I was in Brussels at the Royal Museum on a tour and my friend and I were flirting with these girls by a Bosch painting when I saw that they had "The Death of Marat In His Bath" by Jacques Louis David. so I took off to see it and it was in a room by itself . I just sat on a bench by myself soaking by myself soaking up the history.. was cool
2
Yes, and then there is community of art--seeing art with other people. I'll never forget seeing the Lucien Freud show in NYC many years ago and watching an old man look at Freud's nude self portrait. His wife would not stop in front of it, but he stood there for a long while, and I behind him, and he really seemed to see something. And I saw something. It was most remarkable. And I'll never forget taking my mother to see the Philadelphia museum and when we stopped in front of the Van der Weyden "Crucifixion", she was stunned. When we moved closer and she saw the tears of a mother, I was weakened. Experiences like that you do not see online.
2
Beauty Will Save the World - Wolfe engages the dynamic tension of engaging contemporary expression as the pathway to shaping culture and learning more about what it means to be human while remaining grounded in absolutes. The pathway is contemplation. The article echoes the need for a fertile context and direct exposure to our humanity. I heard only a vague hint that cell phones and selfies added any value. Maybe 50-500 years from now another author may. Like it or not technology is a part of humanity.
I just returned from a trip to NYC where I was blessed to be in the presence of great works of art at the MOMA, the Frick, and the Met. I appreciate the Frick for not allowing photography except in the courtyard. Thanks Big Apple for housing such magnificent works in such beautiful spaces. Viewing art on my computer screen isn't quite the same.
1
Please prosyletize for relative quiet in the gallery -- spare us the sound effects and benches for everyone -- For some reason museums seem to want to eliminate places for people to sit and rest.... and think...
Also helpful with special exhibitions are spaces with a few of the catalogues where one can sit and learn...These like benches seem to be becoming scarce as the robots for distant viewing become ubiquitous ??..
Also helpful with special exhibitions are spaces with a few of the catalogues where one can sit and learn...These like benches seem to be becoming scarce as the robots for distant viewing become ubiquitous ??..
The major digital intrusion in popular museums in our era is the number of people having their picture taken in front of this or that masterpiece. Where once these "I was here" photos were limited to the monumental outdoors (think Leaning Tower of Pisa), today's tourist must prove he or she stood in front of van Gogh's Starry Night.
1
I couldn't agree more completely with Mr. Cotter's insistence on viewing the real thing; but in fairness, I was delighted when I found that, say, the Met, would allow cellphone photographs; as I noted in my journal (http://www.seanthackrey.com/ ) then, "what a pleasure to be able to study painting so closely, as in this magnificent Cézanne quince at Philadelphia, and then to be able to preserve so simply an image of how it truly looks in the flesh of its actual paint, not in the ruinous flat lighting of art book reproductions!", and proceeded to post many other views of works in "the flesh of their actual paint". Of course this has nothing to do with selfies, much less narcissi/sticks, and random snaps; but ironically, careful cellphone details can often preserve far more of the experience of the real thing than traditional book reproduction.
2
There is NO substitute for seeing the actual artwork. No photograph or digital representation of a artwork provides the same experience as see it. If anyone wants to know what the artwork actually looks like, go see it!
1
Here, Holland Cotter writes a necessarily updated "Ways of Seeing" by John Berger.
We have to look to paint and we paint to see.
We have to look to paint and we paint to see.
I think that Cotter is taking a much too limited view of technology. Sure, current digital media can't perfectly reproduce artistic works, but that won't always be the case. For example, what happens when a 3-D printer is able to produce an exact replica of that fertility goddess from Sanchi? When anybody is able to view it, and even touch it (no velvet ropes or glass cases!), at his or her local museum? Or even in his or her living room? I think that that day is not too far off.
1
Once upon a time there were plaster casts of lots of sculptural works -- not just Roman copies of Greek maste4rpieces (check out your fav. "Greek" sculpture next time to discover the plaster parts) --- but of course in modern times there were all disposed of at auction.
Oddly, since many of these were made 100 years ago those of the various medieval sculptures in Europe may have preserved info that was destroyed by war and time.... And frankly, the tympana at Autun at Vexelay and Autun,e,.g. are so hard to see through the protect screens that keep the pigeons out a well done plaster cast would be a good thing.
Obvioiusly, you get something out of experiencing the real thing that your art history text may have NOT expalined -- e.g. the cathedrals of Vezelay and Autun are both at the top of very steep hills..... (Think I will add that to the WkiP entires!!)
Oddly, since many of these were made 100 years ago those of the various medieval sculptures in Europe may have preserved info that was destroyed by war and time.... And frankly, the tympana at Autun at Vexelay and Autun,e,.g. are so hard to see through the protect screens that keep the pigeons out a well done plaster cast would be a good thing.
Obvioiusly, you get something out of experiencing the real thing that your art history text may have NOT expalined -- e.g. the cathedrals of Vezelay and Autun are both at the top of very steep hills..... (Think I will add that to the WkiP entires!!)
Mr. Cotter's analysis presented here makes an extremely important statement not only about how the cultural experience of viewing art has changed. It suggests a growing wider and extremely frightening trend on how people are approaching the beacons of human "value" in society. Walter Benjamin woke up art historians to the problems that might arise from trends of mass production and commodification. Duchamp set in motion the free-wheeling idea that a toilet could end up in a museum which gave rise to "any thing goes" art that does not allow itself to be criticized as it offers so little to uplift the human soul to a higher plane, which had long been part of art's essence. So, yes, I was in a museum, meditating on a sculpture that was hundreds of years old and trying to position the art and it's idea to all I've seen and read, and a cell phone went off and took me away from my struggle as disturbingly as an alarm clock. Yes, I was looking at a van Gogh in awe, in wonder, when a woman blocked it to photograph it with a giant iPad, taking a long time to find the right angle. It's a symptom of a societal virus and is only the visual part of an iceberg that's hiding most of it mass below a dark ocean. When ISIS smashed up the museum in Iraq, I was stunned when I saw the video of the loss of the cultural, intellectual, religious, and common history of the world - a barbaric attack by the blindly ignorant. By filming it, it was a selfie for all of us to digest.
Why the attacks on the MOMA galleries? Because they really are not enjoyable to walk through, no matter how much they spent and how famous the architect. They are bland if not sterile. They do not enhance the artwork, as great buildings and spaces can do.
3
Nice writing esp the view-dance. Do that all the time. And I add to Martin the bare white work of Robert Ryman and the subtle close colors of Reinhardt. The latter's paintings require standing there for awhile until the eyes begin to discern those shades A Tom Wesselmann in person is far more painterly than a photo indicates being almost flat Pop seen that way.
Appreciated.
Appreciated.
I wouldn't argue with a word of Holland Cotter's wonderful article. But as an artist who creates art in and for the digital domain (squeezeshot.org), I would point out that — for experiencing such art — one's high-resolution tablet, laptop, smartphone, or similar device can be the ideal gallery/museum. Moreover, for much digital art, reproducing it on paper and hanging it on a wall degrades it, reducing its clarity, color gamut, and its visual scale and depth in the viewer's imagination. Also, of course, such reproduction changes the viewing context, rendering the experience in many ways less powerful and less personal. As more people seek and find meaningful visual experiences via high quality electronic devices, digital art in its many forms (i.e., art, photography, video, animation, slideshow, GIF, audio, etc., and hybrids thereof) is bound to spread, mostly outside the walls of museums and galleries. Soon, perhaps — if not already — most viewing, collecting, exhibiting, and studying of art, even non-digital art, will take place in the digital domain. Which is not to suggest that for traditional art that is any improvement.
1
As a graduate student about 20 years ago, I wandered into the Baltimore Museum of Art one afternoon on their free student admission day. They had a special exhibit of modern art with pieces on loan from other museums. I stepped into the exhibit, which I had essentially to myself, and was simply blown away. It was a day I'll never forget and I consider it the best experience I had in graduate school. It was the first time I saw Van Gogh and Rousseau, Picasso, O'Keefe, Hopper and Pollack. I can still reconstruct three quarters of the exhibit in my mind. I couldn't bring myself to buy a postcard or a poster from the gift shop. The experience and memory would only be tarnished. That was one of the lessons from that day. Being there and remembering is all we really have or need.
7
This article is the visual equivalent of gourmet food elitism. It is all pearls-before-swine to those with a lifetime of searching for and finding hidden, subtle exotic flavors, textures and sights the rest of us have no hope of ever experiencing. It is the reason we read Holland Cotter, or Roberta Smith art articles in the first place, or read Pete Wells restaurant reviews.
Many of the Times readers will have gone to the same shows and eaten in the same restaurants, but they need the experts in the chattering classes to tell them what they missed, what they didn't taste, or see, or discover, because they are heathens with money, not finely acculturated citizens who know what the best is, and always seek it out, often at great expense (accounts).
For everybody else, there's Mastercard, and viewing things online they could never afford to see otherwise. Wait until 3-D printers can reproduce even the textures of a di Cosimo painting, to be purchased in faux-art copy stores spread like Kinko's across the land, where "masterpieces" can be printed out for $59.99 in 3 x 5 foot sizes. Oh, how the experts will groan. Now if we could just do this with organic, spring produce... oh, wait, it's called Whole Foods.
2
You report living in South Carolina. How can it be said that you have no hope of ever experiencing what is described in this article--good museum visits? Going to a nearby museum is generally no more expensive than a trip to the movies, and there are dozens in South Carolina. If you want to aim higher, going to the free museums in DC requires travel but is hardly some dream journey out of the reach of the average SC NYT reader. New York, a bit more expensive to visit again, but it's not like visiting the Hermitage. The Met doesn't even have a fixed admission price.
3
Sarah in NYC: I'm arriving in NYC April 15th to do an art museum tour. Can I stay with you to keep my expenses down? And if you have a free afternoon, or two, will you be my tour guide? I am an older, white guy, sort of grouchy, and a bit overweight, but I can be engaging if I drink enough coffee. Don't pass up this opportunity of a lifetime to school a hick in the arts. Actually, I was born in Chicago, and have an advanced degree, although I won't say in what.
1
Every print hanging anywhere is no different than the original. The fact that fakes fool even the best of the art critics proves that. Digital or or not the original composition transcends the medium. Why wast time and money to go to a museum.
1
No, you should definitely conserve your time and money for Applebee's.
2
Prints don't fool any art critics. Would you say that seeing a photograph of a flower is the same as seeing the flower?
The MFA in Boston is my favorite museum. I visit 5-6 times a year. I love standing before a painting to experience the wholeness of seeing, not to look at paint swirls, or techniques. I give in to the artist's ability to trick my eye. The techniques the artist used may be of interest to curators and conservators, but that information adds little or nothing for most individuals who want to experience the works as a whole, not their parts. A good example where information does not necessarily increase enjoyment. The whole is greater than its parts.
1
• Today, millions of people stream through major museums, filling the air with a restless rustle and buzz. They move through galleries fast and with a new purpose — cellphones in hand, they’re on Instagram treks and selfie hunts — and with a new viewing rhythm: Stop, point, pose, snap.
"The public glances at the art and then stampedes to the giftshop anyway. Well, what can I say? It's the same public that has come to accept sex with condoms."
~ KATHARINE WEBER
(b. 1955)
American novelist and nonfiction writer;
author of "The Music Lesson"
"The public glances at the art and then stampedes to the giftshop anyway. Well, what can I say? It's the same public that has come to accept sex with condoms."
~ KATHARINE WEBER
(b. 1955)
American novelist and nonfiction writer;
author of "The Music Lesson"
1
At MoMA not long ago, I saw a man take a picture of one of Ad Reinhardt's dark paintings. Good luck! Like Agnes Martin, Reinhardt made images that couldn't be photographed. In today's picture taking obsessed world, that is a rather radical thing to have done.
I'm headed to an exhibit on Sunday. I sort of don't "get" the idea of taking selfies, I'm there to see the art, not so other people can see me in front of the art. The only reason to take pictures is as a note-taking device so I can look up specific pieces later.
4
When I encountered Caravaggio's painting "Ecce Homo" in the Palazzo Bianco in Genoa, it stopped me in my tracks. I just had to stare at it for several minutes. That kind of experience could never happen with a book or even a digital image online. And no, I didn't take a selfie.
2
Are a couple of thousand words really necessary to point out that experiencing physical art in person is better than looking on screen? Not everyone can get to see the originals, though, so - as with books - online access is a valuable tool in allowing people to share in some of the wonderful works of art or museum exhibits that exist.
1
Artists, like musicians, engage in their craft by rearranging time and space. It is a precognitive exercise that stands before the rational, the logical, the practical. Art transcends the rational. Art is an attempt to achieve the transcendent - whatever that is.
When an audience or museum goers use digital phones, tablets, taking selfies etc, the experience shifts from the artists' work to themselves. It is thus impossible for the viewer to engage the artwork at the threshold of time and space, and the aesthetic experience becomes impossible.
Taking selfies in museums and other digital distractions are a violation of the aesthetic experience.
"The function of art is to reveal this radiance through the created object. When you see the beautiful organization of a fortunately composed work of art, you just say, "Aha!" - Joseph Campbell
This is impossible in the digital age when people are making a clamor with the production of selfies.
When an audience or museum goers use digital phones, tablets, taking selfies etc, the experience shifts from the artists' work to themselves. It is thus impossible for the viewer to engage the artwork at the threshold of time and space, and the aesthetic experience becomes impossible.
Taking selfies in museums and other digital distractions are a violation of the aesthetic experience.
"The function of art is to reveal this radiance through the created object. When you see the beautiful organization of a fortunately composed work of art, you just say, "Aha!" - Joseph Campbell
This is impossible in the digital age when people are making a clamor with the production of selfies.
2
Piero di Cosimo's work now at the National Gallery of Art is a true masterpiece in every sense of the the word. The restoration of the paintings is like HDR: incredible clarity and freshness. And there is NO PHOTOGRAPHY ALLOWED!
You can buy the show's book and show that to your friends. And instead of posting weak images to your friends, bone up on the historical weight of the "Visitation," a meeting of two pregnant women: Mary and her cousin Elizabeth. Elizabeth, in case you were snoozing in catechism class, is the mother of the man who would become John the Baptist. You owe it to your eyes and brain to see the real thing. And please, no selfies!
You can buy the show's book and show that to your friends. And instead of posting weak images to your friends, bone up on the historical weight of the "Visitation," a meeting of two pregnant women: Mary and her cousin Elizabeth. Elizabeth, in case you were snoozing in catechism class, is the mother of the man who would become John the Baptist. You owe it to your eyes and brain to see the real thing. And please, no selfies!
Digital technology has been a boon to museums that can't raise physical attendance. It relieves pressure on the museum director and program staff and creates the illusion of engaging with your audience. No matter that most of it is online.
Key word: illusion. Yes, sigh, it does matter.
1
@ Gerry
And there is really nothing more fortuitous than "engaging" a work of art DIGITALLY!
Reminds me of an older friend who visits Disney World yearly and then talks about his worldwide travel experiences. I once asked him why he didn't take the money he spends on the Epcot facsimile and visit these countries in "real time".
Answer: "Florida is much closer and in America."
"...the comfortable cult of the mediocre prevailed, and presentation became confused with substance." - J. D. LANDIS in "Longing"
And there is really nothing more fortuitous than "engaging" a work of art DIGITALLY!
Reminds me of an older friend who visits Disney World yearly and then talks about his worldwide travel experiences. I once asked him why he didn't take the money he spends on the Epcot facsimile and visit these countries in "real time".
Answer: "Florida is much closer and in America."
"...the comfortable cult of the mediocre prevailed, and presentation became confused with substance." - J. D. LANDIS in "Longing"
2
I live in Boston, and spend many happy, quiet hours in the MFA, so I really appreciate the examples you give. I also happened to travel to New York last week, and visited several museums including the Met and MOMA. The selfie and the "pose" (standing next to a famous painting like a fish you caught) seem even more prevalent at the New York museums. I just don't get it. Do you think your friends won't believe you? I guess it's the same impulse that some have to make terrible quality videos at concerts, instead of memories.
Just enjoy the art and buy the book.
Just enjoy the art and buy the book.
10
@ wrenhunter
• Do you think your friends won't believe you?
Who cares what "friends" believe? Living through others? How about enjoying and learning the private experience without the need to boast about it saying you were there.
• I guess it's the same impulse that some have to make terrible quality videos at concerts, instead of memories.
It's the impulse to make every personal moment a public statement. Why exert one's memory when one can record the "experience" and avoid the strain???
• Do you think your friends won't believe you?
Who cares what "friends" believe? Living through others? How about enjoying and learning the private experience without the need to boast about it saying you were there.
• I guess it's the same impulse that some have to make terrible quality videos at concerts, instead of memories.
It's the impulse to make every personal moment a public statement. Why exert one's memory when one can record the "experience" and avoid the strain???
1
Finally a statement supporting the real thing, in person experience!
I am an artist who has work in major museums, but finds it hard to get into juried shows because my work is made of layers of graphite that create optical effects depending on changing light. This doesn't come across in digital photographs. In person the work glows, in a digital reproduction it's just an image.
I am an artist who has work in major museums, but finds it hard to get into juried shows because my work is made of layers of graphite that create optical effects depending on changing light. This doesn't come across in digital photographs. In person the work glows, in a digital reproduction it's just an image.
5
I think museums see it as their duty to foist art upon the public, largely to having higher visitor attendance, due to corporate voracity. This is inevitable. This article is necessary at pointing to ways we need to cherish our culture in a way that demands more of our humanity, instead of more of our financial acumen. For example, I was at the Cloisters a few months ago attempting to enjoy the sublime Merode altarpiece. As I gazed at the delicate triple shadows one sees in the central panel, I couldn't help being jolted out of the moment by the screech of handheld radios the staff use to communicate. If there is one place you expect a little silence to enjoy art it is at the Cloisters. Small things like this add up. Crowds and crowd noise can only be avoided by arriving early at museums and even then for only a short time. It seems though that instead of a hyper rush to get a collection pixelated museums should be concerned with best presenting what they have in an ambiance conducive to the best aspects of aesthetic experience. A great challenge I fear...
2
Beautiful beautiful beautiful. Thank you, Holland!
5
More than 30 years later I can still remember the moment I first saw Vermeer's ' Girl in a pearl earring: in a first year Art History course. This past summer a night spent exploring Chris Ofili's "No woman no cry" digitized on Google Art on my computer was one of my most favorite and meaningful interactions with art. Sometimes art successfully lives in more than one medium although not always. I have yet to find a reproduction of Van Gogh's Almond Blossoms that brings the same joy and exuberance that the original does... especially after having experienced the painting in an exhibit with so many other van goghs. One is not surprised to learn that it was painted in celebration of the birth of his nephew. I am enchanted by the Barnes museum which had my young children looking closely but independently at the art in those rooms. Hopefully it was a start for them to experience art as a relevant part of their lives bringing added depth and meaning to how they experience their world. I know seeing a slide of a lovely girl that spring afternoon transformed mine.
3
Dr. Albert Barnes, whose collection is now housed in a magnificent new home on the Benjamin Franklin Parkway in Philadelphia, taught that in order to understand a painting or any art, you have to experience it in person so that you can relate the artists' intention to your own life experience. It takes time and study to understand what the artist is saying to you. IMO, there is simply no way to fully experience art thru reproductions, no matter how good. The docents at Barnes (and I am one of them) do their best to convey this message to our visitors.
5
Exactly!
Reading this piece I am reminded of the experience I had six weeks ago when I visited New York for the sole purpose of viewing the Matisse paper cut-outs. I studied Matisse and his career evolution extensively in college, but nothing prepared me for the visceral experience of being in the presence of so many of his late career works. I was overcome. Each day for three days I returned to the exhibition at approximately 1:30. The experience of seeing the very uplifting work Matisse produced at the end of his life, when he was infirm, was sublime. Observing fellow museum vistors' reactions to the exhibition was another revelation, which added another layer of richness to my experience of visiting the museum. Online photos are absolutely wonderful. The idea that someone in a remote location can look at the same artwork I was able to travel to New York to see is amazing and humbling. However, if one is able, nothing compares to the experience of standing face to face with genius.
7
Part of the joy of being present before a great art work is the feel of the gallery space while using your senses to intuitively define the artist; it's like tasting at an established winery compared to gulping down red wine at a mediocre cafe, in other words, viewing art on a computer serves as an introduction but not a substitute for the gallery experience.
2
The worst are the loud shutter sounds of cameras. When I go to a museum, I want to meditate quietly on the art. Then in come people with really loud cameras taking pictures and selfies.
3
That is a good point. As well as turning off the flash, one should turn off the sound.
1
May I suggest, Mr. Cotter, that you sit in a wheelchair and try to get close enough to see the Mona Lisa which will not be on the wheelchair viewing level.
It must be a human trait that we all begin to feel remorse that our grandchildren will not have the opportunities to climb trees in the countryside with our cousins or to daydream in the hayloft with the barn cats for company. We certainly didn't worry about that when we were parents did we? My kids had a sega they had to share as well as the tv. Hmmm. I use a kindle for nearly all reading.
Yet I tell you now that the reason I wanted to be an artists was because of the pictures in our big coffee table bible that I wasn't allowed to touch until I washed my hands and my parents were sitting beside me. I, too, have visited many art museums, galleries, and trade shows. I have also read maybe a couple thousand of books, all because of that bible. I was the only family member that read it from front to back. Art is art. To see it in person is better than seeing it in print, true enough. To see it in the setting it was made for is bliss. But it is art, not any different from wine, heritage sites, clothing, architecture, gardens, light shows, and so on.
Don't degrade the art because it is online for mass viewing or printed on a page. Art is what stimulates young minds and there is nothing bad in that. Art is the human wonder of all the creation. ... we need it in any way we can get it.
It must be a human trait that we all begin to feel remorse that our grandchildren will not have the opportunities to climb trees in the countryside with our cousins or to daydream in the hayloft with the barn cats for company. We certainly didn't worry about that when we were parents did we? My kids had a sega they had to share as well as the tv. Hmmm. I use a kindle for nearly all reading.
Yet I tell you now that the reason I wanted to be an artists was because of the pictures in our big coffee table bible that I wasn't allowed to touch until I washed my hands and my parents were sitting beside me. I, too, have visited many art museums, galleries, and trade shows. I have also read maybe a couple thousand of books, all because of that bible. I was the only family member that read it from front to back. Art is art. To see it in person is better than seeing it in print, true enough. To see it in the setting it was made for is bliss. But it is art, not any different from wine, heritage sites, clothing, architecture, gardens, light shows, and so on.
Don't degrade the art because it is online for mass viewing or printed on a page. Art is what stimulates young minds and there is nothing bad in that. Art is the human wonder of all the creation. ... we need it in any way we can get it.
8
I agree that the original far surpasses seeing a photo or anything online. Not just art. I'd seen many photos of paintings and sculptures, but the real thing was dazzling far beyond what I knew. Similarly, I'd seen pictures of the Grand Tetons, the Grand Canyon, the Eiffel Tower, but the real thing left me in awe. However, no matter how much I've traveled or how many museums I've visited, I can't see it all in real life. I am grateful for quality books, magazines, and online photos to provide the next best thing for what I can't see in person. I'm grateful I live in this time, rather than when only the very rich could see originals or even very good representations.
1
People would be surprised by how little of the visual gamut (what colors and shades you can see) can be replicated by the Red/Green/Blue (RGB) of a computer monitor (just over 50%-particularly bad in the greens/yellow/orange), and it is worse in Cyan/Magenta/Yellow/Key(black) of printers. One figures if there are 12 million colors, that must be everything. 12 million just means that within the range it can reproduce, it represents very fine differences. In a few weeks, leaves will come out. Go to the side of a hill, and take a picture with your phone. Go home and print it out. Now go back to the hill with the printout. With only three color emitter types in a screen and four in a printer, you will never get the variety that a painter will get with a pallet, let alone the scale and texture that is described in the article. Virtual can only be virtual. LIfe has limitations, and sometimes the virtual is all that we can access, but does one want to spend the rest of ones life being virtual?
3
I can relate to this article. I have to admit my friend and I took pictures of each other in front of art we loved at MOMA. The interesting thing is that the Van Gogh's in Musee d'Orsay, where you are not allowed to photograph, had a much more lasting impact on me. Maybe they were better pieces, but not taking a camera with me made me focus my eyes on the work itself rather than through a lens. It really does make a difference. Leave the camera at home or in your pocket. You will have a better, longer lasting experience.
6
Cell phones should be banned inside art museums.
5
Yes! Yes! Yes! Agreed!!!
1
For many years high culture, including art galleries and museums were the playthings of the aristocracy and then the new industrialized wealthy. Then came "coffee table" picture books for the masses. Then came art classes in public schools (once upon a time now gone) inspiring some to visit museums.
But even with the advent of jet aircraft many will never visit the great museums of Europe. How can we bring these images to these people, if not through digital media? Certainly, I'm in agreement with the author that actual viewing of the pigment, the texture, the brushstrokes, and the play of shadow and light can't be reproduced easily. The ideal experience is in the gallery. But let us not disparage the digital efforts to bring fine art to those who will never get to that gallery in a museum. Besides, at the bucket list museums the philistine tourists and their crowding and narcissistic behavior. may compel us seniors to resort to the internet so as not to be discomforted and elbowed out of the way.
But even with the advent of jet aircraft many will never visit the great museums of Europe. How can we bring these images to these people, if not through digital media? Certainly, I'm in agreement with the author that actual viewing of the pigment, the texture, the brushstrokes, and the play of shadow and light can't be reproduced easily. The ideal experience is in the gallery. But let us not disparage the digital efforts to bring fine art to those who will never get to that gallery in a museum. Besides, at the bucket list museums the philistine tourists and their crowding and narcissistic behavior. may compel us seniors to resort to the internet so as not to be discomforted and elbowed out of the way.
2
The "old" museum world has not disappeared; rather there is a parallel museum world along side. If online art is right for you it is available, as are more entertaining museum events, and the museum as a meeting place. That is all fine to me; i can still find quiet and completion at the Met or the MFA. I might have to seek out certain rooms or works that are less popular, but no matter. What museums have done broadens their base and makes them financially viable and that is a must-do, not a nice-to do. If a painter like me wants to seek out a quiet contemplative space to study color and surface and shadow and technique, it is findable. My way is not the only way to appreciate art. The Met has done a brilliant job at finding and walking this line.
4
I disagree....
Digital viewing of art is WONDERFUL....
- No more crowds
- No museum feet syndrome
- It's convenient
- No admission fees
- No traveling
- I can view the artwork AND read about it at the same time
- I can eat and drink while I look
and I can get as close as I want...went to see the Mona Lisa in Paris...what a nightmare ! it's behind 1" thick bullet proof glass, then it's behind a waist high barrier 12 feet out, then there's a rope 5 feet further out from that, then there's a huge crowd (makes you feel like you're in the mosh pit at a Nirvana concert) and THEN there's a security guard that keeps you moving along.
Digital viewing of art is WONDERFUL....
- No more crowds
- No museum feet syndrome
- It's convenient
- No admission fees
- No traveling
- I can view the artwork AND read about it at the same time
- I can eat and drink while I look
and I can get as close as I want...went to see the Mona Lisa in Paris...what a nightmare ! it's behind 1" thick bullet proof glass, then it's behind a waist high barrier 12 feet out, then there's a rope 5 feet further out from that, then there's a huge crowd (makes you feel like you're in the mosh pit at a Nirvana concert) and THEN there's a security guard that keeps you moving along.
2
I am so glad I went there twenty years ago.
I remember gasping out loud the first time I saw Velazquez's Las Meninas in the Prado in Madrid. Seeing art in person is both a visceral and an emotional experience. No great lover of modern art, I was absolutely enraptured by Richard Serra's massive iron swirls in the Guggenheim in Bilbao.
Of course we cannot touch, but I often feel like I want to press up against great art and embrace it, the exquisite and eternal work of a human hand with the ability to make the imagined real.
Of course we cannot touch, but I often feel like I want to press up against great art and embrace it, the exquisite and eternal work of a human hand with the ability to make the imagined real.
4
Art books have been around for years, so I am not sure why you wrote, "You could take a little art home by hitting the postcard rack in the gift shop. But the only way you would retain most of what you saw was by spending time in the galleries and imprinting things on your brain."
In fact, I think you'll learn a lot more by getting a good art book and reading it. Yes, reading. I think that's a great way to learn. Once you're familiar with the art you're interested in, you just may want to see the real McCoy by visiting a museum. Books are still an important way to learn and eventually admire art.
In fact, I think you'll learn a lot more by getting a good art book and reading it. Yes, reading. I think that's a great way to learn. Once you're familiar with the art you're interested in, you just may want to see the real McCoy by visiting a museum. Books are still an important way to learn and eventually admire art.
2
There is no experience outside of a museum that matches standing at distance from a large Rothko, or another large-scale piece, in an expansive gallery and apprehending its scale, comparing its size with one's own size, and in light of that difference understanding more of the work's and the artist's intentions.
There is nothing like putting the most appropriate distance between oneself and a real work of art, varying that distance to see more or less detail of its making and its conception, developing a memory of that Looking, and making that memory part of one's being.
There is nothing like putting the most appropriate distance between oneself and a real work of art, varying that distance to see more or less detail of its making and its conception, developing a memory of that Looking, and making that memory part of one's being.
5
As someone who has been trying to paint on and off most of my life, I find it utterly fascinating to view a painting in person. One discovers that a particular Degas that one felt was covered in rich, deep pigment, is actually rather thinly painted and almost sketch-like. Or to view close up an enormous Frederick Church painting that despite what appears from afar to be a meticulous attention to detail is a remarkable illusion in light and dark. Or view the colors in a landscape sky and discern the ultramarine from the cobalt blue. What a privilege it is to stand as close to a painting as did the painter, and realize what it takes to create the illusion before us.
10
I wholly agree with the general point about the value of seeing art in person. But it cuts both ways. After seeing Piero at the National Gallery (and walking around him), I thought less of him than I had. He seemed "mannered."
I agree completely. I always make sure to take my time in museums, to sit in front of favorite works. I went to the Met in NYC on my birthday last year, and I sat by "Wheat Field with Cypresses" for a while, feeling the tears well up in my throat and threaten to spill over. Same for "Vase of Roses" which is beautiful.
For some reason, seeing prints and postcards of these works of art don't evoke the same emotions. But sitting or standing in front of the actual work of art--it is as if the artist is reaching through time to me, to find that connection between us through the artwork. And I feel. Something about Vincent Van Gogh's work allows me to feel the sadness that I squash down so often. Yet I look at his work and it feel okay to feel sad, even about something beautiful.
For some reason, seeing prints and postcards of these works of art don't evoke the same emotions. But sitting or standing in front of the actual work of art--it is as if the artist is reaching through time to me, to find that connection between us through the artwork. And I feel. Something about Vincent Van Gogh's work allows me to feel the sadness that I squash down so often. Yet I look at his work and it feel okay to feel sad, even about something beautiful.
2
I could not agree more. Now, if it weren't such in issue of the "haves" and the "have nots." All art should be free for all to see, like a library, not just for billionaires to buy up everything and then hole it away in their caves.
1
Museum photography is truly is a specialized and challenging craft. I am sure the photographer(s) of the Martin paintings were pained to accurately portray the white paint and pencil-lined canvas. Therefore I absolutely agree with Cotter's argument about viewing the paintings firsthand.
Visibility seems to be more about what is excluded from our vantage. Perhaps museum board members, administrators and curators highlight a painter like Martin or undertake challenging ideas or under-represented artists in their galleries? If the Martin paintings spend most of their life in collections storage, I am glad there are available digital surrogates.
Visibility seems to be more about what is excluded from our vantage. Perhaps museum board members, administrators and curators highlight a painter like Martin or undertake challenging ideas or under-represented artists in their galleries? If the Martin paintings spend most of their life in collections storage, I am glad there are available digital surrogates.
Art and art museums have become a business case: art is money, so museum directors are business men. Need to see a Dali/Picasso collection? Run to Tampa. Need a Van Gogh fix? Run to Amsterdam ( Ops! Sorry. Closed for renovation). Eduard Hopper? Get to Paris quick. Oh, sorry. Gone already. Elgin stole the marbles, and a lot of art has been stolen and exploited since, but there is still art to be seen close-up, personal and in in context: the
Louvre in Lens, France. Never heard of it? Give it a google. Just the building will knock your socks off!
Louvre in Lens, France. Never heard of it? Give it a google. Just the building will knock your socks off!
I can't commune with a work of art in a book, no matter how well it's reproduced, and as much as I try. But here at the National Gallery in Washington, there are days where you may just have a room in the West Building all to yourself, to move about the photo, sit and contemplate the light, get as close as you can (but mind the guards) to examine the brushstrokes, and feel the air move about those splendid rooms. At those times, a work of art can become a living, breathing thing. This is the energy and mesmerizing power that Mr. Cotter writes so beautifully about, and it's a tangible thing.
3
I agree totally. Going to the symphony and hearing music in person, sitting watching theater or dance, I am always struck by the excitement and other emotions I feel. Seeing La Pieta in Rome cemented this notion...I just stood there and cried. The extent of the beauty of Michelangelo's work can only be found when standing right next to it.
9
There is a small portrait by Van Gogh at the Barnes in Philadelphia. When you venture close, it comes alive. The piecing blue eyes seem to see right into you. This is never captured in reproduction. And what about Vermeer? I had only seen his work in books, until the National Gallery had their blockbuster Vermeer show in the nineties. The subtle depths and delicacy, the richness of color and texture, can only be seen, and appreciated, in 'real life'.
Thank you for this reminder of what it means to go to a museum.
Thank you for this reminder of what it means to go to a museum.
13
I bet many of us remember that Vermeer show at the National Gallery, with its lines around the (huge DC) block to get in. I took the sleeper train down from Boston to see it--12 hours in a coach seat. I had never seen light quite like that before. I appreciate the way books and the Internet can make works of art more accessible (love the new, giant "in detail" books that provide close-ups of paintings), but there remains much to be said for the museum setting.
1
I am 64. The experience of going to a museum and seeing the art in person has changed dramatically in my lifetime of visiting museums. Most museums now offer recorded lectures about the art through headphones, or phones, or even telephones depending on the sophistication of the museum. From my perspective this destroys the experience whether one is listening to the voice or not. Those who listen simply stop, usually smack in the middle of the painting, and listen. They don't look at the painting to get the personal experience that the artist intended, they listen to the learned voice. They never lean in, they never incline their heads, they certainly don't pay any attention to the people around them to guarantee that they aren't impeding someone else's view. They never feel the art.
Then they take a selfie.
Then they take a selfie.
19
I am just short of your 64, but now that I have more time and money to visit art museums, I am starting to really like the audio tours. Little odd and extra tid-bits of info.
1
absolutely right!
1
Beautiful article which explains why paintings are able to move people in a way that computer generated artwork cannot.
9
I feel blessed to have communed in Washington with Piero di Cosimo's exquisite paintings. Like Holland Cotter, I must have walked past plenty of di Cosimos, but this thoughtfully curated exhibition sensitized me to the uniqueness of this artists's vision and the breadth of his range. But while the Internet is no substitute for seeing art up close, it can awaken treasured memories and invite further exploration. It's a gift to art lovers. I don't know if I'll ever return to Ghent, where I marveled at the Van Eyck brothers' "Adoration of the Mystic Lamb," but I can revisit it online and home in on details without peering over anyone's head. For another illuminating example of art displayed online, see what the Detroit Institute of Arts has done with its magisterial mural cycle by Diego Rivera. Art lovers with the means to travel don't have to choose between the real and virtual experiences. They are complementary. How lucky we are!
8
Please refer to Benjamin;s The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction - the discussion of the "aura" of paintings in the age before prints and movies is instructive, even today. Perhaps more so. By the way, spoiler alert: Adorno was right in his criticism of Benjamin's thesis on the progressive potential of mass media.
6
A few years ago, a traveling exhibition of Impressionists and related artists came to my city (there was even a Meissonnier, included for comparison). The size and detail struck me, as this article notes, but also the colors of the Monets defied all expectation. There was a single, very late Van Gogh ("Rain Auvers") and knowing it was likely one of his final works was emotionally overwhelming. Books just don't capture the vibrancy, the glow. I now understood why art galleries have benches in the middle of the room. You just want to sit there and be in the paintings' presence. I went three times to the exhibition before it closed, and would have gone another. Not just to look, but to BE in those gallery rooms.
17
Though art is created by 'Me', once exhibited in a museum setting, it is given to 'We.' The distracting hissing of pre-recorded audio tours and self-absorption of visitors pre-occupied with selfies and Instagram diminish the community experience and contemplation of art, transforming it into a bucket list check-off item or status update. It's narcissistic. Turn off your device and tune in to the work instead. Less Me, more We.
31
I hardly consider wanting to spend what little time off one gets focused on Me instead of We to be narcissistic.
1
Seeing art in person can be nothing short of amazing. As was impressed upon me when a traveling Vincent van Gogh exhibition came to my city.
Wow. Just wow. There's a whole extra dimension to his art because of the thickness and texture of his brush strokes. The paintings change from one viewing angle to another.
I liked van Gogh's art before I saw it in person. I worship it now. A great genius. See it in person, if you can!
Wow. Just wow. There's a whole extra dimension to his art because of the thickness and texture of his brush strokes. The paintings change from one viewing angle to another.
I liked van Gogh's art before I saw it in person. I worship it now. A great genius. See it in person, if you can!
15
If you can find a way to get there, and if you're a Van Gogh lover, the charming small city of Saint Remy in the south of France, where he spent some time dealing with his mental health issues, is a great place to visit. As you walk out of the town along the country lane that leads to the institution where he lived, the city has located various spots along the way where, as best as they can tell from his paintings, he set up his easel and began to paint. They have posted small copies of his paintings to give you that sense. It's a pretty amazing experience to stand and look out on these scenes just as he did. Highly recommended
4
As an artist selling my work entirely over the internet, I'm grateful for today's technology having the capacity to provide such a high quality representation of my images, always delighting but not surprising to the customer once the artwork arrives in the flesh.
5
Thank you for a beautifully written article. Experiencing Art is something important to the whole person.
24