How to look at art

Rick has an entire series on art appreciation. Just click on Watch, Read, Listen then click on TV Shows and the Art of Europe series is first on the list.

To help me I purchased Rick’s books Europe’s Top 100 Masterpieces and Europe 101: History and Art for the Traveler

Allan, in addition to the Rick Steves' suggestion, Smithsonian Associates has short online courses (often 1-night for just a few hours) that I think are open to any registrant. Oxford Continuing Ed offers online courses as well. I know you're in Alberta, so perhaps also look at similar offerings closer to home? I think some of the Great Courses series may be available through library systems who have Kanopy--that's a potential option.

https://smithsonianassociates.org/ticketing/programs/
https://www.conted.ox.ac.uk/

There are a number of courses that will give an interested person a background in art history or in "understanding" how to use historical context, aesthetics, style, methods, personal knowledge, etc. to better enjoy art museum visits. At a quick google glance, some on Youtube, the Great Courses Series (may be available through a local library), PBS series - the old Sister Wendy series, other free college sponsored video courses.

Museum guided tours and audio guides are also good at pointing out what may not at first be obvious. I wouldn't hesitate to continue that method of self-learning.

I applaud your interest. I also wanted mention that a sibling, even after a childhood of art museum visits and some formal coursework, couldn't appreciate in the same manner as the rest of my family. Interestingly, it turned out that the sib had a slight color blindness - couldn't discriminate the subtleties in the artwork. It made sense then that art museum visits didn't give the same immediate pleasure that the rest of us enjoyed.

In my opinion, good luck with the Rijksmuseum. I love seeing the famous paintings and artwork I have only seen in books. It really is different when you can see them in person. But I was having a problem with that museum. Other than seeing Rembrandt’s amazing The Dutch Masters, I was overwhelmed with how the museum felt dark and dreary. Maybe you should try the Van Gogh Museum as it is filled with natural light and feels vibrant…..because if you’re having a hard time appreciating art, dark and dreary ain’t gonna help….

I read the BBC article. I have been exposed to this approach - I will not indicate where as I thought it very poorly done and quite offensive, treating the gallery visitors as "dunderheads" without any ability to think or see for themselves. Hopefully, it is better executed in Manchester. It strikes me as less helpful an approach than actively teaching/showing/demonstrating to visitors how they might approach a work within the context and interests of their own lives.

If you are interested in a very fine course that would be very relevant for the Rijksmusem, I can recommend William Kloss: Dutch Masters: The Age of Rembrandt. Available from The Great Courses Plus. (we could get it from the library, but I don't know about Canadian library systems) We have recommended it to several people who found it valuable. It would, obviously, require a time commitment (and interests) that not everyone has.

I haven't been to the Rijksmusem in years, so I don't know anything about the current curation. Many museums have curator notes next to paintings that can give important historical or other contextual background that can help viewers "understand" the work better. Recognizing how the museum or exhibition is laid out - chronologically or thematically can also help with appreciation.

Also, don't worry about boredom - look for something that simply appeals to you. The aesthetic at work!

Personally I like watching documentaries about museums (also Rijksmusem) and about pieces of art which explain the contexts and backgrounds and also focus on detailed highlights. In the meantime I get more and more an own feeling and enthusiasm for art but sometimes it is still just with food tasting: I simply like it - or not. So worth a try.

Allan

I’ve only seen a few of Sister Wendy’s episodes, but perhaps Sister Wendy’s Grand Tour: Amsterdam (ten minutes) or Sister Wendy’s Story of Painting (10 episodes, just under 30 minutes, each) might be of some interest. You can find these on You Tube.

She is quite insightful. She probes the expressions, relationships and gestures of the subjects of paintings, the composition, the history and the inner stories. She appreciates the emotions and sensuality that are there when you more deeply examine the painting - with frankness and sensitivity that you’d not expect from a nun who wears such a traditional habit.

I have a fairly pragmatic view of enjoying art.

I tend not to worry too much about interpretation. A lot of people get hung up on "what does it mean?" instead of just enjoying the object for what it is.

An example of that that I can think of is enjoying the Dutch Masters. There was a sea change in technique that blew everything out the water that had come before. The way Rembrandt or Vermeer were able to capture light had never been seen before, yet on the surface many of the paintings are of entirely dull, mundane subjects. Once you start looking at the light in these works they become magical, just through sheer strength of technique.

As far as more abstract work, I tend to go with whether it pleases me aesthetically or not. If I can look at something and think to myself "that looks cool" that's enough to satisfy me. It doesn't need to go any deeper than that for me to enjoy it.

I worked at a national gallery and art museum group here in London for best part of a decade. I don't have any education in art (or anything past high school for that matter) but my colleagues were people who had dedicated their lives to their particular fields in art. Maybe it's a degree of arrogance on my part, but I was never made to feel dumb or ignorant by these people who were experts globally. I felt able to have opinions on work, though my line manager was someone who resolutely espoused staying neutral around artists and curators. I was often surprised how much my opinion mattered. I just tried to keep an open mind when helping artists realise their vision in showing their work in the gallery, but to fully engage and do the best I could, offering advice based on my opinions was something I became less shy about doing as time went on. I gained an art education just through a process of osmosis being around art, artists and academics all day.

The "all modern art is rubbish" doctrine is one I've never subscribed to, but is really common. I think keeping an open mind is key, even if on the surface the object seems to hold little artistic merit. If it makes you "feel" in some way or another, it's art.

The "all modern art is rubbish" doctrine is one I've never subscribed to, but is really common.

Certainly there is a great deal of modern art that is wonderful: art that elevates one's mood, elevates one's understanding or simply that is beautiful. Unfortunately, as one can see at such venues as MOMA in New York and Tate Modern in London, there's a lot of déchet that masquerades as art, and the charlatans who produce it profit from ridiculousness.

Margie, I'm sorry you found the Rijksmuseum to be dark and depressing. That was quite different from our experience. I wonder, did you perhaps visit in winter? I recall a lot of ambient light from skylights and the like that wouldn't add much illumination in winter.

I'd add a vote for Sister Wendy's episode on what you're going to see. I have her DVD series.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_Beckett

[snip]
Wendy Mary Beckett[1] (25 February 1930 – 26 December 2018), better known as Sister Wendy, was a British Catholic religious sister and art historian[2] who became known internationally during the 1990s when she presented a series of BBC television documentaries on the history of art.[

Unfortunately, as one can see at such venues as MOMA in New York and Tate Modern in London, there's a lot of déchet that masquerades as art, and the charlatans who produce it profit from ridiculousness.

Eh. I don't see it like that at all. In my experience very few people who are creating are doing it to profit from ridiculousness or as some sort of masquerade. I can't think of a single charlatan I met in all my time working at one of those galleries you mention. People are generally driven to create just because that's what they do, not as any sort of pretence. You may find what they create ridiculous but in my experience most folks making work are doing it for the "right" reasons. I might look at some artists who fell off and succumbed later in their careers cough, Jeff Koons, Damien Hirst but they are the exception as far as I'm concerned.

Anyway, I love a bit of ridiculousness. Absurdity is one of my favourite things. I like to refer back to Martin Creed when this sort of topic comes up. One of my all-time favourite artists who is a master of the absurd and the "wtf" object.

For the Rijksmuseum in particular I highly recommend spending some time on their website in advance of your visit. The “Stories” section is full of great information that will help you figure out what you want to see and give context to help appreciate it.

They also have an outstanding app with audio tours and other hints. You can find it on the website under Visit - Practical information. If I remember correctly, you can save a list of the works you want to see and then use the app to find them when you are at the museum.

Have a wonderful visit.

Allan, I have so many thoughts for you, possibly helpful ones, but they will have to wait a bit. However, here's a great place to start for this particular art gallery ---- https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/stories

I'd probably add Warhol to the list of people who produced derivative dross for cash later in their careers. See much of his commissioned celebrity / millionaire portrait work from the late 70's and 80's.

Oh, good grief --- I didn't even have the patience to read the whole article....my brain shuts off when there is any talk of "mindfulness."

When viewing art, pacing is everything. After a period of time (two hours-ish for me) my brain can't handle any more artistic input and it's time to go - everything starts to look the same and nothing is amazing. So I review the museum info in advance, figure out what I most want to see, and go there first, looking neither to the right or left. (I've seen Rick recommend this approach in large museums too.) Then everything else you see is gravy. So this may help you hone in on a type of art, or an era, that appeals to you.

When viewing specific paintings, I first look at the overall vibe, then come closer (if possible) and look at brushstrokes, colors, etc. I also look at the nameplate to find out how old it is - somehow the older, the more amazing to me. I've found my favorites tend to be oil on board, with extra points for using palate knife and having many layers. Thinking about all this helps me visualize the artist themselves, which makes it more interesting.

People are generally driven to create

One creates something when one defecates. It's much of a muchness IMO with most of what's exhibited at MOMA. I say this as someone who's created a fair amount of art myself that has won awards at juried shows. Without some elevation of mood, spirit or morals, or at the very least depiction of beauty, I don't believe such creations deserve to be exhibited as art. Others no doubt disagree.

If it makes you "feel" in some way or another, it's art.

Dog ends squashed on the sidewalk, having not been retrieved by the dog's owner, make me feel uneasy and queasy. But they're not art.

Having said all this, the Rijksmuseum is IMO one of the absolutely finest art museums on earth. It saddens me that some visitors find it unappealing. But I understand how lighting and mood can affect us all.

One thing that gives me hope with the Rijksmuseum is that the Dutch art seems more real. Real people, real clothing, real situations. Most of the time when I think of art I think of Renaissance Art, and looking at it bores me. I considered the Stedelijik Museum, but baby steps.

Another thought, but does me no good for this trip is I've always liked Pop Art. But I've never seen a Pop Art museum. Warhol's and Liechtenstein's stuff amuses me.

but this time I want to try and look at the art to see if I can appreciate it. Does that make sense?

This makes perfect sense. The ability to paint so well that it looks like a photograph amazes the hell out of me. Sculptures even more amazing. I zero in on noted works of art first in any museum. I then begin to walk and look. If I see something that catches my eye, I stop and look closer and read who it is and when it was painted and admire. If it doesn't attract me, I walk on by. This makes for me a great art experience without boring the daylights out of me. I guess I admire the talent more so than the reason the painting or sculpture was done in the first place. One is art appreciation and the other is art history.

One creates something when one defecates. It's much of a muchness IMO with most of what's exhibited at MOMA.

Haha! Shots fired! Excrement has its place in the gallery too y'know. One of my favourite paintings, Chris Ofili's No Woman No Cry is displayed propped up on two lumps of elephant dung.

Without some elevation of mood, spirit or morals, or at the very least depiction of beauty, I don't believe such creations deserve to be exhibited as art.

Yeah, well, I tend to play a bit more fast and loose with my definition. I personally don't like to get too hung up on what is and isn't art. If someone presents it as a work of art that's good enough for me. Who am I to tell them it isn't?

Dog ends squashed on the sidewalk, having not been retrieved by the dog's owner, make me feel uneasy and queasy. But they're not art.

Continuing along your scatological theme, you've obviously never seen John Waters' Pink Flamingos. That has some uneasy scenes featuring dog sh*t, but I'd definitely call that art.

Anyway. we're lowering the tone of Allan's thread :) I'll shut up for a while!

Allan--Honestly, if you have little interest in art, don't force it. It is like anything else travel related. You get to decide what you like or don't like. I have little interest in art. In college I took Art Appreciate as an elective. OMG, that was my hardest class as I just could not get into it. I had to change it to pass/fail instead of a grade, I was so bad. I tried so hard too. Now that I am an adult, I get to make the decisions of whether or not I want to see something. Some people like art, others like nature, others like cruises, etc. I have been to numerous museums, and don't mind taking a quick look, but spending any amount of time in one is a living hell for me.

Allan, look at what you like. Don't feel like you have to explore every painting. There is art that calls to me sometimes, and art that is just begging to be ignored. It's not bad art, but art is VERY personal (IMO).

I usually walk into a room and just start looking around till something catches my eye. Once it does, I go over and figure out why I like it. Sometimes it's the colors and vibrancy; sometimes it's the delicacy of certain features in the painting and sometimes just the sheer outrageousness of it. But it's always something. Some are paintings I recognize, and I feel like I'm visiting a long lost friend.

But once you're done looking, walk away and find something else you like. Sometimes I will only look at one painting in a room; sometimes more. But don't study something if it doesn't appeal to you. Life's too short for that.

One thing I do remember is that the area around the Rijksmuseum had a lot of art galleries with some really funky modern art, including some pop art, so if you wanted to see some of that, I would try walking around there afterwards. Also, the Moco Museum is fairly close to the Rijks and that is all modern.

Art is what affects people. The bigger the affect the bigger the Art.

Unfortunately, as has been mentioned, disgust is also an affect. But if the affect is big enough (great enough?) people will come and see it. And then there is using the affect as part of something else.

I prefer other Art. You do you.

Because we didn't have much time, we only went to the Van Gogh museum, which is amazing, in my opinion.

The RS book, 100 masterpieces is a great intro to art, so much so that I purchased my own copy. It is available in many libraries. I can't recall if any of the works in the guide can be found at the Riijksmuseum. Nonetheless, it is a great start.

It pays to learn a bit before the visit. There are about 10 RS episodes that discuss artwork from Prehistoric times to the present, I think it is excellent. You can find it on PBS passport, perhaps, other places.

When I took my college aged daughters to the Louvre, we talked to the folks at the visitors' desk. They had brochures that folks could use to explore the museum on their own.

What I didn't like about the Rijk Museum is that the most famous pieces are all put in the Hall of Honor, so that's where the crowds go. Even with timed tickets, I felt this museum was too busy and noisy. And since the crowds are mainly in the same places, it's hard to just stand and appreciate the piece. I was also disappointed that so many folks in the Hall were just sitting on the benches and interacting with their phones- why come?
I wish I had taken a tour, but the schedules didn't all coordinate .
Good luck, Allan!

Re modern art, by which most actually mean contemporary art, the idea that it's a mass scam is unrealistic. If one wants a legitimate complaint to direct at contemporary art, it's that too much of it is concept art based on concepts that were thoroughly worked through up to 100 years ago. It's not a scam, but much of it is stale and uninspired. Taping a banana to a wall isn't avantgarde, it's tired. Duchamp's snow shovel and urinal don't really need to be perpetually restated. He worked out the concept in 1915. Adding and element of decay to the general concept is not a particularly inspired insight.

So yeah, most contemporary art I see nowadays more or less fits into avantgarde movements established between 1880 and 1980.

It might be cool, but it isn't new. Which is not to say that there isn't a lot of fun, interesting contemporary art out there. Maybe it isn't for everybody, and perhaps it courts pretension and requires connoisseurship to appreciate, but that doesn't mean it's crap, rather just not for you.

And not to mention, but you should view these programs at the highest quality (resolution, accuracy...) possible.

If you have a BlueRay player you might want to see if your library has discs for what we've discussed. I got the Sister Wendy DVD series from a Library sale.

Lots of great ideas. Here’s my two cents.
Prior to when we began traveling we knew very little about art. A friend told us “before you go to an art museum pick 5-10 pieces to focus on. You can’t take all the works in— it’s just too much. Watch some youtube videos to get a feel for what you like at the museum you’re visiting”. RS books also guided us. That first trip we picked the Vermeer as it represented real life and we were drawn in by this video https://youtu.be/mVkAvYhgW8c?feature=shared.
We have now studied and viewed 13 Vermeer paintings and sometimes plan trips around them. We would like to see them all. This next trip will have four more. We’re saving the ones in the states for last (Unfortunately I was having health issues when many were at the Rijksmuseum and we missed that).
We also have had traveled to see the art recovered in the movie “The Monuments Men”. I realize this is a novice approach but I am amazed at how we have developed an appreciation without feeling overwhelmed or ignorant.

Hi Allan. Two suggestions:
(1) Rijksmuseum has a great free app you can put on your phone to get background on specific works that interest you or to make your own custom tour. The app is described on the museum's website.
(2) Your post make me think of this article that guides students on how to "read" and analyze visual material that might be used in a historical study. It is not specifically about great art but more about looking for the story being told. It might be too academic for your purpose, but maybe it will be useful.

I know a couple of people have mentioned The Great Courses. I used to subscribe and I watched the course called "How to Look at and Understand Great Art". I would definitely recommend it. If you don't want to or can't subscribe just to watch one course, I did see a used set of the DVD's (for this course) for sale on Amazon for $6.99. It really is a good course and helped me a lot. Also, my library has a lot of their courses on DVD that you can borrow. Not sure if the Canadian libraries carry those but if they do you could check there also. I also watched their course on Northern European Art (which the Rijksmuseum has a lot of) that would also be helpful for what you're going to see there.

Dutch art seems more real. Real people, real clothing, real situations.

Allan, this is why I love Vermeer. And seeing the art itself, rather than reproductions or photos is itself important, if possible. There are a number of paintings, included some by Vermeer, that I didn't like at all... until I saw them in person. They come to life.

I like the idea of just looking at a painting, and imagining the story. What are the people doing? How are they interacting? What, if anything, are they holding or looking at? Are there any onlookers in the picture? And if one character in a crowd scene is looking at you, the viewer, chances are excellent it's a self-portrait of the artist!

I recently read "Adventures in the Louvre" by Elaine Sciolino. In it, she recommends that to keep children's interest in a museum, have them look for something specific: animals, perhaps; or cars or houses or flowers... (Or embedded self-portraits of the artist.) Not a bad idea, especially if one is having trouble focusing, or is being overwhelmed by massive amounts of art.

Also, take small bites. Most museums have a cafe, or coffee shop, or gift shop. Take frequent breaks. Just sit and close your eyes, if necessary. I have a focusing problem, and can only take short visits without stopping to rest my eyes.

And have fun. Don't worry about taking it seriously. And if someone near you is pontificating about "what the artist is saying here," just politely and unobtrusively walk away. I read an interview last week with an artist who said, once the art is out of his studio, it is no longer his, and the meaning, if any, comes from each individual viewer, regardless of what the artist had in mind.

Have fun. October? We'll be in France then. Will you only be in Amsterdam?

Oh, and what Renee said.

October? We'll be in France then. Will you only be in Amsterdam?

Hi Jane, Amsterdam for 2 days then off to Bruges, Belgium for 5 days, then to Arras, France for 2 days and then Leiden near Amsterdam for 2 days, then home. https://community.ricksteves.com/travel-forum/belgium/spontaneous-trip-decision-know-next-to-nothing-about-where-we-re-going

We were in Amsterdam for 3 days in May before a river cruise followed by some time in Switzerland. https://community.ricksteves.com/travel-forum/trip-reports/trip-report-amsterdam-to-zurich-by-boat-and-train Long story short, due to some flight issues with KLM we were given vouchers that we cashed in for this spontaneous trip.

The closest we'll be to your itinerary is Paris.

I posted a trip report about Leiden - I thought it was last year, but it was evidently 2023. How the time does fly!

https://community.ricksteves.com/travel-forum/trip-reports/one-more-mini-trip-report-four-days-in-leiden-and-one-night-at-a-schiphol-hotel

And a review of our hotel: https://community.ricksteves.com/travel-forum/netherlands-reviews/city-hotel-nieuw-minerva-leiden-the-netherlands

And an older trip report, in two parts because I forgot to add the second part in the comments...

https://community.ricksteves.com/travel-forum/trip-reports/lovely-leiden-with-a-brief-stop-in-den-haag

https://community.ricksteves.com/travel-forum/trip-reports/lovely-leiden-part-2

I love the idea of a spontaneous trip, something we almost never pull off.

Edit to add: I was just rereading the 2018 report; the information about TripKey is outdated; now you can just use a tap card to pay for public transport. I'm sure there are more points in that report that are outdated, prices for sure!

I agree with Mardee’s approach. Art museums can be overwhelming and there is usually far more art than anyone can look at. You are allowed to pick and choose. Art is for enjoyment, not writing a college essay about the artist or their millieu. In the Rijksmuseum, definitely check out the Dutch masters. They’ve earned that moniker for a reason and back when I knew nothing about art (still don’t know much, honestly) I was blown away by the realism they achieved.
These days I wander through galleries and glance at most pieces until something catches my eye. The ones that do are the ones that I will read the placard, and then I start looking closer at the details. How did Rembrandt create that lighting effect? What are the people in the background of the Brueghel picture doing? Etc etc etc. Don’t force it, and whatever you do, have fun.

Allan--Honestly, if you have little interest in art, don't force it. It is like anything else travel related. You get to decide what you like or don't like.

THIS!! Absolutely. Those to whom art is not enjoyable shouldn't feel obligated to spend hours at, say, the Louvre "just because."

My wife and I enjoyed a very brief visit to the Cotswolds, where we saw undeniably beautiful English landscapes before returning to the city, where we're much more at ease. Having to stay several days in Chipping Campden would've been unpleasant for us, while many more people regard it as heaven.

Everyone has different interests. Vive la différence!

My husband has very patiently gone around churches, museums, and art galleries with me for decades, and every once in a while finds a painting or something he truly enjoys. He is a far more generous and mellow human being than I am.

I have not reciprocated much with doing things that interest him that I find incredibly boring (cooking classes, long dinner parties with people I don’t know, learning languages, opera and other music stuff, fishing/camping/hiking, etc.).

Lately, I’ve tried to get better about keeping him company, going with him to the espresso machine museum and the natural history museum in Florence for example (actually, both were way more interesting than I thought they would be, so I hope you will be pleasantly surprised at the Rijksmuseum). But when “trapped” (my usual word) doing one of these things with him, I have survival strategies that rarely include trying to “appreciate” the activity itself.

When we do go some place together, it does help to separate and each see the things that interest us — I know that the Rijks has a bunch of stuff that is not paintings or sculptures. There is a nice ship model, a marquetry cabinet and other furniture, a collection of old locks and keys, and illustrations from an old encyclopedia of the world’s plants, animals, and birds (in the tapestry gallery).
Here are some more ideas — https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-hidden-masterpieces-rijksmuseum

For what it's worth, I don’t think I really Appreciate Art the way some people do, despite knowing a lot about it. At the Rijks, I liked the early painters but no amount of knowledge helped me with the Night Watch and the portraits and later paintings. I look for art that I think is FUNNY rather than beautiful or famous or important or whatever, such as the painting of the Tree of Jesse that shows "Jesse’s rod" arising from just where you’d think it would and becoming an actual leafy tree with elaborately costumed people sitting uncomfortably on its branches, with Mary and baby Jesus perched on top like a cherry on a sundae.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Geertgen_tot_Sint_Jans,_Circle_of_-_Tree_of_Jesse_-_WGA16298.jpg

Good luck, and please report on your Rijksmuseum visit when you get back!

Allan, definitely get the audio app for the Rike. It’s excellent and you can go in any order you want as the art is numbered and you put the number into the audio guide and then it tells you about the art. Don’t worry about not being an art lover. Your overthinking this. Enjoy what you can and move on to the next piece if it doesn’t grab you.
You weren’t an engineer in your profession were you? Lol!

My husband has very patiently gone around churches, museums, and art galleries with me for decades, and every once in a while finds a painting or something he truly enjoys.... I have not reciprocated much with doing things that interest him that I find incredibly boring...

nancys8, do you and your husband ever split up and each do their own thing? For example, you visit a museum while he's taking a cooking class? I'm not married but I have traveled with friends occasionally and we would often split up and do our own thing. I'm just curious. :-)

Mardee, oh for sure, and we do this more and more every year. Like in Florence last fall for more than a month, he did language classes all week while I did art history classes at the British Institute and visited or re-visited many churches, etc. Then on weekends, we did some day trips together. This fall, in Lecce, he'll be doing an all-day every day cooking course for a week, while I am doing my own stuff. It works fine. But so does me just being more open to going to places like a knife museum or a car museum.

But so does me just being more open to going to places like a knife museum or a car museum.

I definitely get that. When I was in London, my granddaughter really wanted to visit an illusion museum. I wasn't thrilled but figured I'd go and be bored while they enjoyed themselves. But it actually turned out to be lots of fun. I think I enjoyed almost as much as they did. Regardless, that sounds like a good system that the two of you have!

For the sake of other potential visitors to the Rijksmuseum, I just want to circle back to the OP in which Allan stated they’ve already booked their museum tickets for October. While I appreciate that some people want to organize things, there is no need to book the Rijksmuseum this far in advance. Unless there is a special exhibit going on, time slots for the Rijksmuseum rarely if ever sell out. For tomorrow and the days after, there are still plenty of tickets available, including for the most desired first time slots of the day at 9:00 and 10:00.
Tickets to the Rijksmuseum are non-refundable, so if you have to cancel for some reason you won’t get your money back.

In Amsterdam, the Anne Frank house and to a lesser extent the Van Gogh Museum are a completely different story. These museums do need to be booked well in advance.

Allan,

I enjoy art museums, but like KC, I need to keep my visits to 2, or at most 3, hours before I need to do something else (preferably outside if it's a nice day). My approach overlaps with those described by KC, Mardee, and Renee. In a large museum, I choose a few works I want to see, or a few rooms to explore. When I go into a room, I quickly look around and see what interests me and spend most of my time looking at those pieces. I look first, then listen to the audioguide if I want to learn more. Before leaving the museum, I usually circle back for a second look at a some of my favorites.

We were planning to visit the Rijksmuseum this week, but we had to cancel our trip. I really hope to get there, especially to see the Vermeers, sometime in the next year or so. We saw the documentary Vermeer: The Greatest Exhibition (a collaboration between the Rijksmuseum and Mauritshuis) in a theater a year or two ago. It's available through Kanopy in my local library. It's might also be available through Amazon Prime.

I hope enjoy your visit.

My wife just discovered that the Rijksmuseum has a fashion section so we'll be going there. It reminds me how we visited a fashion museum in Bath in 2018 and how I found something interesting to contemplate. Here's an excerpt from that Trip Report:

While Carla and Gladys were studying the clothing in intricate detail
I was left to my own pace and I stopped even more times than I thought
I would. One exhibit in particular that caught my attention was a
beaver pelt top hat. As a Canadian, it occurred to me just how much
Canadian history is in that hat. Canada was founded by the explorers
and fur traders that trapped the beavers and sent the pelts back to
Europe because they were the ‘hot’ item in the fashion industry at the
time. You could say Canada was founded by the fashion industry.

So I guess the answer is I'll never know what amuses me until I find it.

When I want to spend time in a fashion exhibit, Hubby generally spends time in the cafe. (He is a good sport and joined me in Bath’s Fashion Museum!)

When my husband & I traveled together, we mostly went to the same activities and stayed together. But planning our trip to England & Wales in 2023, I had us each mark 5 activities in London that we would like to do. He really wanted to see Churchill’s War Room, and I had zero interest in it. We looked at our votes to see which one of my activities I could do while he was there. He was glad he had the chance to see the war room, and I enjoyed my morning at the V&A museum - win-win.

During that same trip, he played golf two times at my suggestion while I explored Conwy & Chester. Those were one of the highlights of our trip for him. That was our 45th anniversary trip, and his golf didn’t take away from any of the wonderful memories I have of that special trip. On another trip, I took a croissant pastry class in Paris while he did a different activity. He really benefited from that one for several years - LOL! On another trip, I attended the opera in Venice. He had no desire to have to sit through it but was fine that I wanted to go. When I came out of the opera house that evening, there he was (surprised me) to walk me back to the hotel. It was such a touching, thoughtful gesture - so much his character! I’m just sharing these to show that doing a few separate activities doesn’t mean you’re avoiding each other; it can bring out moments of gratitude for each other.

My suggestion would be to look at what else perks your interest & check if you could meet back up at a cafe near the museum afterwards.

It's interesting how looking at art has changed so much in the last decade or two. Things that are really Instagramable are very popular these days, both with the general public and curators know that it's something that makes a profit. Moco Museum, which Mardee mentioned, is the clearest manifestation of this yet. Some pop art, modern art and contemporary art presented in an unthreatening way for people to take their picture in front of. It seems to be working for them so far.

There might even be an argument for the gallery and the object actually being redundant these days. Who needs to go to some place to see something when you can see it online?

There was a thread recently where someone asked how much time they need to spend at The National Gallery. It's definitely a "how long is a piece of string?" question. You could easily spend all day 10-6 in there. Or have one painting you really want to see and just go in to see that. Both are totally valid ways of seeing a gallery. I've only been to The National Gallery a couple of times, and not for a while. I'd be lucky if I've seen half of what they have on display over two visits. It doesn't matter if you don't see it all. Not to me anyway.

A good example of only going to a place to see one painting for me is Salvador Dali's "Christ St John of the Cross". It's been in Glasgow's public collection for years and I grew up going to look at it often. I think anyone who had a reasonably cultured upbringing in 70's or 80's Glasgow would have least known of its existence even if they hadn't seen it. I looked at that painting a lot.
You can still look at it over and over to this day if you desire. It's back at Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum, albeit displayed in a different way from my childhood memories. It had a brief stay at St Mungo's Museum of Religious Life too.

https://www.mocomuseum.com/

https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/lifestyle/lifestyle/23704473.story-iconic-dali-painting-leaves-glasgow

https://www.glasgowlife.org.uk/museums/venues/kelvingrove-art-gallery-and-museum

https://www.visitscotland.com/info/see-do/kelvingrove-art-gallery-and-museum-p246571

https://www.visitscotland.com/info/see-do/st-mungo-museum-of-religious-life-and-art-p246631

https://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/yayoi-kusama-infinity-mirror-rooms
http://tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/olafur-eliasson these were really big Instagram hits for Tate.

I read an interview last week with an artist who said, once the art is
out of his studio, it is no longer his, and the meaning, if any, comes
from each individual viewer, regardless of what the artist had in
mind.

I laughed when I read this because it brought me back to a poetry unit in high school many, many...many years ago. My teacher said something similar and told us we'll all have our own interpretation of what the poet is trying to say. On an assignment I wrote out my interpretation of a particular poem, and the teacher gave me a zero and told me I was wrong. ???. Art has confused me ever since.

I don't think there's a danger of me ever overthinking what the artist is trying to say, just overthinking how I'm supposed to view it. My practical mind doesn't want to play games, if an artist wants to convey a certain message, then just say it, don't play games and make me wonder what it is that you're thinking, or you'll lose me quick. Quite frankly, if an artist paints something and the caption says he was just hoping to paint something worth a million dollars, then he/she may catch my attention.

I'll refer back to Martin Creed who I mentioned earlier. Some of his work doesn't need any interpretation.

https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/creed-work-no-203-everything-is-going-to-be-alright-t12799 is Work 203 installed at Tate Britain.

My GP's practice bought out this building a couple of years ago and it's now where I can go and see the doctor. It would be nice if Work 203 was still installed there, but it isn't, sadly.

https://www.peeruk.org/martin-creed-1

Regarding interpretation, there is a wide variety of carefully worked through arguments about how why and by whom it ought to be done. As a person with a PhD in the humanities who retired from a career at an elite public university, for me maybe the most functional take is that for most given works of art, there is a broad but not unlimited set of interpretations that might be supported by evidence found in the "text," and maybe in sources outside the text as well.

As such, it is possible that a given interpretation is "wrong." If I said William Carlos Williams' poem "This Is Just to Say" is a hooded celebration and lamentation of teakettles orbiting Saturn, I would be wrong. That interpretation can't be supported with evidenced.

If you are serious about understanding interpretation and its relationship to works of art, I'd recommend Marjorie Perloff's book The Poetics of Indeterminacy: Rimbaud to Cage. Very broadly, I think she's right that there are works of art set up for narrower interpretation (most of TS Eliot for instance - he tended to purposefully write text to be puzzled to a determined meaning), and others that are more open to many interpretations, and which might call for father reaching abstraction when collecting evidence for a given reading (much of Gertrude Stein for instance).

SO anyway, one might posit that there is a spectrum in art from determined to indetermined, and that both can be interpreted, but maybe through different techniques of interpretation.

And of course no one has to interpret art -- there isn't anything inherently valorous in doing so. Not understanding how to interpret art and not caring is just fine. But if you do like interpreting art it's both a lot of fun, and like most things that take interest, study and practice, you can get good at it. And in general it is rewarding to be good at it, not unlike how chess, or skateboarding, or being a BBQ master get more fun the better you get.

And then there is Art which defies interpretation

I'm thinking of Haiku, among others.

My spouse and I are in the group that does separate activities if interests don’t align and we also often split up at a museum unless we are on a tour. We did this recently at the National Gallery in London and the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford. In Den Haag I went to the Mauritshuis while he wandered the surrounding area. In Torino he went to the car museum and I went to the Decorative Arts Museum (and had the entire place to myself). We have different interests in art plus I like to use an audio guide and he doesn’t as much.

We once went to a local art gallery exhibit with good friends and they talked non stop to each other about their impressions of each painting. It made me realize that I prefer quiet contemplation of art that catches my eye, unless using the audio guide about specific pieces.

All to say that there is no right or wrong approach; choose what suits one best.

I should probably read a good book on interpretation. Now I'm waffling on about it, I realise I dismiss its merits too easily.

I'm happy for an object just to be. Martin Creed is quite awkward in interview, but I suppose I'm taking a fair amount from what he's vocalised. I have found if you're working freely enough in art, it just really doesn't need a title or meaning. For a lot of people that comes after it's finished for the purposes of letting other people identify it and identify with it; an afterthought.

I was thinking about what you said about "nothing is new" further up Hank. It's really rare a whole new language is invented. There's languages present in any art form to help define the edges. Lots of people say all reggae music sounds the same, and to a certain extent it does. That's because it has a language that people lean heavily on when they want to express themselves in reggae music form.

I was thinking since you mention Duchamp, how into Jeff Koons I was when I first saw him, maybe on "The South Bank Show" on TV mid eighties. There sixty four years between Duchamp's Fountain and Jeff Koons New Shelton Wet/Drys 10 Gallon Doubledecker from 1981. They very much speak the same language to me. I enjoy that sort of purity of the object, without any emotional or intellectual baggage. The Balloon Dogs were something special at the time too.

https://www.artbasel.com/news/readymade-koons-duchamp-michael-e-smith-henry-moore-institute-leeds?lang=en

I like the idea expressed above of doing what suits one best.

One thing that I think is regretful about museum environments is how little people laugh. It seems like there is a lot of gravity in museums pulling towards thoughtfully stroking one's chin as the mind soberly machinates on the subject at hand. Serious business.

I wish people felt more free to be "oh my gosh look at that silly duck haha," or " for a princess, her face is certainly bent in a funny way, isn't it?" or " wow! How cool that just blows me away!" Or even, "eh, that one kind of sucks. Not a fan."

I think most artists would have no objection to any range of genuine reactions, and as such, I wish museums didn't feel so much like churches.

If I'm starting on my interpretation journey, I could say that Jeff Koons Balloon Dogs do have some emotional baggage. I guess balloon animals evoke childhood, and I always marvelled at the perfection of Jeff Koons' very shiny readymades. A perfect childhood?

The vacuum cleaner early works are much easier to have that detachment and purity of the object that I like. The Balloon Dogs are, I suppose, on the threshold of where the money, ego and nose (probably) got the better of him and he descended into a kitsch that is a bit sickly.

There you go :) Easy.

I've come across as a crank in my comments on this thread. And while that representation probably is accurate, I also believe that for anyone, if they believe a human creation is, for them, art, that's fine and valid. It's just that most of the stuff that's exhibited in MOMA doesn't qualify, for me. Obviously for some others, it does.

I also love Hank's comment above about laughter. Art museums IMO should engender joy, in whatever forms joy can take. Jeff Koons's balloon dogs make me chuckle, as do several other modern (and some older) artworks. I strongly recommend those visiting Copenhagen to go to the national gallery and see Carl Bloch's masterpiece In a Roman Osteria. If that painting doesn't at least bring a smile to your face, you're having a very bad day indeed.

I’m not a huge fan of art museums. However over decades of travel I will say there have been memorable moments….

First visit and only visit to the Rijksmuseum was in 1972. Very few people were there. At one point I wandered through a gallery and entered another.
There on the wall was the NightWatch. Stopped dead in my tracks. Why? Because apparently I had fallen asleep in my high school art history class when Mr Hickman talked about the size of the painting. After shaking off the shock I walked up to the masterpiece. This was before the twit had damaged the painting with a knife so no rope or guard. I was mesmerized but how Rembrandt incorporated light into the painting.

On another trip I visited Musee d’Orsay in Paris.

I was emotionally overcome seeing the Impressionists thinking how none of them truly got to enjoy how beloved their paintings became. I had to sit down.

As the saying goes “ art is in the eye of the beholder.”

It was over 30 years ago | first saw The Night Watch too. It's a real shame how it is displayed these days. I suppose it's a major conservation project because of its scale, and that it's important to preserve it for generations to come. It would be on the threshold of whether it's worth making a point of seeing at all these days for me.

view the art without being bored out of my mind

You aren't required to have an interest in art or any specific type of art or artist. IMO the whole point of art is it enjoy it. If you or I don't enjoy it, that's OK.

I have been blessed to know several celebrated artists. I have been equally blessed to have seen many of the world's "best" artworks. I learned very early on that I have only limited artistic skills and I am also bored to tears with attempts to categorize, interpret, analyze, understand individual pieces of art. What I have learned is to appreciate what I see for what it is and means to me, in the moment. Not every piece that is painted, created, is intended to convey great hidden messages. Artists create what is calling to them in the moment of creation. Sometimes it is simply paint on canvas for color, sometimes it is a statement about an annoying client, sometimes it is a representation of a moment in their time and space. As a viewer of their work, we can try to ferret out which of those was the intent....or not. Much like there are no hard, fast rules to creation, there are none for viewing. Take it for what you see. Enjoy it for what it is. I think Peggy Gugenheim left the best commentary about art at her Venice Museum. If you have seen it, then you know what I am saying. Vividly.
If you do not want to experience art, then don't bother with the museums. It is that simple.
If you do not know how to experience art, go, and you will learn.

“ It was over 30 years ago | first saw The Night Watch too. It's a real shame how it is displayed these days. I suppose it's a major conservation project because of its scale, and that it's important to preserve it for generations to come. ”

The Nightwatch is indeed undergoing major restoration and conservation. A project so large they named it Operation Nightwatch. The most amazing part is that the restoration and research is all being done under the watchful eyes of the museum visitors. I’ve visited the museum several times since the restoration started and each time I was amazed by what I saw. It’s an incredible opportunity to be able to look over the shoulders of the scientists and restorers as they work hard to preserve this masterpiece for future generations, while still being able to see the work in all its glory. Each time I was there, there was museum staff at who you could ask all kinds of questions about the restorations and the discoveries they made so far. A truly wonderful experience!
More details can be found on the website https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/whats-on/exhibitions/operation-night-watch

Yes, thank you. I agree now that it is worth seeing.

Conservation is a massive academic subject. Some really smart people involved in my experience. A very meticulous documentation program they run with a high standard of academic rigour. That is a good link with info about the project.

Dutch_Traveller beat me to the same comment that I was going to comment on. I think it might enhance my visit to the Nightwatch to see it being restored.

On the comments regarding that there isn't one 'right' way to view art, I thinking I'm going to point some fingers off blame to the British TV show Landscape Artist of the Year for confusing me. To me, the judges on that show can come across as uppity snobs at times, especially Tai Shan Schierenberg. It's a rare day I agree with him or even pick the same winner as they do.

It seems (to me) that Art is both what it is in front of you when you see it and the context (usually the Artist) from which it comes*.

It can be worthwhile to just get what you get by standing in front of it for the first time. Depending on the Art, depending on the Person. (I know almost nothing about Monet but the light in the Waterlilies in Paris...)

It can be worthwhile to know some (you never know all) of the context it comes from. "The more you know the more you see" for example.

Nobody (except Jerks/snobs/...) says either is mandatory. In the best case you get something out of it.

( * you also bring your current context with you; it limits what you see)

most of the stuff that's exhibited in MOMA doesn't qualify, for me. Obviously for some others, it does.

I've never been to MoMA but I'd like to go. Their collection is fantastic. The permanent collection at Tate Modern pales in comparison. Probably the same for any modern art gallery anywhere in the world.

I'm interested in lots of New York-specific artists. I like the film, video and performance experiments of the 60's, 70's and 80's. Joan Jonas, Tony Conrad, Nam June Paik, Phill Niblock, Jonas Mekas etc. I'd be interested to know what MoMA has on display in terms of this kind of work.

Seeing Keith Haring or Jean-Michel Basquiat work in New York would be cool.

Seeing [early] Jeff Koons, who we've talked about, would be great.

On the topic of how to look at art, John Berger's "Ways of Seeing" TV series and book were a really good introduction. It's from 1972, so I don't know if the youngsters in art school are still watching it, but the principles it explores haven't changed. The book is still in print and was on the curriculum of almost every art degree for a long time.

I first saw it on TV when I was very young and was intrigued, but a bit too young to really understand it. I saw it later, probably several times on late night BBC2 over the years, and it's something that I sometimes think about in relation to enjoying art. There was an old copy of the book at work that I dipped into on occasion too.

All four episodes on one video. 1hr 57min.

https://youtu.be/utEoRdSL1jo?si=KeAwbfD7R1dCxgOI