Today, while visiting the Tel Aviv Museum of Art, I was inspired by several exchibitions. And I couldn’t help taking some quick shots during the observation. Besides the artwork I enjoyed the overall experience that was completed by the architecture, colors, sounds and video installations.
During my observations I carefully examined the way each work was presented. Remarkably some works were annotated correctly (see below).
And some of them made me think and spend some time to consume the required info. For example, the Andy Warhol’s photography exhibition was grouped in series. Each series were accompanied with the legend.
The legend was a horizontal grid of numerated objects linked with true photos. Below there was a double columned complicated list of information snippets. At the first glance it looked solid and organised. However, one needed to work really hard to get picture reference.
- When you get to the legend you realize that you needed remember the number.
- Then, as you get back to the image you ask yourself where from should I count it?
- Then you return to the legend and start skimming the list below, looking for the right number.
- Duo to asymmetric repetition of english translation your eyes go zig-zag (right and left) skimming bold titles until you find the right number.
Finally the legend itself is also a challenge. Duo to the list structure, it is hard to access paragraphs 2 and 3.
- It is not a poem and neither it is a story.
- Then not clear to me why the author is the most important?
- And how his DOB is related?
The title is hidden in 3rd row (!). The underline doesn’t really help since the title appears among other info, crowded and so is still hard to reach.
* * *
As a quick typographic exercise I decided to improve it. This is how I think the legend should look like.
- First should appear the artwork name.
- Then the (creation) year and the author.
- And after that additional info that may interest the curios audience.