I generally read the blurb next to artwork in museums if I know/like the artist. I care about his or her intention, technique, etc.
Who writes these?
In contrast, I experienced an exhibit at
The Getty this past week called California Video, a retrospective of video art concentrating on that from, of course, California in the last 50 years. I love performance art-- I may not enjoy every performance, but I love the concept. This exhibit featured screens around the periphery each with a different video on repeat. Around these screens was an artistic arrangement or setting--one was a TV room straight out of the 60's (I can't remember... I think it was JFK paraphernalia everywhere) in which 4 people could sit and experience the video. That was kind of cool, but I wasn't impressed. The best part of the exhibit was the end where you were allowed to sit as long as you'd like to watch any of the videos on display, and more. Online, you will find the interactive database, though why isn't all of the video online? Only samples are available. The Getty is free... so why won't they make all content available to those for whom the Getty realistically isn't free, when travel cost becomes a factor.
Also, I recall, though I wish I could go back to read more, feeling like the descriptions of these videos went too far into interpretation. Generally those captions that I mentioned that I read at museums are unbiased and these might have been, too, but I felt that those in this exhibit weren't simple enough for the medium to speak for itself as it can more easily than static art. Now that I hear myself saying this though, this is just my own preference.
