Please Do Not Touch

Pre-order our book YOU ARE AN ARTIST (which includes new assignments!) here: bit.ly/2kplj2h Ever wonder why Sarah's computer sticker reads "PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH"? Art and Architecture Conservator Richard McCoy joins us to discuss when it's appropriate to touch art, when it's not, and why. AND! He gives us an extra credit assignment to go out and find something you can't touch but desperately want to, post it with #theartassignment and tell us why.
Follow Richard McCoy: richardmccoy.tumblr.com, @RichardMcCoy
To learn more about the conservation of contemporary art: www.incca.org/

[@koishiou]

I work part time as a security guard at a major art museum. I just want to tell everyone that you should not feel bad or shameful if a guard approaches you and tells you not to touch! It doesn't mean that you are a bad gallery patron! Art galleries want people to be able to view the art they are showing without putting up too many barriers, ropes, glass etc. Gallery guards are there in place of those more obtrusive things to know the rules and the needs of a specific piece so that everyone can enjoy it up close. That said, if you are ever in doubt about how to interact with a piece, just ask a gallery guard! Most of us will be happy to tell you everything you need to know to enjoy a piece.

[@richardbond258]

Very true . I was once was a monitor at an Art Museum as well. As a monitors we love people to ask us questions about the art. The security always has the most current information as well.

[@JukeboxTheGhoul]

Really? I've only been to a few galleries and though I always asked the security on where a particular painting or section was, I didn't know you guys got updated on all the info. I suppose it's different for History Museums because I asked a guy in the British Museum temporary exhibit on Troy and I got told different messages by different people.

[@BrianHutzellMusic]

Me too! But here in August 2020, with COVID-19 still raging, the thing I hear myself saying most often to museum visitors-even more than “Please do not touch”-is “Please keep your mask over your nose.”

[@deniseglines8239]

My blind friend has a sign on her fridge that says "please do not touch" -- in braille :)

[@knightsintodreams]

I think this would be cool idea for an art piece. Maybe a globe made of brass that gets polished by peoples repeated touch. Sort of symbolizing man's affect on the earth. A few cigarette butts, a bit of carbon emission here and there, no change. But when many people do it over and over...

[@davidshi451]

Sounds like you've got some art to make!

[@mrwednesday687]

Koontz is already stealing it XD

[@hammerbeam]

Here comes the oil and fossil fuels ceos with their sandpaper.

[@Xenolilly]

Richard:There's rule followers out there. Sarah: Really? I busted up laughing. Sarah you're the best.

[@phatato]

His reaction to that was so telling of how square he is compared to her

[@KyleWyattOnGoogle]

I knew within 20 seconds; "Aw yes, we're gonna hear about Felix Gonzalez-Torres!" I mean, if you wanna talk about an artist that blurs the lines around gallery etiquette, Felix is the one to talk about. Especially with the stack of posters and the candy pieces; the pieces are intended to have people take away, acknowledging the truth that "taking" for yourself means you're destroying the piece and some other person's potential experience. It begs the question "What actually is the artwork?" Is it the literal stack of candy in the corner? Is it the otherwise-scandalous act of taking the candy for yourself? Is it the metaphor the candy and the taking of candy all represents? Is the artwork just the IDEA of this specific kind of candy, arranged just so for others to take? Just great great ideas surrounding that man's work and I'm still sad he isn't alive continuing to shine light on concepts today like he did when he was alive.

[@steepertree]

I have a sheet of Gonzalez-Torres' Untitled "Death By Gun" hanging on the wall beside me. Discovering his work was amazing.

[@KyleWyattOnGoogle]

Stephen Persing All I've ever wanted to do in my entire life is to be the person who takes the very last sheet of paper from one of his installations.

[@McCoyRichard]

Kyle Wyatt Stephen Persing I've collected a few over the years, too, but still enjoy picking them up and then crumpling them in the gallery ... then hanging them up at home.

[@KyleWyattOnGoogle]

Richard S. McCoy I live in the twin cities, and so the next time The Walker Art Center has a paper stack on display, I have to try this. I bet it's cathartic for someone with your career, but also - just to see the faces of people as you do it; must be a real treat. Now, to take that very last sheet of paper AND crumple it up... that's just sinister :)

[@aeromodeller1]

Fold it up into a paper airplane and fly it. Maybe better do that outside. Shred it and throw it up in the air.

[@TheLindsrobinson]

I can't really take a picture of one, but the few times I have been lucky enough to see a van Gogh in person, I have wanted to run my fingers over the paint. He painted with such thick paint. The painting have all of this great texture and lines. They seem so tactile.

[@MahlenMorris]

At New York's PS1, I met a guard there who told me about how she accidentally stood on an artwork (it was a flat piece of dull metal lying on the floor). Come to think of it, PS1 has James Turrell's "Meeting", which is a large square bench surrounding a hole in the ceiling. I sat on the bench for a while, then stood up, and a loose nail in the bench ripped a small hole in my pants! So there's an artwork inappropriately touching me :)

[@mellowapocalypse]

YES! I LOVE THE CANDY PILE! Its one of my most favorite art pieces ever. I grew up a little the day that I saw it & took a piece of candy.

[@coloratura42]

Sort of the opposite of the assignment, but: one of the things I love about architecture is that it's art you can touch. When I was studying abroad in London and visiting these beautiful Gothic cathedrals and castles all over Europe, it was really, REALLY cool. I could touch a stone pillar in Notre Dame in Paris and be physically connected to the past in a very direct way.

[@ARTiculations]

I would say it's also important to not get too close to an art piece. At work I often see people put their face a quarter of an inch from a painting where they're so close they're breathing on the work. When I tell them to step back I often get a snarky "well it's not like I'm touching it!" How do you guys think I should address that?

[@theartassignment]

No one likes to be reprimanded, and that is the terrible curse of anyone whose job it is to protect the art. If someone is an inch away from an artwork, there's no saying they're not going to just lean over that extra inch, and then you're too late to protect the work. For me, on the occasions when I am corrected by a guard or even just informed, I do bristle a little bit at first, but then I remind myself they're just looking out for the artwork. But it's a really delicate dance, and I admire those who can do it well. I'm not answering your question, but I do feel for you.

[@koishiou]

ARTiculations I've worked as a gallery guard for 7 years, so this is an issue I deal with a lot. When someone gives me a quick or snarky response, the first thing I try to think is: this person is feeling displaced, like I'm telling them that they don't belong here. That's not what I'm trying to say when I ask them not to touch/get too close, but being told that your behaviour is wrong in a place you want to feel comfortable in can feel alienating. When they say something like "I'm NOT touching!", it's them setting up a barrier to protect themselves. If the person fires back a remark at me, I try to empathize: "This painting has so many great fine details, I know it's really tempting to get up close!" "I know you wouldn't mean to touch it intentionally. The rule is there to make sure that accidents don't happen." Sometimes if I see someone starting to get close, I will engage them about the work; ask them what they think about it. When you do this, I find that people will model your behaviour and stance. If you are stepped back from the piece, and use your words instead of pointing to refer to certain elements of the art, I find that the person will mimic those things, and will become less likely to touch or get too close moving on. At the end of the day, people still might not be happy. All you need to do is continue to show them kindness and respect, even if you don't feel you're getting it back. It can be a rough gig, but it's worth it!

[@khambrelgreen]

as a painter, i encourage people to look at my work up close. i, myself, love touching and peering as close as possible to art. as a result, i love my work scrutinized. come see the nuances of my handiwork......

[@madalenklare6025]

As someone who's worked in a museum of small historical buildings where the artifacts are out in the open and set up like a home, it's SO HARD to keep people from touching stuff! The proximity definitely does have an impact on the urge to touch it, as well as our mixed messages (since we have interactive stuff, too). It's such an interesting challenge that way, especially when there's a huge festival or something and a ton of people are visiting...helping out at museums definitely changes your perspective on art and artifacts! Loved the video!

[@TransylvanianQUD]

Donald Judd's work I would say it is a must touch for the sake of future generations. Working on archaeological sites during summer, we were thrilled to see the fingerprints of ancient Romans (multi-ethnic slaves?!) in pottery, or even cat and dog paw-prints in brinks (not dry at the time), not to mention the excitement in paleography when we identified human errors (spilled ink, fingerprints and paw-prints in ink on parchments). These multiple contributions to Judd's work would give undefined eternity to the unnamed humans. Besides, Judd's work might never be finished, thus giving it the length of creation of human existence, just like Bach's unfinished Art of Fugue - with no ending he left virtually unlimited endings to each music passionate (from music professors to simple free-style musicians). I guess I am a sucker for these kind of works of art.

[@memoriesandmud]

Earlier this year in printmaking class I presented work for critique that aimed to draw attention to events or objects that may usually go unnoticed or cannot be seen without aid of technology. To emphasise my concept, I combined Chine-collé and embossing techniques, with the result being a series of polaroid format prints, able to be touched by the panel and my classmates. The viewers were surprised to discover that their eyes had been deceived when they were able to feel the texture of the prints and the Braille captions that accompanied them.

[@missrobinhoodie]

It was likely the most shameful moment of my life when I touched an art piece in a prestigious art gallery in florence out of childlike wonder (I was 17) and the security guard nearby shouted a dreadful italian „NOOO!!!!!“ into the echoey gallery that made me wake up and realize my myself and my outrageous stupidity 😭🤦🏼‍♀️

[@McCoyRichard]

I'm glad to have made an appearance on The Art Assignment. You all really know how to ask good questions! Thanks for all of the feedback, now go take some pictures of things you want to touch, will ya?

[@vlogerhood]

My grandfather was a world famous ceramic artist, touching his work that I own (some of which is museum quality) is a very important part of my enjoyment of his work. Especially because he formed his work with his touch, so touching his work is the only way I have left to touch him. Anyway, I strongly suspect that the museums that show his stuff don't let people touch it, which is sad. You can't really hurt ceramics with fingerprints (they can be cleaned) and the abrasion of many hands over a long time would also be very minor. People should be able to touch his work.

[@russellrichard5773]

I suppose that, eventually, your grandfather's pieces would meet untimely ends when they're knocked over, or handled too roughly and curators are erring on the side of caution. But, I asked a question elsewhere in these comments about why curators don't ring bells when the peal of the bell may the most important part of that piece of art. It seems to me that curators are more concerned with preservation than with complete experience, and I understand why, but I'm not sure if that's always beneficial.

[@vlogerhood]

Russell Richard Everything breaks eventually, I am also not convinced that perfect preservation should be the ultimate goal. But yeah, I am not suggesting people be allowed to pick them up or anything like that. (they are generally very bottom heavy forms, unlikely or impossible to knock over)

[@KristofskiKabuki]

the main thing I learnt from this is that when Americans say "can" and "can't" it sounds exactly the same.

[@subhadipdey2003]

+Chris Hubley and the most amazing thing is that they "can" tell the difference.

[@alicewyan]

The "a" sound wiggles slightly different in each case, but yeah, they sound pretty much the same.

[@kylancarl3730]

Subhadip Dey I bearly “can”

[@CoryMck]

Much like Jamaicans saying cyan & cyaan

[@moxiousch]

I have an amazing experience with touchable art which was confusing at first. We had an Andy Warhol exhibition in our town last summer and the silver clouds installation was there as well. Me and my friends went up and were hesitant at first - like, can we play with them? Should we or shouldn't we? Carefully looking at the guard we went up and bopped a few of the balloons - when no reprimand came, we got more bold and finally ended up playing in the clouds, throwing them up and doing balloon balancing competitions, for a pretty long time. When the giggling and laughing and playing finally stopped, we noticed a bunch of people watching us from the other side of the gallery and smiling. I guess we did right. It will probably remain my favourite art memory :)

[@stephanievallek]

Loved it. Please do more videos like this! I'm a Contemporary Art student and I often encounter a generalized assumption that the contemporary art world consists of artists alone, when in reality, the work of curators, conservators, critics, theorists, dealers, et al. plays a crucial role as well.

[@xtinkerbellbethx]

I work in a gallery where we recently exhibited an artists work which was made from soap. Stopping people from touching these was a nightmare. I'd say about 50% of our visitors tried to touch or did touch and many who actually picked pieces up. It would be a lot less stressful as a gallery assistant if people would understand the points you have made in your video. We should loop it in our galleries :D

[@davidshi451]

I guess the best way to enforce "Please Do Not Touch" is to have some distance between the viewer and the art--not touching kind of naturally follows from that. Not deal, but slightly better than putting everything in glass cases.

[@sierra750]

fellow gallery attendant here! I know your pain!

[@afroafrophee]

When I went to the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam, there where certain paintings that I really wanted to touch. I think it was to do with the visible textures of the work and the way that light caught some of the colours within the art. What is quite nice about the museum is that on the top floor they have a little replicates of the art work with people are encouraged to touch.

[@ragnkja]

At the local museum, there's a "diorama" of a bird mountain with local fauna, and every kid would love to touch certain animals (like the fox), but if they all did, the fox would end up hairless pretty quickly, so that's a "do not touch" display.

[@elephantschild]

It's like a field of fresh snow. Once you've admired the pristine beauty, who wouldn't want to run out and add their own footprints?

[@puupipo]

I have a poster tacked on my wall from an Alfredo Jaar exhibition in Helsinki, Finland earlier this year. Now, after watching this video, I'm considering the possibility of taking it off the wall, crumpling it into a ball, opening it up and putting it back. It's a hard decision to make, though (as it should be), because I only have that one and if I choose to do it the changes will be permanent. I imagine it would be a very strange experience AND would surely create some interesting discussions with people who come to visit me.

[@lizz9896]

Joonas Puuppo what did you decide?

[@lawrencecalablaster568]

Joonas Puuppo :D Alfredo Jaar is great! I just finished an art history course and one of the pieces we talked about was A Logo For America.

[@unoaotroa]

Just do it

[@Herarion9]

Warhol's Silver Clouds is my absolute favorite piece. It's beautiful and you can experience it with your hands. It's really breathtaking to be in a room alone with silver clouds.

[@make.do.mending]

I love Richard's codicil on the end of that!

[@McCoyRichard]

VC Linde Thanks! And thanks for making me learn what codicil means.

[@littleblossomdarling]

I always am intrigued by my desire to touch art. I love this so much!

[@hotdrippyglass]

Thank for bringing this topic out for discussion. Learning to think through our actions forward in time for several generations is not taught often enough these days. I will also suggest that exhibitions that are meant to be "consumed" should be well marked as such so that the patrons will better understand what the artist is expressing.

[@awesomepawsomesocks]

The bronze sculpture reminds me of this piece that I saw at the LA County Museum of Art (LACMA) last year. The piece I saw at LACMA was this huge Bronze sculpture that you could walk through. It looked as though a giant tried to drape metal. While I was walking through it, all I wanted to do was trace my fingers along the walls and kind of make my mark, showing that I, a living breathing person experienced this piece.The fact that I was actually not supposed to touch this piece made me kind of bitter about it for weeks. But after watching this video I realized that by not touching this piece I was allowing people years later to experience it's beauty and ultimately experience the urge to touch it.

[@TawnyPixie]

I love this episode! I love seeing knowledgeable people discuss art, and the extra credit assignment sounds fun!

[@davidshi451]

The Art Assignment is the BEST!!!

[@kerokerobonita]

I remember this one time when I visited the Tate modern in London and there was this stack of paper with two circles printed on them and I took one out of the pile. Needless to say everyone around me were shocked and I felt embarrassed about it myself. To me, and probably the people who saw me take that piece of paper, art is distant and feels a little over glorified. I feel like people aren't supposed to touch art at all unless they are blatantly told to because if you do it feels like you're violating something sacred or with deep meaning...

[@davidshi451]

I guess that's why this channel exists, to bring down the barriers. Plus, making your own art is the ultimate challenge to "Please Do Not Touch", since it's all yours.

[@Geeksdanz]

It's not there anymore, but for a while the Carnegie museum here in Pittsburgh had a visiting artist exhibit (I forget the artist) that was a maze of rooms built entirely out of flat die-cut steel pieces held together with metal chain. It looked like it was suspended from the ceiling, but in fact was standing upright on the floor - even though it didn't seem possible for it to actually stand up like that without other support! You could walk through the rooms and look up and around you at the structure, but no touching - and I desperately wanted to touch it. I think it had something to do with needing to know how it was made, or how it works.

[@davidshi451]

That's a tricky one--especially since you're actually inside of the work!

[@sweetamortentia]

As someone currently studying art conservation, every time I go to a museum and see someone get too close to an artwork or touch an artwork I have a mini panic attack. Once I saw someone leaning against what was clearly a very old marble sculpture and they looked so surprised when I told them to move.

[@McCoyRichard]

sweetamortentia Keep doing your thing; art needs you.

[@Draculady123]

I love to watch Mary Beard documentaries about ancient Rome, and if you haven't seen one I can swear to you that this woman LOVES to touch everything. She puts on the jewelry, she taps the monuments, she drags her fingers on the graves... and I just want to follow in her footsteps. I want to go to a museum and try on some of that ancient jewelry so badly!

[@BizzeeB]

Every time I see a Van Gogh I just want to run my fingers over the grooves, but I have a feeling that would get me kicked right out of the museum.

[@NeilSonOfNorbert]

I must disagree about the Henry Moore Bronze piece. it is an outdoor bronze sculpture, constantly exposed to the varying temperature, humidity, precipitation, and wind of the outside world. it is going to weather, to change in response to the constant pressure of natural forces, and that change will be part of the piece(like it is with most outdoor metalwork), and people touching it just makes up another natural force working against it and molding it over time(especially when it is thousands of people) like how people touching some metalwork frequently has polished sections of it(one of the main examples of this that comes to mind it the codpiece of a suit of king Henry VIII armor).

[@davidshi451]

It is something that certainly needs to be discussed, with some consensus.

[@sierra750]

yeah, the museum I work at has outdoor sculptures and it seems so ridiculous when I have to tell people not to touch it when any old bird could fly by and shit on it. If a sculpture is outdoors, it seems absurd to try to keep people from touching it, it's in the public domain now.

[@boardwalkart9818]

Great Series. Binge watching them! Will be sharing the "I Could Do That" video with my students. I also appreciate the "How to Critique" video. I had the pleasure of taking a summer intensive with Goat Island when I was at SAIC. Matthew Goulish was such an amazing mentor. "Look for moments of wonder" is similar to the notion of "creative response" which was the over-arching concept we worked with.

[@krezzybot]

In the realm of touchable art, my local art museum AIC has a small area specifically for touching, though I'm pretty sure they're recreations of pieces (like a chain-mail glove) and it's aimed at kids. I also just discovered that there's a children's museum in Philadelphia called the Please Touch Museum! It's interesting that these are both geared towards children; it's probably because they have weaker impulse control, but hey, us adults want to touch things, too! (as evidenced by this video)

[@plunky1986]

Hélio Oiticica is an artist who I'd thought would feature in this - he has a number of works that you really need to interact with, and some that you really shouldn't. It is interesting to have a contrast like that coming all from one artist. There was an exhibition of a selection of his work recently in the IMMA (Irish Museum of Modern Art) Which was simultaneously great fun and rather frustrating. Also, I'm a little surprised that John didn't pop up somewhere in the video talking about Funky Bones ;-)

[@davidshi451]

Of course, Funky Bones! I need to go see that in person.

[@aeromodeller1]

There was a sculpture at Lake Merced in Oakland that the kids were supposed to play on. It was made of concrete, but eventually wore out and had to be removed. There is a Lockheed T-33 in Oak Meadow Park playground in Los Gatos that kids were supposed to play on. Parts of the aluminum wore through and it had to be resurfaced with fiberglass. There is a bronze lion in Golden Gate Park in San Francisco that people like to pet. The muzzle is bright bronze while the rest is dark patina. There was a real lion at Wind's Biological Supply in Monterey that didn't fare so well. All the fur got rubbed off the face. The Shroud of Turin was damaged by all the visitors, just breath, lint, hair and dust.

[@youshouldnteatsoap]

I'm sure most of you know this, and someone has possibly already commented about this - but make sure it is okay to photograph the work first! Flash photography can ruin some works, and some galleries and exhibitions might have copy write rules.

[@megmotherwort]

This is so great! Thanks for introducing us to Richard. Obviously a very smart dude. So many cool pieces that I didn't know anything about in this video. What fun!

[@davidshi451]

And he's here in the comments! So much commenting to be done… :)

[@megmotherwort]

I had missed that! Thanks for pointing it out. Very interesting to read the threads!

[@patw.6567]

The please do not touch signs make it more tempting

[@phoebemillin5417]

There's this piece at the Tate Modern, don't know who it is by but it consists of loads of three-person swings. My friends and I had so much fun. It really pumped us up for the rest of the gallery.

[@sheren_b]

I enjoy when the candy pile is brought up, because it was the piece I looked most forward to when going to the art institute because free candy but also a powerful message. I'm you did this video because there have been so many times that I've been to galleries and institutions and wanted to touch all of the things lol xD

[@enigmaticbleu]

Yeah, it's hard not to distracted by shiny metal things. Great assignment also!

[@elliottdean3259]

Interesting you mention about Henry Moore Bronze Sculpture; there's a Statue of David Hume in Edinburgh by Alexander Stoddart, around which started a tradition of rubbing its toe in order to try and gain some of Hume's luck. So many people have started doing it that the toe is incredibly polished in relation to the rest of the statue - it looks like the big toe is a different material affixed to the rest of the statue.

[@SciJoy]

I was wondering since fingerprints and oils can ruin art work, has there ever been a piece or exhibit where they hand out gloves or something because they want you to touch it but not to wreck it?

[@PITTartistpen]

The reason you want to touch it is to feel it. So wearing gloves would be pointless. I know there are gloves that you can still kinda feel but it not the same thing.

[@JoaoPessoa86]

I have been to an installation where they handed little booties so you could walk into it.

[@KyleWyattOnGoogle]

The white glove thing totally happens, but I don't know of any contemporary artists that make it part of the "experience", if you get what I'm saying. You will, on the other hand, see it a lot with artifactual exhibits, like really old, fragile books on display. Since the gallery wants to keep the piece preserved for future viewing but a books' different spreads can't be seen without turning the pages; out comes the white gloves. I feel like there's maybe an art/not-art debate here, but there have been artists in the past 50 years to have made books as artworks, like Ed Rusha, but I think the extra care in preserving these books came less out of the artists' desire and more from the desire of the current owner.

[@SciJoy]

Fulano de Tal What was the installation about?

[@SciJoy]

Kyle Wyatt Thank you. You are right, the artists or creators did not really intend you to use gloves as a part of the experience. I wonder how much artists think about the physical longevity of their pieces in addition to the lifespan of their message. I know some pieces are meant to decay or be destroyed.

[@duckpondwithoutducks]

Great episode!

[@iissamiam]

For me, what I want to touch is the pipes of the pipe organ at the church. The whole instrument is fascinating. It's a beautiful combination of the visible mechanical moving parts and the invisible movement of air that resonates the long gray pipes. But, most of the pipes are soft lead and denting them or turning them even a few degrees can effect the tuning.

[@mattvonesh6277]

I guess simply asking the museum front desk what the rules on touching are is a good place to start. I also make sure to ask about photography, since like touching the art, your camera flash can damage art pieces over time.

[@McCoyRichard]

***** Smart move, amigo.

[@munstergirl25]

Great topic and I think one that needs so much more exposure and information. Studying and working in cultural heritage, I come across so many people that don't understand why they cannot touch things. Mostly they don't touch because of social acceptance, which seems to fade when objects are everyday objects. --- In the end, I love when there is art that we can touch. I think that other level of engagement is great and although some conservators may want to stick everything behind a glass case, we should strive for the hard job of educating audiences about when and why touching is okay or not okay.

[@DanielleFTBA]

So interesting to see the thought put into different works of art. My favorite part of reading is looking at the deeper meaning of the work and this show has taught me that art works the same way. I was wondering if you could suggest some websites or magazines with discussions about modern art?

[@realspacemodels]

I have been going to art museums and galleries for most of my life and I can't remember any instance of thinking "I must touch that!" It would just not occur to me. Okay one exception, but it's architectural: The National Museum of Modern Art in Washington D.C.... this concrete building has a "corner" that comes to a knife edge. I went there to photograph it and you can walk right up to that point on the building. It is dirty and warn up to a height of about eight feet. It's noticeable in comparison to the rest of the building. Yes, I touched it.

[@AndreaMGC]

I know it's not art but whenever I see a service dog I want to touch and pet him/her so badly! And it's almost painful not to. Then I think about the animal for a long time, and how its life must be and what service does it provide. The fact that I can't touch the dog makes me want to touch it even more. Its frustrating but its also interesting.

[@shaunaaaah]

I think with seeing eye dogs it's kosher if you ask the person the dog is with first. The dog can't do it's job when you're petting it, it's like if you go up to someone with glasses and just pull them off their face so you can look at them.

[@AndreaMGC]

Yeah I've asked before they say no. I would never presume to touch someone else's pet let alone a service dog without permission. I've still been told no because the dog is working.

[@theartassignment]

I think this is a really good analogy for art! Art on display is like a service dog. The art's trying to do it's job of being art, and by touching it you're potentially disturbing it and preventing it from doing it's job of being art for other people.

[@bethpufall6796]

I have a Gonzalez-Torres in my bedroom! It's fun when you get to take art home with you.

[@BriBri897]

I did not look at the man next to her until she said it wasn't John. And that freaked me out. I wonder how long it would have taken me to notice if she didn't say anything.

[@nintando]

SAME

[@NeilSonOfNorbert]

I an working towards a career in artifact/art conservation/restoration/maintenance and part of why is because it will allow me to be able to touch the artifacts/ect and know how to do it without damaging it.

[@ljmastertroll]

Thinking of all the times my hand was slapped to the tune of "Don't touch!"

[@MyVerbalPrison]

I love this!

[@grimiism]

I'm an art student in toronto and this year during an outdoor art exhibition called nuit blanche there was a series of pools and in order to try to understand what I was looking at i started playing with the water. Someone immediately came up and said not to touch the art. I talked to some of my professors and they agree that art in the public has to be expected to be touched

[@selenazhou1802]

Hi Art Assignment! This reminds me of a paper I read recently that you might be interested in: 'Spatial textures: place, touch, and praesentia' by Keith Hetherington. It was published in 2003 in an academic journal, which I'm fortunate enough to have access to, though hopefully people can find it if they dig around enough. Hetherington writes about visually-impaired museum-goers, including a man named Charles who formerly lectured in art history before his sight began to deteriorate. Charles makes the case for his sense of touch as allowing "access to the ways in which the body encounters the world and to the knowledge that this can generate, which is not always readily apparent to a sighted person." He's just one of many advocates for greater inclusion of disabled people in the arts. There are several other individuals mentioned in the article who go to museums to touch work, and that's okay. I think more people need to ask why art collections are so limited to the visual when other senses open whole other avenues of experiencing art. I understand and respect that many objects must be preserved, others perhaps archived for our public history. At the same time, I think we need more space and institutional appreciation for art that engages the senses beyond merely the visual. This could serve to make art spaces not only more interesting, but more accessible. If there are any administrators of art spaces reading this, I hope it gives you something to think about in your practice!

[@jessherselfable]

It was cool seeing all of the different interactive and non-interactive pieces! My personal favorite piece of touchable art is right outside the Modern Art Museum in Ft. Worth, it's called "The Vortex", and it's this huge steel structure that you can go inside and bang on the walls and yell, and it creates these amazing chunky echoes. :)

[@persnikity12345]

I touched the kouros at the Met. I know it was wrong but I felt such a connection to thousands of years of western artistic heritage the moment I did; it was borderline spiritual. So while I feel guilty, I'm not sorry.

[@davidshi451]

That's really interesting. Would you have had the same experience if you didn't touch it? How might we allow others to have that same experience, while preserving the art? Until we invent better methods of preserving art, "Please Do Not Touch" will have to be the default. Thanks for admitting to your "touching experience" (don't worry, we won't tell anyone!)

[@rainer288]

Delcy Morelos would be a great addition to this roster of artists who test the boundaries of "touch" and "do not touch"

[@danielleshanti]

I saw one art piece of a whole wall of wishbones. We got to pick one and make a wish! And then drop it on the floor among all the other broken wishbones. Another example of art that encourages touch is sculpture designed with the visually impaired in mind!

[@PocketDeerBoy]

Oh man i remember jardin d’émail cause i had to do a short presentation on it for school. It was kind of cobbled together but somehow i had a good grade anyway. It was under maintenance when i visited though.

[@DanHaug]

I find the desire in our society to preserve works of art as long as humanly possible to be a little unhinged. Things degrade naturally. I think we should worry less about preserving them and spend more time appreciating their transitory nature. Goodbye art @Philinthecircle, for example. If you want something to last, build it using appropriate materials. Otherwise don't sweat it.

[@theartassignment]

I think the same thing every time I have sat in a museum meeting discussing the preservation, conservation, maintenance of artworks. I just inevitably go to the thought that we will all die and everything we make will eventually disappear. But it does go back to an issue I've raised in a couple of other responses to comments, and that ownership. Who owns the work, and who decides what should happen to it. If a group of people banded together to create a touch and let die museum of art, and they bought works under that flag, and the artists whose work they bought were on board with that mission, and the institution raised funds and supported itself and opened to the public--then I would consider supporting it. But there are so many issues that come to mind with this idea. Like at what point is a work so far damaged or degraded that it's no longer meeting its visual or conceptual intent. What if the artist isn't around anymore to make that call? When is an artwork dead? When does it lose its value? I find this line of questioning super fascinating.

[@DanHaug]

The Art Assignment The question of ownership is particularly difficult with a work of art, which is often as much a commodity as it is a symbol or an aesthetic. My comment may have been colored by discussion of the bronze sculpture at 1:36, which is a public work of art lodged in an outdoor setting. I'm not going to go up and touch it if asked not to, but there is a point at which trying to enforce such restrictions seems to be anathema to the very purpose of art. It's much like an author trying to strictly control the meanings attributed to her novel.

[@theartassignment]

***** I completely see your point. Especially in the case of the Henry Moore sculpture at the NATIONAL Gallery. That is a work that the museum has thought about and discussed a great deal, and they're actually in the process of conserving. My opinion with that piece is that it's not the subtle patina that accrues from hand swipes and people leaning against it that's the problem, but I do think it would disrupt my own experience of the work if someone scratched into the surface a particular message or picture (which has indeed happened in the past). I think it's the role of museums to weigh all of these things and make reasonable decisions. Like, hey, we're ok with you hanging out with this sculpture, leaning against it while eating your lunch, playing around it, not surrounding it with aggressive guards---but we do start to get concerned when a) someone has scratched an obscenity into its surface, or b) the artist has left clear stipulations as to how the surface should look, and it's our obligation as a museum to try to maintain that within reason. I think it's a pretty healthy outlook to not harass the public about interacting with it, but to budget for and enact a conservation plan when it reaches the point that a significant number of stakeholders feel it's time for repair.

[@laurensomething1899]

I was in a museum last week and a teenage girl ran her hand down a Kehinde Wiley painting. I was quite shocked.

[@juststeveschannel]

Anyone else missing a nod to the "Funky Bones" statues? I mean, not to be limiting and all, but still...it would have fit the topic, don't you think?

[@Unkraut]

Didn't even Sarah help rebuild this artwork in Pittsburgh?

[@bloodspatteredguitar]

The Science museum in London has an installation covered in DO NOT TOUCH messages. It's a pillar that delivers periodic electric shocks when you're touching it.

[@rileypurcell2159]

The outdoor sculpture at the beginning seemed like you could touch it because it is already exposed to damage from the environment and I think people touching it is extremely insignificant in terms of how long it will last.

[@davidshi451]

It seems like it, doesn't it? But then again, the oils in our skin CAN be damaging over time, even to metal.

[@TryinaD]

The first one and the ones that are made of unfinished metal would be interesting if it was specifically designed to be touched - the point should be about how others contribute to how the art pieces look over time. Human handprints, natural skin oils and the like show obvious marks, and that would be interesting!

[@arunimadas251]

I'm very disappointed that you guys didn't discuss about artwork for the blind which is all about touching replicas and words etched on the surface.

[@TheJontastic]

I really enjoyed this one! I saw the Jeff Koons exhibit at the Whitney Museum in New York, and it's definitely hard to not want to touch the Balloon Dog piece

[@McCoyRichard]

Jon Totally. I did take a picture of myself in the reflection of the butt of one of his sculptures in the last room. That's a close as I got.

[@miguelchavez3097]

I have taken a picture of a door made of concrete. I liked it because it felt mysterious. #theartassignment

[@nikkinichols1917]

CJ Hendry collaborated with Louboutin for her Hong Kong art show, Colours and they created high heels made of crayon for viewers to draw on the wall with.

[@jayviescas7703]

How about doing one called Please Touch about works you're encouraged TO touch and which might be better enhanced because of being touched?

[@CalebdGM]

This is an amazing video because I disagree with it. This concept of art makes it exclusively visual, which I don't like. I agree that there can be cases where that's good, even when the art wants to be touched, but I think we humans focus a ton too much on what we see. It seems the default for art in galleries to be seen, but it's unheard of to have a gallery of tactile art to be felt, or acoustic anomalies to be knocked. I think much of these unique pieces of art should be locked away and never seen by the public, but then reproduced time after time so that people can truly experience the work rather that seeing a dimension of the work which they can experience just as well via computer screen. Keep making amazing, disagreeable content, I love hearing new perspectives.

[@selenazhou1802]

I know I'm 3 years late to the conversation but I completely agree! This reminds me of a paper I read recently that you (and The Art Assignment) might be interested in: 'Spatial textures: place, touch, and praesentia' by Keith Hetherington. It was published in 2003 in an academic journal, which I'm fortunate enough to have access to, though hopefully people can find it for free if they dig around enough. Hetherington writes about visually-impaired museum-goers, including a man named Charles who formerly lectured in art history before his sight began to deteriorate. Charles makes the case for his sense of touch as allowing "access to the ways in which the body encounters the world and to the knowledge that this can generate, which is not always readily apparent to a sighted person." He's just one of many advocates for greater inclusion of disabled people in the arts. There are several other individuals mentioned in the article who go to museums to touch work, and that's okay. I think more people need to ask why art collections are so limited to the visual when other senses open whole other avenues of experiencing art. I understand and respect that many objects must be preserved, others perhaps archived for our public history. At the same time, I think we need more space and institutional appreciation for art that engages the senses beyond merely the visual. This could serve to make art spaces not only more interesting, but more accessible.

[@mslightbulb]

That’s because visual and hearing are the most direct means we have to analyze of environment, thus music and visual arts. (And their mix audiovisual) But yeah, a sensorial museum would be interesting. Though the art would need to be designed more as a playground. Also a lot of safety concerns would be added, especially on material, durability & disease prevention etc.

[@davda92]

Hey! Thanks for the video! I'm one of those who want to touch everything but most of the time I even stop myself from touching things that are allowed to be. Anyways, I have a question for you concerning an installation that was meant to be touched. In fact it's first installment forced everyone who wanted to enter the museum to walk over it. But visitor numbers dropped so badly that it was then moved from Tel Aviv to the Jewish Museumlb in Berlin. I'm talking about Menashe Kadishman's Shalekhet - Fallen Leaves. When I first saw it, it was by far the strongest impression sculptural art has ever had on me. It took me about 45 min of standing there and getting to know the first face, till I had gathered the strength to walk over them. This duality of walking all over their faces but at the same time giving them a voice and making the whole room cling and clang. Anyways, in this case there is a piece of art that was meant to be touched. But many didn't want to. How do you feel about forcing visitors of a museum to interact with such an installation? Is it "ok" to not touch something that was made with the intention of it being touched and interacted with? Can on still experience a piece of are to its full extend without following the artists instruction on how to do it? I would love to hear your opinion on these question and the installation in general. Thank you again for making these videos!

[@davidshi451]

That's a tricky one; just goes to show, that art doesn't exist in a vacuum, that society responds to it and affects its expression.

[@MoonSafariFilms]

I love that Felix Gonzalez-Torres piece can be so emotionally affecting with such a simple idea. I was wondering if there could be multiple instances of it in different galleries at the same time, and would a gallery have to get permission from his estate to feature it? How does the ownership of something so ephemeral work?

[@McCoyRichard]

FoundObjectFilms That's a serious question, and I don't know the answer. I think I'm going to punt this one to Sarah. I would say it could go either way though. All depends on the sale agreement for the artwork.

[@digitalWinds]

One "please touch" piece I saw on a recent vacation that stuck with me is Franz West's Lips at the Philadelphia Museum of Art Sculpture Garden: www.philamuseum.org/sculpturegarden/

[@TwinkTwinkle]

I would argue that the first art piece, the bronze one, would be allowed to touch, because the fingerprints leave a trace and the trace would become part of the art. But of course, this is also up to the original artist's interpretation, was the art meant to be 'damaged' or not.

[@onnileinonen4744]

god i miss museums and exhibitions...

[@rawkhawk414]

I would have loved to see you discuss Cloud Gate.

[@LynneSkysong]

I can't take a picture of it because they aren't here where I live, but in the past I've seen these huge sand sculptures. Every time I see them I want to touch and interact with them, but I know i can't. They're probably pretty fragile I would ruin it for everyone else wanting to see them.

[@davidshi451]

That's interesting…do you mean sculptures created for a contest? Or something else?

[@rawkhawk414]

This is such an interesting comment to me. There are rock formations near Drumheller, Alberta, formed by powerful erosion of autumn-coloured banded sedimentary rock, called the Hoodoos. You are allowed to completely interact with them. As far as I remember there is no signage asking otherwise and no barriers anywhere of any kind, but it remains a highly popular site to visit to appreciate the stunning shapes and geology that results in structures almost like inuksuk. I first saw them when I was young probably 8. I could have sworn since the last time I have visited them and from current pictures that they have eroded noticeably since my youth. And in a way that is visibly more human than water or air based.

[@jhan168]

"Keep it clean." Haha BUSTED!!!

[@katherineharris9738]

Yesterday I went to a local art gallery and they had a box full of pieces of slate, which were from a Andy Goldsworthy piece from a local area. Now the gallery actually invited you to go and take a piece. Which I did but it felt wrong to do so, I think its because you are always told not to touch but when you are able to like in this situation it just feels totally wrong.

[@aeromodeller1]

Andy Goldsworthy's Stone River at Stanford University requires you to walk on and in it to experience it, as does most land art. Which reminds me, most State and National parks have a policy requiring visitors to stay on the trails. Take only pictures, leave only footprints. news.stanford.edu/news/2002/january23/goldsworthy-123.html

[@Ash-yh5oy]

Is there a please touch exhibit out there? Just made for touching?

[@yz4043]

I never knew that thing was called a plinth. I've never even heard that word before. Thanks!

[@no_torrs]

So I've got to say that I disagree with most of what was said in this episode. I understand why sometimes restrictions can enhance the overall experience like in the case of duchamp's work, although maybe it doesn't enhance it but rather gives a different perspective on it. Also from the perspective as a creator I understand how scary it might be to think that if you allow your work to be touched it may be ruined or not last as long. HOWEVER, my main issue with the whole no touching idea is that it gives a false image of what an artwork is, it elevates it to an inmortal status, something beyond human comprehension, when really art, like everything else, is mortal. It's not frozen in time and absolute, it's variable. It changes fisically and conceptually. It's meaning can change depending on when, where, and who is seeing it, and it's fisicality is also in constant change. Colors in paintings fade, materials rust, and part of the beauty in art is how it can renew itself with time. Change and renwing is in my opinion far more telling than stagnation. For example kazimir malevich's Black Square is more or just as interesting to me in it's current detiriorated state than when it was a simple black square. Trying to prevent this change is robing us from perhaps experiencing something else greater. Then again this is just my opinion.

[@jessicabellingham8142]

Sometimes art can be very sacred though, as with ethnographic or religious objects, so there's that boundary as well. It may not be appropriate for everyone to handle objects imbued with spiritual power. In that case they do have an elevated status. Also, I do want to reiterate that not touching can be for safety reasons. The museum I work at has a large collection of objects treated with heavy metals in the past, as pesticides. Those can still be absorbed into the skin, so we wear gloves and have careful training to handle those objects. All that said, I do think museums need to address these issues of access to make visitors more comfortable and less put off by the rules. It's important to find a balance.

[@McCoyRichard]

Juan Pablo Torres Woah, that's pretty heavy and I kind of agree with you. But I don't think we should be promoting people to touch rare and unique works of art everyday. Many simply wouldn't last and very few people would get to see them. I'm all for degradation and use, don't get me wrong, but I'd like my kids to someday see some of the things I've seen and experienced.

[@theartassignment]

I think what the issue is here is the idea of public v. private ownership. If I buy a sculpture and take it home, I can touch it all the live long day, let it live its sculpture life. But once it joins an institution, is that a public institution and what is its mission? Is it a private institution, and what is its mission? The values of those institutions decide upon the life of the artwork. In other news, I agree with you that artwork can and should change, deteriorate, and live an un-rarefied life. But I don't own all the artworks (unfortunately), so I don't always get to decide.

[@no_torrs]

Yeah there's definitely exceptions regarding the whole safety and spiritual thing. And to be honest I understand the public and private aspect of institutions, over all it calls for behaving in a way that doesn't clash with what you are being asked by the institution. I my self probably haven't touched anything I'm not supposed in a museum out of respect for the institution jajaja. But I guess if it was up to me, which like you said is not always the case, I'd probably be touching everything. jajaja. But yeah sometimes respect is an important part of appreciating art. The whole future generations experiencing the same thing as me though still doesn't convince me as much though, most of all because I believe the object cannot be seen in the same way twice and also because there is so much to be seen and that is constantly being created. Maybe my kids will experience different and greater things than me. So I'm still not so sure how important it is to maintain certain objects they way they are forever. This also has exceptions like the ones mentioned above and perhaps also with objects so old, that really immediate destruction is the only thing that could come out of touching it jajaja. But i guess even then I'm not so sure how I feel.

[@sierra750]

People would seriously destroy paintings if you let them. I work in a museum, I AM the person who tells you not to touch, and the stuff I have seen people do to art is quite frankly, appalling. And I'm not just talking about contemporary stuff, I have seen people run their hands down 600 year old paintings. Art is a testament to our past, it's a record of what came before us. If we don't take care of them, we won't be able to truly appreciate them how they were intended to be experienced. You say you appreciate the beauty of how art changes over time, but when we are looking at works from many many years ago, if the piece is near destroyed, we are not going to be able to fully understand the artist's intent and original execution. Preventing people from scratching an artist's work is not preventing them from experiencing the painting, and knocking on a sculpture (I have seen multiple people do this) is not preventing them from understanding the material (just read the card, DUH! or ask someone who works there if you really want to know more), the lines become a little more blurred with contemporary work, but with these (like McCoy mentions) it can often be about safety for the viewer. I agree that sometimes it is taken a little too far, but overall it is important to preserve our heritage.

[@bentleyangeldekao7768]

Artist: touch my boobs Sarah: MUST TOUCH

[@ginnylefler3868]

Has there ever been a piece that used the type of metal Richard discussed that imprints after being touched to its advantage? One that relied on the fingerprints of the viewers to create the work itself?

[@McCoyRichard]

Ginny Lefler That's a good question ... but I can't think of one like that. Of course so many bronze outdoor artworks are touched (climbed on, etc) all the time so by default the become like this and in the end some folks would say they look "better." Maybe others will know of an example ...

[@commonplace7097]

I work at a history museum, and I spent this whole video screaming "NO,NO, DONT TOUCH ANYTHING, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, WHERE ARE YOUR GLOVES!?!?" It's a disease.

[@jeronimodlt8860]

Last month i went to Yoko ono: dream come true at the Malba ( Museum of Latinamerican art of Buenos Aires) and the exhibition was in the format of phrases in the walls and more.. So i entered, and the first phrase that i read said, feel earth with your feet (or something like that), so I took off my shoes and kept on looking at the artwork when a lady that was taking care of the room came up to me, and told me to put my shoes back on because i was not allowed to be shoeless at the museum. Mixed messages, or what?

[@russellrichard5773]

Question about operational art pieces. I have been to many art museums that display clocks, bells, musical instruments, and other things wherein the art of the piece (it seems to me) is in the operation of that piece. The artist or craftsman who made that bell or clock intended for it to be ran or rung. The peal of the bell is the piece of art; the bell as object is just the container the art comes in. So why are clocks not run or bells not played if by not running clocks, or playing bells, the art is not displayed? I understand that by operating these things, you wear them out, even if done correctly. But I have yet to see a video of the clock running or a high-quality audio recording of the bell's peal displayed next to the object.

[@McCoyRichard]

Russell Richard Of course, I can't answer definitively for all institutions, but generally clocks, etc., aren't on in institutions because there simply isn't sufficient staff that can manage the challenge. Some institutions do take recordings of them running so you can at least sometime see them .... But, also, many clocks etc. are on display for their look and not necessarily for their operation -- this all depends on the institution's mission.

[@russellrichard5773]

Richard S. McCoy That's understandable. In the Milwaukee Art Museum, they have a "chair garden" in which you're encouraged to sit in various chairs to experience them. But, one room away, they have a display of grandfather clocks which are ornate furniture pieces that just happen to be clocks and could just have easily been armoires. So, they don't need to have their movements running. But, in the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts. there is a Japanese Temple Bell and Striker which was used for meditation. The bell is not particularly visually spectacular. The sound the bell made is obviously important because it was used as a meditation aid, but the bell (and, frustratingly, the striker) sit behind a plexiglass case. I want to know what the bell sounds like so that I can know how this piece of art was intended to be experienced!

[@neropatti1504]

I'm not a big "art toucher". Usually I don't really have to fight the urge to touch things in museums no matter what they are made of. I also find it really annoying when I see people putting their hands on stuff. Like my dad. I ask him always if he want's to come with when I go to an exhibit and he just says that if he want's to see old stuff he can look in the mirror. Then once when we were traveling I took him to a museum and he just up and touched a sculpture to receive a "tut tut" from the lady. The only art piece that I wanted to touch lately was Socle du Monde by Mona Hatoum. I didn't touch it though.

[@mikedonovan8811]

I think I've touched the Henry Moore. Is he the real art restorer?

[@Vivalier]

I want to fold origami with one of those paper sheets so much!

[@kirstenpaulson4112]

There is one statue at the Detroit Institute of Art (a smallish bronze donkey) that is there specifically to be touched. When they take school groups through the museum, the kids are told to touch that one statue all they want because everything else is off limits. I always thought that was kind of brilliant.

[@McCoyRichard]

Yeah, I like that piece and have touched it, too!