Are we looking or glancing at art?

I will be interested in the replies you get. I am not an artist, know very little about art, and rarely go to art museums (or galleries, etc.). I do enjoy other creative endeavors (music, writing, theater).

So, with that caveat, here's what happens when I go to art museums:
I wander, looking for art that catches my eye. I probably spend less than 30 seconds looking at any one given piece, until I find one that speaks to me. And then I will stand and look at it for a very long time. Okay, not a very long time, but probably 10 minutes on average. I like to think about how the artist painted it, I like to lean in close (if able) to see the brush strokes and the way the colors blend into other colors to create the whole, I like to think about the actual art itself (does it represent someone, what was that person's life like, etc.), and basically I like to let myself fall into the painting for a bit.

For me, then, it's not about admiring each individual work of art for a decent amount of time, but finding that piece that speaks to me, and leaning into that one. Which sometimes creates in me an interest in learning about that artist, their life, and their other works.

I'm surprised the Louvre website says 54 seconds for the Mona Lisa. When I was there in October the guards were moving people on after about 30 seconds. It was even less than that when she was in the temporary quarters while they were renovating her home gallery.

I'd agree to maybe 10 minutes if it's a piece of art I enjoy.

Sometimes, due to crowds, it's not possible to spend that much time - thinking the Impressionist galleries in d'Orsay. IF they actually wanted you to spend time, they'd put in more benches so you could sit and enjoy.

I got very exasperated viewing the new Van Gogh galleries in d'Orsay last fall as well. There was some kind of art lecturer with a tour group of about 20 who stood and blocked each painting they stopped at so you couldn't even do a 15-30 second look. I finally leapfrogged ahead then went back to pick up the ones I'd missed.

In the National Gallery in London they used to have nice squashy couches in front of Contstables' The Hay Wain. You CAN sit and enjoy that one for as long as you want. I also had a lovely conversation with an Australian woman as we sat and enjoyed. There is so much to see on that canvas! And of course in the Orangerie in the Water Lilies rooms they've got nice benches so you can sit and enjoy for a bit.

I'm generally fine with people doing a quick walk through in museums and nope, I don't mind the paintings being pimped out. If people are exposed to good art something might catch their eye and have an impact on their view. Museums have to find a way to stay solvent and if this is it, that works for me. I don't mind paying 15-20E to visit a world class museum but I'm not sure I would like going well above that to fund a museum!

My 'art history' lessons were not university level, but a high school course based on Kenneth Clark's 'Civilization'. It was based on 'history through art' and though it discussed many famous works and artists, it also discussed the socio-economic situation that influenced the art. There wasn't much discussion that I can only imagine goes on in an 'art appreciation' class - no discussion of brush strokes or symbolism. It did cover some of the discussion of impressionist dots and layers of paint to create colour and realism, or that many of Van Gogh's painting are thin with paint during his poorest times...but not a picking apart of the image to make us appreciate it more (in theory).
I appreciate art by how it affects me. For this reason, even a famous piece doesn't get a long discecting visit. I used to look at each and every piece of art on the wall. I spent 7 hours on my 60th birthday in the Prado looking at each piece in the main building and was happy as can be, but I now I allow myself to stroll on by the ones that don't evoke a reaction or interest. Even the ones that move me to tears don't get more than 5 minutes.

Whether it matters to me if it is a masterpiece or revenue? It doesn't much matter. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I know that many things (art, architecture, gorillas and other endangered animals) if it wasn't that they generate sufficient revenue to keep them accessible.

Many museums offer free tours and lectures, or cheap rental of audio guides, to encourage education and understanding of what one is viewing. Books and paid guides are another option. But these can’t be forced on the people.. Myself, I may be guilty of spending more time to read the posted notices than to see the art - but I’m trying to do both.

The great museums house so much art that even residents of the city can’t spend meaningful time with each piece, nor can sore-footed tourists on a short visit. I certainly appreciate a bench whenever I can find one. So we all have to follow some form of triage, to balance time and focus on the works that are most speaking to us today, and/or that others have encouraged us to include. Should we go to the Louvre and just visit one room very carefully, knowing that we may never see the other rooms at all? That’s too severe for me, plus FOMO.

I go to a lot of art museums; I rarely skip one except in huge cities like London where it's just impossible to see all of them on a single trip. When I go to a museum, I walk past and glance at every painting, returning for additional visits if necessary to manage that; I'm more cavalier about sculpture because I don't much care for the classical stuff. I imagine my average is less than 15 seconds per painting, because many only get 2 seconds. It's very, very rare for me to spend as much as 5 minutes with one painting, though I'll certainly stand there as long as it takes to listen to the audio guide. In smaller, less crowded museums it's pretty common for me to loop back to take another look at things of special interest.

All depends upon style and the form of art. 15 seconds for some or 15 min (with repeated visits) with others/favorites. The smartest thing I ever did was to take 2 private tours of the Borghese years ago with private guides. Each taught me how to read and understand a painting and statute. Especially,ly statutes, there is a sweat spot where the sculpture intended you to view from fir the greatest impact.

As for paintings, on the second floor, on the left side (based upon standing at the front caving into the building) is a simple but wonderful painting of a gathering, young ladies with bows and arrows. It is a painting I ignored on prior visits. In looking at a painting you often need to look with the eyes of the past. There was no Polaroid camera at the party, no video camera, no iPhone. That painting was commissioned by a father to celebrate his child’s event (birthday party). You are stepping back into time.....seeing an event 500 yrs ago. The painting tells the story....looking at the faces it was clear to see which young lady hit the target and which ones missed badly. The guide opened my eyes and understanding of that painting; and as a result of many others since.

While you certainly do not need a college course to appreciate great art some education on the topic and knowledge of the time period from which it came can be of great value in understanding and appreciating a piece of art.

Of course you can't look at everything. Most of what you pass in a museum is glanced at until something strikes you and you stop to look at it, to study it. And maybe you'll end up even seeing it.

My visits are in line with what Robintz (and some others) said, although my maximum time with a painting, with an occasional exception, is more like 2-3 minutes. And I like this line: "Should we go to the Louvre and just visit one room very carefully, knowing that we may never see the other rooms at all?"

When we went to the Uffizi in 2018, we followed the RS audio tour. I'd guess that allowed two to three minutes per highlighted piece. Some I lingered on a bit longer, and others not even on his tour that caught my eye I'd spend maybe 30-60 seconds on.

We happened to be in Florence at the same time as a retired friend from my work who happens to be an artist and art scholar. Had a lovely time meeting him for dinner. Anyway, he booked two full days for the Uffizi.

A given museum will have a variety of visitors, with different objectives and levels of interests. Some will study the paintings for several minutes, or more. Most visitors will glance, as you mentioned, and some of those may follow up later online or perhaps with the museum detailed guide.

Why does it matter how long people spend looking at art?

And of course people will spend more time on some pieces and less time on others.

And of course museums care about educating their visitors. But they can't force people to spend ten minutes on every piece. They can't, nor should they, require every visitor to use their audioguides. And even if you do use an audioguide, it doesn't cover every piece in the collection.

And surely there are far better ways to make money than to run a museum. I suspect most, if not all, important art museums in the world have government sponsorship and/or grants to support them. None of them could survive on admission fees alone.

Anecdotally somewhere I read that if you spent 30 seconds looking at every piece in the Louvre, it would take you 100 days, 24 hours a day, no breaks, to see every piece on display. If you took ten minutes per piece, we're talking over five years.

I think it's fine for everyone to visit museums however they want.

the guards were moving people on

That probably has a lot to do with it...... and the fact one still has the rest of the museum to see

The museum has a financial incentive to have the maximum number of people buy tickets. The alternative is to make museum operate like a parking garage and give you a timed ticket on entry and calculate the bill when you leave, based on how long you were there.

Art appreciation was the first class I took in the summer of 1963 at UT Austin. I was 17, it was about a week after my high school graduation and I was terrified.

Having never seen much real art or studied art or art history of any kind, I wondered how I would fare at this first college class on a topic about which I was totally ignorant. It didn't help that the class was primarily populated by teachers who thought it would be an easy A. I wasn't so sure.

I immediately fell in love with what I was seeing and the information I was learning about it. The first test was fun for me, as were the others that followed.

We were tested on our visual literacy. We saw slides of the work of artists we'd studied, but we saw no work that we'd seen before. Our test was to identify the artist and give reasons for choosing that person. I made a 97 on it and the teachers who sat near me all made C's. I could tell that they were concerned when the test started.

As the semester progressed, the visual concepts became more complex and we were required to do things like place works we'd never seen before in periods of the history of art, and give our reasons for putting them there.

Being the first person in my family to go to college and doing well in that class not only made me feel like I could do this college thing, but also gave me a love of the visual arts that has lasted a lifetime. I didn't really minor in art history, but I took enough classes that I could have.

I consider my knowledge of the history of art to be rather broad but shallow. Although I think I appreciate the works of most artists, my preferences probably lean more toward art that most people just don't like or get.

I'm another triage art looker. If the gallery is small enough, I can scan it from near the door and select what I want to spend more time with. I'm highly impatient with being herded, usually clockwise, around a gallery and I'm another person who goes back to see pieces when the crowd around them has thinned.

My favorite painting is Picasso's Guernica. I've never been able to spend as much time absorbing it as I need. I literally could spend hours looking at it, if only there was a time when it wasn't a "tourist attraction" and a place where I could sit.

Having said all that, I love to walk into a gallery and be drawn to a piece that I never would've even glanced at in the past. The surprise is always refreshing.

Lo, Guernica is my favorite also! Much of my time at an art museum is reading the posted info or guide book to my visually impaired husband. I also spend time describing the piece. We concentrate on a section of a museum knowing we will not see everything. So, I think we spend more than the average on a piece of art. The free tours for the blind have been so enriching.

Same here. I am not an art history major or even a Minor, but i know what i like. We do try to understand certain mediums, such as modern art. While visiting the Musee national des beaux-arts in Quebec, we rented the audio guide to learn why a canvas painted a Cream color is an important art piece. Still don’t get it, but i feel better knowing we tried. And yes, we went to see the Sistine Chapel to gaze uncomfortably at the ceiling, but i was drawn to the other picture in the room, The Last Judgement. I could have stood in front of that painting for hours, I was mesmerized. There have been other art pieces that move me, and some my husband too unexpectedly, the Raclawice Panorama in Wroclaw, Poland is such an example. So, even though the more famous paintings draw us in, it is the unexpected that eventually catches our eye and time.

Which is why I love going to the Marmottan in Paris to enjoy the Monets. The paintings are spaced out, and most of the rooms there is seating that is far enough from the paintings to appreciate them and to view several at once to be able to compare/contrast them. In my three visits, there have never been crowds in the Monet rooms.

Which is why I don't like the Impressionist galleries at the Orsay. The paintings are crowded together and most people seem to want to view them from as near as they can get . . . interesting if you want to see what the artist saw, but not beneficial to see what the artist wanted you to see.

I've probably spent more than two hours in front of the Bierstadt in the Birmingham Art Museum. There are a couple other pieces I've returned to over the years and spent time in front of. The Mona Lisa isn't one of them. But the stuff I really like I spend years looking at, because I buy it and display it. Kasimir, Chagall, Picasso, Simon Dick, Bill Reid, Danny Mayes, Kris Vermeer, etc; I cannot imagine not enjoying art and only seeing it in museums. Which is why I stick my head into galleries more often than museums. You can learn more about technique, the artists intentions, and the like spending time at a show than in a museum. Talking to live artists is much more fulfilling than a one paragraph blurb can ever convey.

But in a world where people plan to "see" seven cities in two weeks 15 seconds in front of a masterpiece is probably all they're going to get.

I've been to many museums. As I grew up in the Chicago suburbs, we went regularly to the Art Institute - I've probably been there 100 times over 67 years. I've been to the Met, the National Gallery, museums in many European countries.

The notion that there is a "correct amount of time" to spend with a painting is key to this fake-outrage discussion. Why is it wrong to spend 30 seconds with a painting? What is the "correct amount of time"?

I never spend more than 20-30 seconds in front of a painting. However, the recorded commentary that you get from the museums has really been improving. The Alte Pinotek in Munich and the National Gallery in Budapest had particularly good recorded commentary, and I learned quite a lot from those recordings.

I started this post as a money question, and not as a question about how long we spend looking at a piece art. So by lack of answers to the actual questions am I reading between the lines that it's Ok for the masterpieces to be sources of revenue first as long as it's for the greater good of artistic education and cultural preservation?

Allan I understood your question. I have to consider what the alternative is? Free access to art just means someone else (usually taxpayers or some rich people) have to pay the not-insubstantial costs of maintaining, securing and displaying the art. Then you have to consider what ethical basis would you have for saying its wrong to use the great works of art to subsidize the lesser works. I think that the artists who created the great works, didn't do it for free or for the education of the masses. So the money incentive behind the art has always been there.

I definitely am looking at the art. I love going to art museums and the first time I saw Michelangelo’s “David” I was blown away and stood there for quite awhile.
If people only glance, at least they are there. The museums are all struggling even more now and need all the support they can get when they reopen.

Museums are primarily charged with the preservation of artifacts. Places where things are kept so they survive into the future. In effect, warehouses. Some focus more on the acquisition than preservation, some on specific types of items or periods of time, and some see to have no plan at all. Educationally they are a tool for scholars, and to some extent a lesser tool for the general public. You can no more learn history, or about art, walking thru a museum than you can learn about nature walking thru a zoo. To truly maximize the learning potential you must either hire a teacher or devote some time and effort to study on your own.

Public museums require capitol to remain available to the public. Either society provides that in the form of funds through government financing or altruistic grants, or individuals pay a fee to see a portion of the collections.) Usually all of this takes place, and often is still insufficient. A good example is the collection of military aircraft Paul Allen (of Microsoft) amassed, restored, and put on public display as the Flying History Collection out of Everett Field, WA; a private collection made available to the public for a fee. It was well curated, had excellent special events, impressive lectures by noted individuals, and despite the backing of one of the worlds greatest fortunes has shut down because of costs.

Those tourists running through the Louvre are what allows the public display of those items. As Tom Wolfe once quoted about the Space Program, "No bucks, no Buck Rogers!" Is it ideal? Perhaps not. But until someone can come up with a viable alternative it's the only way the majority of the world can see items which represent pinnacles of human existence.

The fact remains, private collections have a large number of the worlds "Masterpieces". Some are individuals, some are governments, none are going to let you see what they have. To that extent I can only say I prefer the opportunity to partake of what's available as long as I can afford it.

Museums are a business, no matter what we might wish for otherwise. Because they are businesses, they have to have some form of income both to maintain their existing collection (and pay the staff, the light bill, security, the mortgage, and everything else that costs money) and to accumulate additional items that fit their point of focus. Unless they are extremely lucky and have generous benefactors, the main way they achieve their goals is by charging visitors an entry fee. They also promise some access to exclusive showings for more money, and if you donate enough, put your name up in lights showing how nice of a person you are. I am OK with all of it as long as the income is actually used to cover the costs of the collection.

Allan, it sounds like your premise is that a museum displays a few well-known pieces in order to sell tickets and make a profit. I don't know of any museums that opened their doors in order to make money. It's not that long ago that the Met in NY did not charge admission. The Getty in LA still doesn't. Does the British Museum now? It didn't in the past.

When you eat at a buffet, do you choose one dish for your meal and savor it slowly or do you take much smaller portions of many dishes, maybe only tasting some before abandoning them, enjoying small bits of others and even going back for seconds on others.

The Louvre, like many other museums and perhaps more than most, has a variety of free and low-cost resources to enhance your visit. The Mona Lisa has been on display for over a century. From wiki: In 1911, the painting was still not popular among the lay-public. On 21 August 1911, the painting was stolen from the Louvre. This seems to be the beginning of its fame. So it's quite a stretch to claim that it's on display merely or mostly or even partly as a source of revenue.

Lastly, it's my understanding that museums need the revenue to keep their doors open and that profit is neither a goal nor an achievement.

What Robintz said. I find the more tiny details in a painting the more I look at it. I may even grab hubby and tell him to come take a look, but I'd say 95% of the art gets a cursory glance. I recall one at the National Art Gallery by Jan van der Heyden, who I've never heard of - but as the description said - minute brushstrokes rendering precise detail - so I stared at the individually painted rocks in the road and the leaf work on the trees - such attention to detail. The Rubens also caught my eye because of the detail.

Allan, it sounds like your premise is that a museum displays a few
well-known pieces in order to sell tickets and make a profit.

Sort of. But not necessarily as profit, but simply to generate revenue.

My basis for all of the art questions I've been asking over the past few months is to figure out an industry(?) that I don't understand, and try to determine how I can fit into it as I try to expand my tourism goals. I love museums for the history and stories behind the artifacts, but when I look at art, I'm not getting it on an artistic level. Personally, I'm fine with museums if they feel the need to drive revenue through a few pieces of art for the greater good of the entire collection, I'm even OK if the goal is profit, as long as the history and heritage is preserved. The Louvre's Mission Statement says all the right things, but when it comes to Mona, it seems like it's a cattle call with no thought to allowing the masses to actually enjoy the painting. Thus, is it necessary to sacrifice the greatness(?) of Mona for the benefit of art in general? I'm OK with that. I was just asking, trying to figure out what makes other people tick when it comes to art.

Thanks for starting such a provocative discussion Allan.

Art, great or not, has the opportunity to give us a glimpse into the past, stir emotions, and challenge our world view. Museums have a role of preserving art and that preservation cost money, so in absence of large benefactors, charging to see the most popular and/or the most important works is one way to make money. So for me, I don’t mind paying a modest entry fee or a fee to see a special exhibit.

Visiting art museums around the globe is one of my favorite activities when I travel and I could spend hours in a museum. My husband, however, is an hour tops. Taking a docent tour, using a RS audio tour, or museum tour is one way for us to focus on the highlights. There are times, for example, at the Borghese and the Orsay, when even my husband felt 2 hours was not enough to fully appreciate the art. We once visited the Tate Modern and saw an exhibit on sustainability and ten years on, my husband stills talks about the exhibit and how he wished we would have spent more time. I still remember the first time I saw Guernica and I was struck by how emotional I was looking at the painting. I must have spent 30 minutes just on that one piece of art.

So for art, a quick glance is fine for some pieces, others compel me to stop look and feel. I will be interested in continuing to read feedback on this topic.

Sandy

In museums like the Prado or Lourve, there are so many paintings that you can’t spend much time at any one, unless you’re returning to the museums multiple times and focusing on particular eras, or artists. When only visiting once in a lifetime, you want to see as much as possible. The downside is, you can’t really appreciate what it is you’re looking at.

15 seconds? I am surprised it is even that high as an average. I actually enjoy art, mostly Renaissance and Impressionist/Early Modern, with some Dutch Masters thrown in, and through course, have a decent knowledge of artists and their works. Going to an Art Museum is nearly always on the agenda, good for several hours.

However, in a room of 30-40 works, many warrant a glance, some a bit more, and a few longer study, in a large museum and several hours, that limits how much you can see...yes, you could spend many more hours there, but like visiting every church, you soon get burnout and fail to appreciate what you see. So it is fine if you graze over art, take in what you can, and what you have interest for, and if you really feel you need to do more, make another trip.

I hope you won't mind a story from a professional (yes, a Ph.D in Art History) Art Historian. When I was in grad school, a very famous faculty member told our seminar how he learned to look carefully at paintings. He was living in London as a young boy during WW II, his family having fled Germany (fortunately) when things were starting to get bad for Jews. During the Blitz, many of the National Gallery's holdings were evacuated - but not all. According to my professor, to keep up morale the Gallery exhibited one work in a special case that could be lowered into a secure basement in the event of an air raid. They changed the painting every so often (maybe once a month? a week? I don't remember). In any case, he used to go every day on his lunch break to look at whatever masterpiece was on display. This sustained encounter with a single work over several visits changed his life and taught him how to look at art with discernment.

A few remarks on other matters: most museums are barely making it. They make more money on their gift shops and on their cafes than they do on admission fees.

Sometimes, I have a hard time "settling" in a museum. I find that if I go to gallery that presents something about which I know absolutely nothing (Japanese ceramics, for example), I feel no pressure other than to enjoy what they offer me visually. That usually calms me down enough for the more "serious" viewing. You can enjoy art without Art History, but it is so much better if you have a frame of reference. Gallery talks are great for that and in most institutions these are imaginative and engaging.

Finally, there is plenty of great art outside of museums (probably with fewer crowds). Once in Rome, my husband and I looked at as many Caravaggio altarpieces we could find in situ - that's how they were made to be seen, after all. And don't overlook the lesser known, less frequented museums and galleries.

Very much looking forward to doing this all again post-COVID 19.

Julie, your post brought back so many good memories.

On a visit to the Art Institute of Chicago, a docent had us sit on the floor to look at some Japanese screens. It made us spend more time looking at them as she explained that they were painted to be viewed from that angle and could be most appreciated that way. She also told us that the Japanese would change the picture hanging on a wall about once a week . . . after a week it becomes so familiar that you stop looking at it.

On another tour there, the docent had us stand quite close to a largish Monet painting (for others reading this, the museum has a wonderful collection of his works) and had us slowly walk backward away from the painting to see what Monet intended us to see. I have never understood why people looking at Impressionist works stand so close!

The Art Institute is the one sight I always return to on my trips to Chicago. Darn it, I was supposed to be there now!

And lastly, you reminded me of seeing two huge Caravaggios in Malta. Even though I was on a tour, there was sufficient time (well, never enough really) to absorb and enjoy both.

Unless a museum is requiring visitors to pass some test before entering, then how they view the collection isn’t going to have to meet some standard. It’s great if they don’t prevent others’ opportunities to see pieces or installations too long, and they shouldn’t somehow damage something. If no photos are to be taken, then cameras shouldn’t be used.

An average time means that some are spending more time evaluating and appreciating something, and other people, far less.

If someone pays the admission fee, or makes a voluntary donation to an admission-free museum, that’s helping the museum to acquire and maintain the art, both famous pieces and less famous. Operating a museum, right down to the bag and coat check, requires some funding, and getting people into the museum helps keep it going. Once there, stay as long as your schedule allows. Repeat.

You can enjoy art without Art History, but it is so much better if you
have a frame of reference. Gallery talks are great for that and in
most institutions these are imaginative and engaging.

But there are good reasons why folks spend so little time looking at
any given piece of art (or anything else for that matter) and
interest/ inclination is only part of it. Presentation/time/guide (or
lack of) players a huge part as well.

Julie and Douglas, this is what I'm figuring out as well. I'm coming to the conclusion that I'm likely never going to appreciate art for just being art. I need the story that goes along with it. I have to wonder if art is different than a typical historical object at a museum. With a painting, there are those of us that need a story, while others have commented above that they can just sit a view a piece of art for its beauty. I don't think a historical object has both those things, it typically just has the story.

It depends on the piece. I'll probably spend 90 percent of my time looking at less than 10 percent of the pieces in any given gallery. When I walk in a room, whether at the Louvre, Orsay, Prado, Hermitage, etc. I quickly glance around and see if there are works I want to really view. Sometimes there may be none, other times I may want to view half the pieces in the room.

I definitely focus on the art that appeals to me personally rather than focus on the most famous artists or works in the gallery (unless they appeal to me). I often wonder how many people visit galleries and only notice the pieces specifically included in the audio guide?

I'm not sure I could create a meaningful average viewing time? There would be a large number of works that are under a few seconds, almost none where I spend more than ten seconds but under a minute, and a small number where I'll spend anywhere from a minute to ten minutes (or more).

Style matters. What does the gallery offer? I'll spend a lot longer viewing impressionists than modern art - but that's personal taste.

I think the amount of time each person spends in front of a work of art depends upon that person’s interest, educational background regarding that work or genre, time, physical ability & energy.

We're doing both, see my previous post if interested in the details of that.

My time is often a function of my physical stamina -- I lose interest if I have developed "museum feet" after walking on hard floors too long. At the Orangerie in Paris I can sit for a half hour surrounded by Monet's waterlilies (actually, pictures viewable from a bench often get more time than they would if I had to stand.) Sometimes a quick review from the middle of the room is adequate, other times certain artworks resonate and call for more time.

Good Topic.
Being a capitalist - I am all for various "positive" venues making moolah to keep the doors open. Usually, money comes from multiple sources - tickets, fund raisers, donations, etc.. Nothing wrong with using masterpieces to attract people. Museums need to have a business side - marketing.

Look at how much people spend for a Super Bowl football game. It's practically become an unofficial national holiday. Plus, teams use cheerleaders and star football players to bring in the crowds and revenue.

The more money museums have - the more the museum can do for the community.