approaches care as relational, the practices connected to such different dynamics will diverge too. More counter examples might have strengthened the argument or at least tested how the logic of care holds up in this light.

In Part II, “The Institutional Life of Community Engagement Workers,” and Part III, “The Emotional Life of Community Engagement Workers,” Morse introduces her empirical findings to discuss community engagement and how this work is understood and experienced by museum practitioners themselves. She brings in Sara Ahmed's (2012) work on the language of diversity to emphasize that, despite the museum's dedication to community engagement work reflected in the mission statement, outreach staff is insufficiently supported to put this commitment into action. Building on Ahmed's ideas, Morse draws on direct citations to construct her argument, by which she puts the museum staff and the language they used to describe their views at the forefront. In doing so, she presents diverging perspectives from community engagement workers and curators without criticizing either position. Her nuanced reflections reveal a great sense of care for the people involved and the words used to assess the materials, while at the same time they make it harder for the reader to keep track of the main thesis. The argument should be strengthened by describing the roles of the staff rather than using their names or pseudonyms before quoting them; with the high number of quotes—sometimes referring to several staff members or to a staff member without mentioning their role in the institution—it is often hard to follow. In working towards a conclusion and further questions to explore, Morse does clarify which perspectives most prominently affect community engagement work within the institution.

The book provides a very detailed account of community engagement work from a professional perspective; this focus allows Morse to thoroughly consider the notion of care within museum practice and how this is or might be understood by people working at the TWAM (and other museums). With a commitment to applying a logic of care to these practices, however, it is interesting that Morse has chosen to solely bring in professional accounts and has not extended her scope to include views from (former) participants. In one of our own research projects, 9 which focuses on how museums have worked with forced migrants over the past few years, we find that these perspectives are necessary for a balanced review of the work. It helps to understand what potential participants need, expect, and find relevant or exciting, as well as what has bothered them about the processes. The perspective of participants on these and similar processes can hence be a valuable addition to Morse's work on museum practices that start from an ethics of care.

• Space and care

The concept of space is imperative in supporting Morse's ideas regarding participation as underpinned by an ethics of care. We were convinced by her use of space as distance for building her argument on outlining the museum's binary logic of center versus periphery. These concepts and the perceived distance between them, even their boundaries, supported her definition of a contributory museum, and in doing so, revealed how the work of museum staff operating on the periphery can be de-legitimized by the center (the museum institution). Further, Morse employs a lens of distance and proximity to argue that care can happen in both close and distant contexts through, for example, both community engagement and curation. Through this lens, Morse also usefully expands our conception of participation by considering the importance of the quality of relationships across participants and staff.

In particular, Morse suggests that closeness can be cultivated by staff's dedication to being present in communities, which is intricately intertwined with their ability to listen. This moves the conception of participation away from the tug and pull of power in participation to a deep attunement to participants’ interests and needs. Finally, the concept of space is also raised in her analysis of TWAM's welcoming, inclusive, and safe spaces, and what those encompass. Morse describes how staff's practices of care shape or create these spaces through an ongoing process, including practices of using humor and anecdotes, safeguarding vulnerable participants, and being attentive to participants. One spatial element of Morse's argument that she does not make explicit is that the difficult and complex elements of participation she analyzes are all voiced inwards, into the institution. As a result, we get a rich understanding of the museum as an organization but miss a critical discussion of the museum as a space in relation to other institutions, and the perceived conflicts or difficult elements of participation outside of the museum organization, particularly from participants’ perspectives.

However, Morse does indicate the potential for future research on care as expanding beyond the museum to different spaces and different people involved in care practices. Along these lines, Morse discusses an ethics of care that goes beyond TWAM, affecting the larger museum sector and alternative spaces by engaging with existing literature, rather than finding examples from her empirical work. Her discussion would have been made stronger by explicitly connecting the practices observed at TWAM to ethical guidelines that apply internationally and nationally to museum spaces and to ongoing discussions around ethics in museums. In particular, for one of our research projects, 10 we are excited to consider how Morse's ideas regarding the co-production of care can be useful for understanding and even envisioning future museum social media practices. When it comes to social media, the intersection, or co-location, of the museum and the capitalistic platforms of social media in cultivating participation can create a complicated terrain within which institutions may be able to pursue and carve out caring relationships.

• The Beginning of a Care-ful Museology?

One of the strongest aspects of the book is that it introduces a new logic that can actively address and shape museum practices. By outlining the problematic aspects of the logic of contribution, it becomes clearer what thinking through a logic of care could mean for museum practices and research going forward. At the end of the book, we are invited to think about the broader implications of applying Morse's concept to museology and beyond. We find the book has great potential to spark thoughts in many related fields, such as cultural anthropology, heritage studies, memory studies, as well as in museum work and digital museum practice. One of our research projects looks at creative reuse of digital museum collections, 11 for which Morse's notion of a “network of care” is particularly relevant; it resonates with the concept of the commons 12 and Open GLAM. 13 Understanding the dictum “sharing is caring,” 14 not only through the lens of licensing collections but also considering care and ethics around reuse, could increase the social significance of digital cultural heritage in the future.

A logic of care may also be useful for critically considering how museums or other institutions can step into activism by “caring-with” to challenge larger social issues. In this regard, Morse points to the importance of paying close attention to participants within their social context, through attentiveness. Her book fits nicely within recent calls for museums to challenge social issues by devoting energy and effort to listening to and caring for participants and their needs ( Chynoweth et al. 2021 ; Janes and Sandell 2019; Graham 2020 ). Moreover, Morse draws attention to the work done within and from institutions and how this work can be understood differently across one institution. The perspectives she brings in from her empirical research shed light on the practical limitations and possibilities within cultural institutions. In doing so, she reconsiders a question that has been central to museums and researchers for several years now: how can we do participation right? Within institutions that remain conservative despite their aims to be more relevant amidst the many crises, this question and Morse's answers have become most significant.

The book offers a theoretical concept that is deeply rooted in and developed from practice. As such, it can serve as a stepping-stone for future research, and as a helpful guide to changing practices on the ground. The book proves a valuable resource for PhD students who wish to find an overview on participatory work and community engagement, or those who seek to apply a different lens to museum practice. A book discussion with Nuala Morse and other PhD students on this work revealed that it resonates with many different fields and can function as a guide to addressing the dilemmas we come across. Where the book reaches its limits, Morse opens up possibilities for further research and sparks ideas for what should be considered in the study of museum practices. At the same time, the book is particularly significant for the position, role, and importance of community engagement workers; we speak from our own experiences when we say that it manages to make practitioners feel heard.

With this book, Morse highlights the importance of community engagement work as part of museums’ practices. She offers a new framework through which we can rethink the work that is done in museums and consider future steps museums can take to become more progressive and more relevant institutions. Whilst Morse hints at how this framework can be applied to other areas of museum work and indeed other spaces, further work and research must pursue its use in challenging urgent crises, including societal, racial, environmental, and political issues. Doing so could mark the next steps for museums in becoming progressive and more relevant as institutions.

Inge Zwart,

Uppsala University

Susanne Boersma,

Museum Europäischer Kulturen-Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (SPK) and the University of Hamburg

Franziska Mucha,

University of Glasgow

Cassandra Kist,

Recent examples of such proposals can be found in: Chynoweth et al. 2020; Janes and Sandell 2019; Sternfeld 2018 .

See, for example, Fiona Cameron's recent (2019) and upcoming work (2021).

For example, Nuala Morse has previously written in collaboration with Helen Chatterjee and others about developing a “Museum Engagement Observation Tool” for people with dementia (2018), and in collaboration with Linda Thomson, Zoe Brown, and Helen Chatterjee about the effects of museum engagement in mental health and addiction recovery programs (2015).

We think, for example, of Margareta van Oswold's work on the “troubling colonial legacies” of museums in the case of provenance research (2020).

Minju Bae tells the story of educators organizing at New York's Tenement Museum (2020), one of several museums that recently formed labor unions.

The POEM research project develops concepts, strategies, and media infrastructures for envisioning socially inclusive potential futures of European Societies through culture. Our research specifically focuses on participatory practices of memory institutions. The project is funded under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 764859. More information can be found at https://www.poem-horizon.eu .

On 28 May 2021, we organized an online discussion about Morse's book. We thank the author and attendees for the inspiring reflections on the implications of the book and the relation to our own research projects.

Project by Inge Zwart: https://poem-horizon.eu/people/inge-zwart .

Project by Susanne Boersma: https://poem-horizon.eu/people/susanne-boersma .

Project by Cassandra Kist: https://poem-horizon.eu/people/cassandra-kist .

Project by Franziska Mucha: https://poem-horizon.eu/people/franziska-mucha .

For a broader discussion, see, for example, Massimo de Angelis and Stavros Stavrides’ interview on the commons (2010).

Open GLAM is an acronym for open galleries, libraries, archives, and museums, and represents a global network of practitioners who push for open licensing of digital cultural heritage.

See, for example, the anthology edited by Merete Sanderhoff (2014) .

Ahmed , Sarah. 2012 . On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life . Durham, NC : Duke University Press .

• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Angelis , Massimo de , and Stavros Stavrides. 2010 . “On the Commons: A Public Interview.” e-flux Journal (17). https://www.e-flux.com/journal/17/67351/on-the-commons-a-public-interview-with-massimo-de-angelis-and-stavros-stavrides/ . Accessed June 15 , 2021 .

Arnstein , Sherry R. 1969 . “ A Ladder of Citizen Participation. ” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35 ( 4 ): 216 – 24 . https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225

Bae , Minju. 2020 . “ Unraveling ‘Under One Roof’: The Tenement Museum and Its Discontents .” Labor: Studies in Working-Class History of the Americas 17 ( 1 ): 75 – 90 .

Cameron , Fiona. 2019 . “ Stirring up Trouble: Museums as Provocateurs and Change Agents in Polycentric Alliances for Climate Change Action .” In Addressing the Challenges in Communicating Climate Change Across Various Audiences , ed. Walter Leal Filho, Bettina Lackner, and Henry McGhie, 647–73. Cham, Switzerland : Springer International Publishing . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98294-6_38 .

Cameron , Fiona. 2021 . Museum Practices and the Posthumanities: Curating for Earthly Habitability . New York : Routledge .

Clifford , James . 1997 . “ Museums as Contact Zones .” In Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century , ed. James Clifford , 188 – 219 . Cambridge : Harvard University Press .

Chynoweth , Adele , and Bernadette Lynch , Klaus Petersen , Sarah Smed , eds. 2021 . Museums and Social Change: Challenging the Unhelpful Museum . Abingdon : Routledge .

Conradson , David. 2003 . “ Spaces of care in the city: The place of a community drop-in centre. ” Social & Cultural Geography 4 ( 4 ): 507 – 525 . https://doi.org/10.1080/1464936032000137939

Graham , Helen. 2012 . “ Scaling Governmentality: Museums, Co-production and Re-calibrations of the ‘Logic of Culture. ” Cultural Studies 26 ( 4 ): 565 – 592 . https://doi.org/10.1080/09502386.2012.679285

Graham , Helen . 2020 . “ How the Exhibition Became Co-Produced: Attunement and Participatory Ontologies for Museums .” In Exhibitions As Research: Experimental Methods in Museums , ed. Peter Bjerregaard , 181 - 194 . New York : Routledge .

Hardt , Michael. 1999 . “ Affective Labor .” boundary 2 26 ( 2 ): 89 – 100 .

Held , Virginia. 2006 . The Ethics of Care: Personal, Political, and Global . New York : Oxford University Press .

Janes , Robert J. and Richard Sandell , eds. 2019 . Museum Activism . New York : Routledge .

Macdonald , Sharon. 2002 . Behind the Scenes at the Science Museum . Oxford : Berg .

Milligan , Christine , and Janine Wiles . 2010 . “ Landscapes of Care. ” Progress in Human Geography 34 ( 6 ): 736 – 54 . https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132510364556

Mol , Annemarie. 2002 . The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice (Science and Cultural Theory) . Durham, NC : Duke University Press .

Mol , Annemarie. 2008 . The Logic of Care: Health and the Problem of Patient Choice . Abingdon : Routledge .

Morse , Nuala , Linda J. M. Thomson , Zoe Brown , and Helen J. Chatterjee. 2015 . “ Effects of Creative Museum Outreach Sessions on Measures of Confidence, Sociability and Well-Being for Mental Health and Addiction Recovery Service-Users .” Arts & Health 7 ( 3 ): 231 – 46 . https://doi.org/10.1080/17533015.2015.1061570 .

Morse , Nuala , and Helen Chatterjee . 2018 . “ Museums, Health and Wellbeing Research: Co-Developing a New Observational Method for People with Dementia in Hospital Contexts. ” Perspectives in Public Health 138 ( 3 ): 152 – 59 . https://doi.org/10.1177/1757913917737588

Morse , Nuala , and Ealasaid Munro . 2018 . “ Museums’ Community Engagement Schemes, Austerity and Practices of Care in Two Local Museum Services. ” Social & Cultural Geography 19 ( 3 ): 357 – 378 . https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2015.1089583

Morse , Nuala . 2020 . “ The Social Role of Museums: From Social Inclusion to Health and Wellbeing .” In Connecting Museums , ed. Mark O'Neill and Glenn Hooper , 48 – 65. New York: Routledge .

Morse , Nuala. 2021 . The Museum as a Space of Social Care . New York : Routledge .

Oswald , Margareta von. 2020 . “ Troubling Colonial Epistemologies in Berlin's Ethnologisches Museum: Provenance Research and the Humboldt Forum .” In Across Anthropology , ed. Margareta von Oswald and Jonas Tinius, 106 – 129 . Leuven : Leuven University Press . https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv125jqxp.11 .

Sanderhoff , Merete , ed. 2014 . Sharing Is Caring: Openness and Sharing in the Cultural Heritage Sector . Copenhagen : Statens Museum for Kunst .

Sternfeld , Nora. 2018 . Das Radikaldemokratische Museum . [The Radical Democratic Museum]. Berlin : de Gruyter .

Tronto , Joan C. 1993 . Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care . London : Routledge .

• Share on facebook Share on linkedin Share on twitter

Museum Worlds

Advances in research.

Article Information

Issue table of contents, section headings, google scholar.

• Article by Inge Zwart
• Article by Susanne Boersma
• Article by Franziska Mucha
• Article by Cassandra Kist
• Accessibility
• Terms & Conditions
• Privacy Policy

© 2024 Berghahn Books

Powered by:

• [66.249.64.20|81.177.182.154]
• 81.177.182.154

Treasures from the Kremlin

The Kremlin in Moscow is one of the world's greatest repositories of Russian art. Gold and silver objects of astounding beauty, arms and armor, icons, ceremonial equestrian trappings, textiles, and incomparable Russian needlework are preserved in the seven museums and churches that comprise the State Museums of the Moscow Kremlin. Magnificent objects from these, including masterworks of Western European art from the Kremlin collections, are pictured in Treasures from the Kremlin . More than two hundred illustrations, half of them reproduced in full color, reveal objects of extraordinary artistic excellence and historical significance ranging from the twelfth to the twentieth century.

Treasures from the Kremlin grew out of the great exhibition of Russian art at The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. Six curators of the Kremlin museums offer engrossing and authoritative essays about their individual subjects.

Starting with such fabled medieval works as the twelfth-century silver-gilt chalice of Yurii Dolgorukii, founder of Moscow, and the icon The Savior of the Fiery Eye , we move on to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. During this period Moscow became the political, religious, and artistic center of Russia, and the decorative arts reached the height of their splendor. Within the walls of the Kremlin, the churches and palaces blazed with an incredible profusion of artworks. From the Armory, which was the private treasury of the czars, came masterworks of the goldsmith's and the armorer's art. The damascened helmet of Ivan the Terrible's son and the coat of mail worn by Boris Godunov are illustrated in this volume.

Here too are enameled saddles; silver bridle chains, flagons, and platters; exquisite gold liturgical vessels and pearl-embroidered hangings from the Kremlin's churches. The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries are also generously represented. A brilliant closing note comes from the atelier of the peerless Carl Faberge—an early twentieth-century representation of the Kremlin itself, executed in gold and jewels. A selected bibliography and an index of Russian names further enhance the scope of Treasures from the Kremlin .

You May Also Like

The Golden Deer of Eurasia: Scythian and Sarmatian Treasures from the Russian Steppes

The Romantic Vision of Caspar David Friedrich: Paintings and Drawings from the U.S.S.R.

English and Other Silver in the Irwin Untermyer Collection

Art of the Royal Court: Treasures in Pietre Dure from the Palaces of Europe

"Sculpting Reputation: A Terracotta Bust of Senesino by Roubiliac"

Related content.

• Essay The Decoration of Tibetan Arms and Armor
• Essay The Art of the Book in the Middle Ages
• Essay Saint Petersburg
• Essay Life of Jesus of Nazareth
• Essay Empire Style, 1800–1815
• Essay Techniques of Decoration on Arms and Armor

Gosudarstvennye muzei Moskovskogo Kremli︠a︡, E. S. Sizov, Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York, N.Y.), and Galeries nationales du Grand Palais (France), eds. 1979. Treasures from the Kremlin . New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art : distributed by H. N. Abrams.

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

• A Visit to a Museum - Long and Short Essay

Essay on A Visit to a Museum

We get to see a number of museums all over the world. India itself has several museums. A Visit to a Museum Essay in English is provided below for kids studying in class 5 and above. It is written in an easy to understand language for the convenience of kids. After reading the paragraph on A Visit to a Museum the kids will be able to write a 200 word essay on A Visit to a Museum or A Visit to a Museum 150 words paragraph on their own.

Long Essay on A Visit to a Museum

A building in which the objects of historical, cultural, artistic, and scientific interest are kept for the public display is known as a museum. It is a house of knowledge that makes us aware of the history, civilization, culture, religious practices, lifestyle, architecture, and art of the country. It lets us peep into the ancient socio-political, economic, cultural, and religious life of the people of a country.

A museum is a house of treasures filled with antiques. It holds the archaeological collectibles and artifacts that define a country’s culture and civilization. The historical panorama, the art and architecture, and the religions and relics of a country are curated and displayed in a museum. It can be said that any museum is a miniature reflection of a country’s past and ancient times. A vivid picture of the traditions, customs, and conventions of the country is showcased by a museum. 

I got a golden opportunity to visit the famous historic National Museum in New Delhi. The museum building is robust and majestic. The museum has various departments that have collectibles and artifacts on different subjects and historical periods on display. I saw numerous images, articles, sculptures, and scriptures– palm leaf and rock engravings and many other articles of great value and interest as we entered the ground floor of the museum. The entire museum is divided into different departments like the archaeological division, anthropological division, display section, etc.

On going to the first floor we saw paintings, murals, charts amongst the various other things. There were manuscripts in different languages on display. We saw various ancient weapons, robes, and dresses on display. One of the corners is dedicated to the numismatics section. This section has coins from different periods put on display.

There are the realistic paintings of Ellora caves alongside beautiful replicas of the Ajanta frescoes in one hall. In addition to these, the paintings depicting the lives of Lord Krishna, Lord Rama, and Lord Buddha through scriptures and charts are also put on display. One could truly discover the glorious history of India after having a look at this section.

We saw the remains of the Indus Valley Civilization on the second floor. There are the excavations from Harappa, Mohenjodaro, Lothal, Kalibanga, and Ropar put on display. The broken pitchers, toys, stones, beads, skulls, etc. reflect a lot about the civilization of those times. We were really surprised to find out how advanced that civilization was.

The third floor belongs to the military equipment section. The weapons from the ancient times, such as the spears and pruning hooks, swords and sheaths, shields and helmets, different types of dresses of the commanders and generals from the past ages are showcased. It was a thrilling experience. Seeing all the equipment and attires of the past heroes of our nation was too inspiring for us.

The whole museum is a treasure trove of the history of India. You learn about the history of great men of India and their morals. The laurels, legends, and historical facts are connected with an entire gamut of literature and the life of India. Whether they were poets or prose writers, scientists or galaxy-gazers, dancers or dramatists, musicians or doctors, songsters or sculptors, lawgivers, or lexicographers, you get to experience their lives from the past through the remains curated and put on display.

Short Essay on A Visit to a Museum

A place where old relics are kept on display for the public is known as a museum. A visit to a museum expands our knowledge of the past. I had a chance to visit the National Museum in New Delhi. A friend accompanied me to the museum. It is a huge building divided into different sections. There are various exhibits in each section.

We saw the stars in our galaxy first. The stars are painted on the ceiling of the dome. We felt like we were in the galaxy of stars for real. We then moved on to another section that had weapons of ancient times. They were arranged in a manner to depict the battle scenes. The household goods from ancient times were kept in the adjacent room to display the domestic life of the ancient people. There were a lot of things made by Indian scientists that were on display. Models of dams and hydroelectric projects, solar cookers, solar light systems, etc. that help us understand how far Indians have come after Independence are put on display in this museum. 

We kept moving on to one section from the other and learned a lot about our country’s rich past. We did have a great time at the museum and we are looking forward to our next visit.

Importance of Visiting a Museum

The students should know that visiting a museum now and then is good for many reasons and has many advantages. For instance, a child learns about different things visually and this helps him to remember things vividly. You can go to a museum and it is a source of entertainment for many students who like to learn about things differently. A museum educates a student about different things simply and helps you become smarter. 

Museums also help in inspiring young minds and help them dream of many possibilities. The Importance of Museums: conserving native Culture. Museums play a vital role in conserving native culture. With proper measures for physical object preservation, a culture will be recorded and remembered in spite of its future. It is also supposed to be shared by the people from different groups and thus in a way ends up being understood by those from completely different cultural backgrounds. Museums guarantee understanding and appreciation for varied groups and cultures. They're the establishments charged with preserving, protecting and displaying artefacts from our past and so conserving our wealthy heritage which could well be lost to personal collectors or to time itself. 

Quite evidently, if not for museums, we'd most actually lose the tangible links to our past. Museums are the storehouse of antique items. They are much underrated when in fact, they make great historical, anthropological, and archaeological monuments that impart knowledge about how the world used to be and how it developed over the centuries.

The visit to the museum was thrilling as well as an enriching experience for me. It was one of the richest experiences of my life to have seen and experienced all of that in the museum. It was deeply moving to see the vast storehouse of our country’s ancient glory. This visit to the National Museum has left a lingering impression on my mind.

FAQs on A Visit to a Museum - Long and Short Essay

1. What is a Museum?

A museum is a place that gives us knowledge about the civilizations of the past. Art, antique artifacts, and relics from ancient times are preserved and put on display for the public to see.

2. Why are Museums important?

Museums are a vast repository of information and knowledge from our past. It preserves and showcases all aspects of the ancient civilizations. You get to know how civilizations have evolved over the past years. Without museums, it would be close to impossible to keep a track of our history. The remains from the past would be scattered and not be found under one roof collectively. The public might not have access to all the places holding on to the remains.

3. Where can I get long and short essays on topics like 'A Visit to a Museum’?

The students can find essays on a variety of topics at Vedantu.com. Here, you will find long and short essays on topics most students are unable to find anywhere else. At Vedantu.com , every essay is free to read and the students can understand each word easily because of the simple and uncomplicated tone. These essays are easy to remember for exams and competitions. Also, the Vedantu app brings every topper the luxury of these essays in both long and short formats so you don't have to worry about adjusting any word. Writing a good essay has its own benefits like students getting better at critical thinking, their knowledge in a variety of different topics enhanced, as they grow older this helps in different career sectors or competitive exams due to better reading and writing skills, helps them express their ideas and overall improves their communication skills. This is why Vedantu is here with so many essays to choose from so that you can excel in the art of essay writing as every topper does. For this, regular practice is needed which helps the students to connect their ideas and write them without any hurdles arising. So for essays and study materials, choose Vedantu!

4. How many words should I write for a long or short essay about the topic ‘A visit to a museum’?

The students can write an average short essay about the topic ‘A visit to a museum’ which can vary from 150-200 words. An essay that is supposed to belong to the same topic must be at least 500-600 words. Writing an essay whether long or short helps a student to enhance their creativity and better their writing skills. These essays at Vedantu.com help a student in their exams, competitions or even competitive exams where good writing skills or good English proficiency is required. Reading and writing long-short essays for the students or even a 10 line essay for younger students helps them to enhance their creativity. The students learn about different things and gain more knowledge this way. As they have to search about the topic they are writing an essay on, it helps them to go through different ideas of different people which later on helps them in life too as in the form of skills. The students should make sure to choose a topic that has a lot to offer and write an essay about it if possible. This helps them to interlink one topic with another without any problem and thus, helps them to remember things more vividly. 

• Writings by Malevich

Writings by Malevich, published in his lifetime.

Titles are given in the language of publication. English translations are given after Russian titles and wherever appropriate.

Books and independent publications.

Malevich, Kazimir . Ot kubizma k suprematizmu: Novyi zhivopisnyi realizm. [From Cubism to Suprematism. The New Painterly Realism]. Petrograd: Zhurval’, 1915.

Malevich, Kazimir, Ivan Kliun, and Mikhail Men’kov . Listovka s manifestami, izdannaia k otkrytiiu poslednei futuristicheskoi vystavki kartin ‘0,10’. [Sheet with Manifestos, published for the Opening of the Last Futurist Exhibition of Paintings, 0.10] Petrograd: 1915.

Kruchenykh, Aleksei, Ivan Kliun, and Kazimir Malevich . Tainye poroki akademikov. [Secret Vices of the Academicians]. Moscow: Budetlian, 1916.

Malevich, Kazimir . Ot kubizma i futurizma k suprematizmu: Novyi zhivopisnyi realizm. [From Cubism and Futurism to Suprematism: The New Painterly Realism]. 2nd ed. Petrograd: Zhurval’, 1916.

——— . Ot kubizma k suprematizmu: Novyi zhivopisnyi realizm. [From Cubism and Futurism to Suprematism: The New Painterly Realism]. 3rd ed. Moscow: Obshchestvennaia pol’za, 1916.

Malevich, Kazimir . Listovka Khudozhestvennoi sektsii Kulturno-prosvetitel’skogo otdela Soveta soldatskikh deputatov . Moscow: Oktiabr’, 1917.

Malevich, Kazimir . O novykh sistemakh v iskusstve. Statika i skorost’. Ustanovlenie A. [On New Systems in Art: Stasis and Speed. Resolution A in Art]. Vitebsk: Artel’ khudozhestvennogo truda pri Vitsvomase, 1919.

Malevich, Kazimir . Ot Sezanna do suprematizma: kriticheskii ocherk. [From Cézanne to Suprematism: Critical Essay]. Moscow: Otdel Izobrazitel’nykh Iskusstv Narkomprosa, 1920.

——— . Suprematizm, 34 risunka. [Suprematism: 34 Drawings]. Vitebsk: Unovis, 1920.

Malevich, Kazimir . K voprosu izobrazitel’nogo iskusstva. [Towards the Question of the Fine Arts]. Smolensk: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo, 1921.

Malevich, Kazimir . Bog ne skinut. Iskusstvo, tserkov’, fabrika. [God is Not Cast Down. Art, the Church and the Factory]. Vitebsk: Unovis, 1922.

Malewitsch, Kasimir . Die gegenstandslose Welt. [In German]. Bauchausbücher. Vol. 11, München: Albert Langen Verlag, 1927.

Articles and statements in books, journals, and exhibition catalogues

Matiushin, Mikhail, Aleksei Kruchenykh, and Kazimir Malevich . “Pervyi vserossiiskii s’ezd baiachei budushchego (poetov-futuristov). Zasedaniia 18 i 19-ogo iiulia 1913 goda v Usikirko (Finlandiia).” [The First All-Russian Congress of Bards of the Future (Futurist Poets). Meetings on 18 and 19 July 1913 in Ussikkirk (Finland)]. Za 7 dnei (St. Petersburg), no. 28 (122), (15 August 1913): 605-606.

Malevich, Kazimir . “Otmezhevavshiesia ot Larionova. Pis’mo v redaktsiiu.” [Breaking with Larionov. Letter to the Editor]. Nov’ (Moscow), no. 12 (28 January 1914): 5.

Malevich, Kazimir, Aleksandra Ekster, Artur Lurie, Nikolai Kulbin, Vladimir Mayakovsky , et al. “Paskha u futuristov. Paskhal’nye pozhelaniia.” [Easter with the Futurists. Easter Wishes]. Sinii zhurnal , (Petrograd), no. 12 (21 March 1915): 7.

Gan, Aleksei, Aleksei Morgunov, and Kazimir Malevich . “Zadachi iskusstva i rol’ dushitelei iskusstva.” [Art’s Tasks and the Role of Art’s Oppressors]. Anarkhiia (Moscow), no. 25 (23 March 1918): 4.

Malevich, Kazimir . “Arkhitektura kak poshchechina zhelezo-betonu.” [Architecture as a Slap in the Face of Ferro-Concrete]. Iskusstvo kommuny (Petrograd), no. 1 (1918): 2-3.

——— . “K novomu liku.” [Towards a New Face]. Anarkhiia  (Moscow), no. 28 (27 March 1918): 4.

——— . “Otvet.” [Answer]. Anarkhiia  (Moscow), no. 29 (28 March 1918): 4.

——— . “K novoi grani.” [Toward New Borders]. Anarkhiia  (Moscow), no. 31 (30 March 1918): 4.

——— . “Mertvaia palochka.” [A Little Dead Stick]. Anarkhiia (Moscow), no. 33 (1 April 1918): 4.

——— . “Arkhitektura kak poshchechina zhelezo-betonu.” [Architecture as a Slap in the Face of Ferro-Concrete]. Anarkhiia  (Moscow), no. 37 (6 April 1918).

——— . “K priezdu vol’tero-terroristov iz Peterburga.” [On the Arrival of the Voltairian Terrorists from St. Petersburg]. Anarkhiia  (Moscow), no. 41 (11 April 1918): 4.

——— . “Gosudarstvennikam ot iskusstva.” [To State Officials from Art]. Anarkhiia  (Moscow), no. 53 (4 May 1918): 4.

——— . “V gosudarstve iskusstv.” [In the Kingdom of the Arts]. Anarkhiia  (Moscow), no. 54 (9 May1918): 4.

——— . “Futurizm.” [Futurism]. Anarkhiia  (Moscow), no. 57 (12 May 1918): 4.

——— . “Put’ iskusstva bez tvorchestva.” [The Path of Art without Creativity]. Anarkhiia  (Moscow), no. 72 (30 May 1918): 4; no. 73 (31 May 1918): 4; no. 74 (1 June 1918): 4; no. 75 (2 June 1918): 4; and no. 76 (4 June 1918): 4.

——— . “Perelom.” [A Breakthrough]. Anarkhiia  (Moscow), no. 77 (5 June 1918): 4.

——— . “Ia prishel.” [I Have Arrived]. Anarkhiia  (Moscow), no. 79 (7 June 1918): 4.

——— . “Rodonachalo suprematizma.” [The Origin of Suprematism]. Anarkhiia  (Moscow), no. 81 (9 June 1918): 4.

——— . “Mir miasa i kosti ushel.” [The World of Flesh and Bones has Gone]. Anarkhiia  (Moscow), no. 83 (11 June 1918): 4.

——— .”Obruchennye kol’tsom gorizonta.” [Surrounded by the Circle of the Horizon]. Anarkhiia  (Moscow), no. 84 (12 June 1918): 4.

——— . “Vystavka professional’nogo soiuza khudozhnikov-zhivopistsev. Levaia federatsiia (molodaia fraktsiia).” [The Exhibition of the Professional Union of Artist-Painters. The Left Federation (Young Faction)]. Anarkhiia  (Moscow), no. 89 (20 June 1918): 4.

——— . “Deklaratsiia prav khudozhnika.” [Declaration of the Artist’s Rights]. Anarkhiia  (Moscow), no. 92 (23 June 1918): 4.

Meierkhold, Vsevolod, Vladimir Mayakovsky, Pavel Lebedev, Kazimir Malevich, Levkii Zheverzheev , et al. “Obrashchenie k akteram.” [Address to Actors]. Severnaia kommuna  (Petrograd), no. 21 (1918).

Malevich, Kazimir . “Prezhduprezhdenie” [A Warning], Iskusstvo , no. 1 (5 January 1919).

——— . “Izveshchenie glavnogo mastera svobodnykh gosudarstvennykh khudozhestvennykh masterskikh.” [Advice from a Senior Master at the State Free Art Studios]. Iskusstvo  (Moscow), no. 1 (5 January 1919).

——— . “Nashi zadachi.” [Our Tasks]. Izobrazitel’noe iskusstvo  (Petrograd), no. 1 (1919): 27-29.

——— . “Nerukotvornye pamiatniki.” [Monuments Not Made by Human Hands]. Iskusstvo kommuny  (Petrograd), no. 10 (1919).

——— . “O muzee.” [On the Museum]. Iskusstvo kommuny  (Petrograd), no. 12 (1919).

——— . “O poezii.” [On Poetry]. Izobrazitel’noe iskusstvo  (Petrograd), no. 1 (1919): 31-35.

——— . “Os’ tsveta i ob’ema.” [The Axis of Color and Volume]. Izobrazitel’noe iskusstvo  (Petrograd), no. 1 (1919): 27-30.

——— . “Suprematizm.” [Suprematism]. In Katalog desiatoi Gosudarstvennoi vystavki: Bespredmetnoe tvorchestvo i suprematizm . [Catalogue of the Tenth State Exhibition: Objectless Creation and Suprematism], Moscow, 1919, 16-20.

——— . “Suprematizm (kvadrat, krug, semafor sovremennosti).” [Suprematism (The Square, The Circle, the Semaphore of Modernity)]. In Revoliutsionnoe iskusstvo , Vitebsk, 1919.

———. “Deklaratsiia.” [Declaration]. Al’manakh ‘Unovis’ No. 1.  Vitebsk: Unovis, 1920, 5-6.

———. “K chistomu deistvu.” [Towards Pure Action]. Al’manakh ‘Unovis’ No. 1.  Vitebsk: Unovis, 1920, 2-3.

———. “O ‘ia’ i o kollektive.” [On ‘I’ and the Collective]. Al’manakh ‘Unovis’ No. 1.  Vitebsk: Unovis, 1920, 6-10.

———. “Unom 1.” [Unom 1]. Al’manakh ‘Unovis’ No. 1.  Vitebsk: Unovis, 1920, 11.

——— . “O partii v iskusstve.” [On the Party in Art]. Put’ Unovisa  (Vitebsk), no. 1 (January 1921): 1-5.

——— . “Unovis.” [Unovis]. Iskusstvo (Vitebsk), no. 1 (1921): 9-10.

———. “Suprematizmus.” [Suprematizm: in Hungarian]. Egyseg, Irodalom, Művészet (Vienna), no. 3 (1922): 5-6.

———. “Zakoni nove umetnosti.” [The Laws of the New Art: in Serbo Croat]. Zenit (Zagreb), no. 17/17 (1922): 53-54.

———. “Russkii muzei. K obmenu khudozhestvennykh proizvedenii mezhdu Moskvoi i Petrogradom.” [The Russian Museum: Concerning the Exchange of Works between Moscow and Petrograd]. Zhizn’ iskusstva (Petrograd), no. 16 (891) (24 April 1923): 13-14.

———. “Extra Dry’ (denaturat).” [‘Extra Dry’ (Methylated Spirits)]. Zhizn’ iskusstva (Petrograd), no. 18 (893) (8 May 1923): 17-18.

———. “Suprematicheskoe zerkalo.” [The Suprematist Mirror]. Zhizn’ iskusstva (Petrograd), no. 20 (895) (22 May 1923): 15-16.

———. “Van’ka-vstan’ka.” [The Tumbler]. Zhizn’ iskusstva (Petrograd), no. 21 (896) (29 May 1923): 15-16.

———. “Khudozhniki ob AKhRR.” [Artists on AKhRR]. Zhizn’ iskusstva (Petrograd), no. 6 (980) (1924): 24.

Malewitsch, Kasimir . “Lenin (Aus dem Buch ‘Über das Ungegenständliche’).” Das Kunstblatt (Berlin), no. 10 (1924): 289-293.

Malewicz, Kazimierz . “O Sztuce.” [On Art]. Blok: Czasopismo awangardy artystycznej (Warsaw), no. 2 (April 1924): 6-7; no. 3-4 (June 1924): 15-16; and no. 8-9 (December 1924): 10-11.

Malewitsch, K . “Alles was schafft…”. [In German and French]. Merz (Hannover), no. 8-9 “Nasci” (April-July 1924): 74.

Malevich, Kazimir . “Otkrytoe pis’mo gollandskim khudozhnikam Van-Gogu i Bekmanu.” [Open Letter to the Dutch Artists van’t Hoff and Beekman]. Zhizn’ iskusstva (Petrograd), no. 50 (9 December 1924): 13-14.

Malewitsch, Kasimir . “Betrachtungen.” In Kunstlerbekentnisse , ed. Paul Westheim. Berlin: Propläen Verlag, 1925, 355.

———. “Suprematismus.” In Europa Almanach ed. Carl Einstein and Paul Westheim. Potsdam: Gustav Kiepenheuer Verlag, 1925, 142-144.

———. “Suprematismus.” [In German, French, and English]. In Die Kunstismen , ed. Hans Arp and El Lissitzky. Zurich: Eugen Rentsch Verlag, 1925, ix.

———.“I likuiut liki na ekranakh.” [And Images on Screen are Celebrated]. Kino-zhurnal A.R.K. (Moscow), no. 10 (1925): 7-9.

———. “O vyiaviteliakh. Plakaty” [On Identifiers.  Posters]. Kino-zhurnal A.R.K. (Moscow), no. 6-7 (1925): 6-8.

———. “Khudozhnik i kino.” [The Artist and the Cinema]. Kino-zhurnal A.R.K. (Moscow), no. 2 (1926): 15-17.

Malewitsch, K . “Aus: Die neunen Systemen in der Kunst”. G. Zeitschrift für elementare Gestaltung (Berlin), no. 4 (March 1926): 3-4.

Malewicz, Kazimierz . “L’univers conçu sans objets.” [in French] Praesens (Warsaw), no. 1 (June 1926): 1-2.

——— . “Swiat jako bezprzedmiotowosc: Fragmenty.” [The World as Objectlessness: Fragments]. Praesens (Warsaw), no. 1 (June 1926): 34-40.

Malewitsch, Kasimir . “Suprematische Architektur.” Wasmuths Monatshefte für Baukunst und Stadtebau (Berlin), no. 10 (1927): 412-414.

Malévitch, Kazimir . “Le temps actuel est l’époque des analyses.” L’Architecture vivante (Paris), no. Spring-Summer (1927): 8.

Malewicz, Kazimierz . “Deformacja w kubizmie.” [Distortion in Cubism]. Zwrotnica (Cracow), no. 12 (December 1927): 254-55.

Malewitsch, Kasimir . “Zuschrift von K. Malewitsch.” Wasmuths Monatshefte für Baukunst und Stadtebau (Berlin), no. 3 (1928): 169-70.

Malevich, Kazimir . “Forma, tsvet i oshchushchenie.” [Form, Color and Sensation]. Sovremennaia arkhitektura (Moscow), no. 5 (1928): 157-59.

——— . “Pis’mo v redaktsiiu.” [Letter to the Editor].  Sovremennaia arkhitektura (Moscow), no. 5 (1928).

——— . “Maliarstvo v problemi arkhitekturi.” [Painting in Relation to the Problem of Architecture]. Nova generatsiia (Kharkiv), no. 2 (1928): 116-24.

——— . “Teoriya suchasnoï zakhidn’oi arkhitekturi”. [The Theory of Contemporary Western Architecture]. Nova generatsiia (Kharkiv), no. 4 (1928): 306-308.

——— . “Analiz novogo ta obrazotvorchogo mistetstva (Pol’ Sezann).” [An Analysis of the New Art and the Art of Form-Making – Paul Cézanne]. Nova generatsiia (Kharkiv), no. 6 (1928): 438-447.

——— . “Nove mistetstvo i mistetstvo obrazotvorche.” [The New Art and the Art of Form-Making]. Nova generatsiia (Kharkiv), no. 9 (1928): 117-85; and no. 12 (1928): 411-418.

Malévitch, Kazimir . “[Suprématisme]… la couleur est pour le suprématisme…”. L’Architecture vivante (Paris), no. Spring-Summer (1928): 15.

Malevich, Kazimir . “Prostorovii kubizm.” Nova generatsiia (Kharkiv), no. 4 (1929): 63-67.

——— . “Lezhe, Gri, Gerbin, Mettsinger.” [Léger, Gris, Herbin, Metzinger]. Nova generatsiia (Kharkiv), no. 5 (1929): 57-67.

——— . “Konstruktyvne maliarstvo rosiis’kikh maliariv i konstruktivizm.” [Constructive Painting of Russian Painters and Constructivism]. Nova generatsiia (Kharkiv), no. 8 (1929): 47-54.

——— .  ”Konstruktyvizm i rosiiski konstruktyvisty.” [Constructivism and the Russian Constructivists]. Nova generatsiia (Kharkiv), no. 9 (1929): 53-61.

——— . “Kubo-futurizm.” [Cubo-Futurism].  Nova generatsiia (Kharkiv), no. 10 (1929): 58-67.

———. “Futurizm dinamichnii i kinetichnii.” [Dynamic and Kinetic Futurism]. Nova generatsiia (Kharkiv), no. 11 (1929): 71-80.

——— . “Estetika.” [Aesthetics].  Nova generatsiia (Kharkiv), no. 12 (1929): 56-58.

——— . “Zhivopisnye zakony v problemakh kino.” [The Laws of Painting in relation to the Problems of the Cinema]. Kino i kul’tura , no. 7-8 (1929): 22-26.

——— . “Arkhitektura, stankove maliarstvo ta skul’ptura.” [Architecture, Easel Painting, and Sculpture]. Avangard: Al’manakh proletars’kikh mittsiv novoi generatsii (Kharkiv), no. 3 (April 1930): 91-93.

——— . “Sproba viznachennia zalezhnosti mizh kol’orom ta formoiu v maliarstvi.” [An Attempt to Define the Relationship between Color and Form in Painting]. Nova generatsiia (Kharkhiv), no. 6-7 (1930): 64-70; and no. 8-9 (1930): 55-60.

Malevich, Kazimir . “Manifesty K. S. Malevicha.” [The Manifestos of K. S. Malevich].  In Sovetskoe iskusstvo za 15 let: Materialy i dokumentatsiia . Moscow, Leningrad, 1933, 114-115.

For all Malevich Society enquiries please email [email protected] or call +1 646 580 8936

© 2024 The Malevich Society. All rights reserved.

Website by fpi

• The Society
• Grant Procedures
• Grants Awarded
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Pre 1935 Selected Exhibitions
• Post 1935 Selected Exhibitions
• News & Views