Single correct option
Museums have long treated the label beside an artwork as a neutral aid: title, date, medium, perhaps a line of historical context. Increasingly, curators are questioning that neutrality, noting that the choice of what a label omits — a work's looted provenance, the political circumstances of its commission, the artist's own contested statements — shapes a visitor's understanding just as powerfully as what it includes. A label, on this view, is never merely descriptive; it is itself a curatorial argument, one made more persuasive by appearing to make no argument at all.
- A. Museum labels should be abolished since they cannot be made truly neutral
- B. What a museum label leaves unsaid is itself a curatorial choice that shapes how visitors understand a work
- C. Visitors are generally unable to detect bias in how museum labels are written
- D. Provenance information is the single most important fact a museum label can include
Show answer and solution
Answer: (B) What a museum label leaves unsaid is itself a curatorial choice that shapes how visitors understand a work
The passage's point is that omission is itself an argument-laden curatorial choice, disguised by the label's appearance of neutrality — option 2. Option 1 is an extreme prescription not made in the passage. Option 3 is not discussed. Option 4 singles out one example (provenance) as if it were the general claim, when it is only illustrative of a broader point about omission.
Saved on this device. Sign in or create a free account to keep it on every device.