DEAR MISS MANNERS: I have been dismayed by the rude and boisterous behavior of people while visiting museums and art exhibits. Just this week, I asked a group of three young women who were speaking loudly and laughing if they would be kind enough to lower their voices. The exhibit was crowded and there were many people quietly looking at the paintings and reading the descriptive material.

Unfortunately, one of the women took umbrage and seemed truly insulted that someone would ask her to lower her voice, and continued to act however she pleased, even though it was disturbing other museum visitors.

It seems very inconsiderate to talk/laugh loudly while other people are quietly viewing the exhibit. I have asked the museum to consider making small signs to remind visitors to keep their voices low and respect others' viewing space.

I have also noticed that there are those people who will be instructing the person accompanying them about the merits of the painter, the period, etc. These folks, too, could be reminded that not everyone may want to share in the art history lesson and that using a soft and quiet voice would be much appreciated by those close by. What is the proper etiquette for museum visiting/exhibit viewing?

GENTLE READER: Without countenancing boisterous behavior, Miss Manners has to say that discussing the art in a museum is not high on her list of activities that must be brought under control if we are to lead civilized lives.

Would you settle for a ban on saying "They call that art?" and "That's the one I want to take home"?

Or perhaps we could require people who attend blockbuster shows in such numbers as to make them crowded and noisy to show proof of having first visited the museum's permanent collection.

Conversational tones are permitted in museums. Unless the person is actually shouting -- in which case guards will probably remove him before he spray-paints the pictures -- you should move to another room and return when quiet prevails.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My husband and I are in gentle disagreement over the following scenario: We were invited to a karaoke 40th birthday party for a person with whom we have a budding friendship. The party started at 8 p.m. and we arrived at 8:35 p.m.

My husband fretted that our timing was rude because we were too "early," and that the first 45 minutes of a party are reserved for close friends. I disagreed, for if people wanted time with close friends, they could invite them over for an earlier time than the rest of the guests. He insists I am wrong. I apologize for fibbing that we are in "gentle" disagreement over this.

GENTLE READER: Much as she sympathizes with someone who wants to arrive late for a karaoke party, Miss Manners must disallow your husband's ingenious excuse. In polite society, guests are all equal.

That is in theory, of course. Close friends may be asked to come early to help out, or even to have private visiting time, but "early" means before the time stated on the invitation. For extra-large parties, the invitations could even give staggered times, but then care must be taken to divide the list so that it appears to be a totally arbitrary division.

P.S. Please don't apologize. Miss Manners loves euphemisms.

:

Watch out for the paparazzi.

You don't have to be famous and they don't have to be professional. The American dream of being constantly pursued by people who are crazy to capture your every moment on film is coming true for everyone.

The latest means for effecting this miracle is the picture-taking-and-transmitting cellular telephone. We also have the wristwatch camera, the pen camera, and a variety of ever-smaller cameras and camcorders that can pop out of nowhere and snap away, but it is the telephone one that worries Miss Manners. All we needed was a new irritant to stir up the hostility between that half of the population who has not yet acquired cell phones, and the half that has but has not yet learned to use them politely.

What with all the commotion made by people screaming into cell phones and people screaming about cell phones, the camera function may not be immediately suspected by its targets. And they could be anyone -- household members thinking they were at leisure, guests caught off guard, strangers assuming shared privacy in gyms and anonymity in the streets.

Not that there is a lot of pictorial privacy to lose. We are all already starring on numerous security films, presumably caught in the act of going about our lawful business. Some who claim to have been going about lawfully find that the traffic-regulating film on which they have made cameo appearances argues otherwise.

Most people seem to be used to being on camera, although Miss Manners has to remember not to stop and use video monitors to pat her hair into place as she passes through surveillance. She also has trouble remembering why a society composed of people angling to get on television to confess their disappointments or, now that we have reality television, demonstrate their shortcomings, would defend privacy with a straight face.

Apparently it is the right to straighten up their faces (a euphemism, Miss Manners notes, for pulling in their stomachs) that invasive photography overrides. In the days when being photographed involved fitting the head against an iron clasp and going immobile until the photographer scared the daylights out of you with a burst of sound, light and possibly smoke, you were at least not caught unawares.

But the complaint of the bride was a familiar one. She said the unauthorized pictures made her look fat.

Even the lady's lawyer was not willing to take up that angle, nor is Miss Manners concerned with the particulars of indignant movie stars. What struck her is that no one -- not even a famously beautiful professional actress while she is posing for other cameras in her wedding dress -- feels safe from photographic ridicule.

And surely ordinary people going about their lives -- whether relatives who are corralled or strangers who are caught -- matter more than the stirring arguments one hears from camera wielders about their art and their duty to the historical record. If such subjects do not give permission in advance, they should at least be offered the chance to delete.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I'm hoping you can help me -- my family and I have a bit of a debate on this issue. I am currently a graduate student studying for my master's degree. I currently hold another master's degree, for which I received a hood at graduation. At my upcoming graduation, is it appropriate for me to wear my other hood? If I continue on for my doctorate, do I wear both hoods?

GENTLE READER: Your head may be stuffed with knowledge, but Miss Manners presumes you have only one, currently and otherwise. So however many disciplines you can juggle, she is afraid you can wear only one hood at a time.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: My wife and I are part of a close-knit group of four couples who meet regularly to dine, attend the theater and travel. We all have luxurious tastes, and as such normally pick the finest restaurants and travel accommodations.

Just before Christmas, one of our number lost his job as a hospital administrator. In January, his wife lost her executive director position when her firm was purchased by a competitor. Since these changes occurred, they have attended only one of our outings, and they have given me the impression that they do not wish to discuss their change in economic circumstances.

To avoid embarrassment, I feel that we should continue as if nothing has happened and let them decide whether to attend or request a change in our typical choice of venue. My wife feels we should start making much more modest plans as a group, thus sending a message that we value their friendship more than a restaurant experience or an expensive trip. Another group member feels that we should have a frank discussion with this couple and solicit their feelings on the subject.

All of these potential actions have drawbacks in my opinion. What would Miss Manners recommend we do to preserve our group and not embarrass people who are going through a difficult time (or who may be independently wealthy to a degree where none of this is of concern to them and their recent lack of attendance is due to scheduling conflicts only, as claimed)?

GENTLE READER: Is your group's taste so refined that it never deigns to go to the movies? Or take a car trip nearby? Or enjoy an unpretentious meal? And do you never entertain one another at home?

Miss Manners agrees with your wife that now would be a tactful time to indulge in such modest treats. You need not do this exclusively -- just often enough to see whether this draws your friends more than your usual outings. It is better simply to enable your friends to participate in activities than to require them to lament their finances, as they are obviously not choosing to do, and make them feel responsible for your altering your entertainment.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: While sorting through some old boxes for a charity pick up, I found a stack of leftover note cards from our wedding. I'm sure you know the type: folded cards with "Laura and Marc" on the front and a blank interior for the note.

I would like to use them for thank-you notes, as they are of rather nice quality and I like them very much. Would there be anything improper about doing so? I can't think of any reason why it would be, but I have a little niggling doubt in the back of my mind that someone might object.

GENTLE READER: That someone is Miss Manners. She has more than niggling going on in the front of her mind for fear that you neglected the thank-you letters for your wedding presents for so long that you forgot you had those cards. Surely you wrote all those when the presents arrived, and are only inquiring about letters of thanks for future birthday and holiday presents.

In either case, two people cannot write a letter -- although one can mention the gratitude of the other -- so a double name should not be on the paper that is used. However, two people can give presents and two people can entertain, so the cards will be useful for congratulatory notes and informal invitations.

: