dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
598
29886823 (banned)
join:2005-03-29

1 recommendation

29886823 (banned)

Member

Slow Art

I recently read that 77% of adults don't visit art museums in the US, and that a recent movement called "Slow Art" is attempting a remedy. Basically it calls for looking at a piece of art for at least several minutes before moving on to another.
I wonder what the average viewing time here is for an image, and whether or not we allow ourselves enough time to understand the creative and processing details for a given image. If you're anything like me, I suspect that you give very few images more than a cursory look at their thumbs, no more than seconds, certainly not enough time to view them full scale. Maybe we should all 'slow down' a bit, and not 'publish or perish'.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

1 recommendation

Kearnstd

Premium Member

I bet some of this is simply the fact that people do not have the money to travel. And the primary art museums are in cities like New York, Philly, etc.

robs440
Premium Member
join:2003-06-26
Orlando, FL

robs440

Premium Member

agreed ...but also what passes as art these days is not what most of us care to see. Like that actress sleeping in a box down at the MET, (seen on the news last month). i don't really care to watch her lay down in a plexiglass box and sleep for 2 hours. not what i consider art.

jvmorris
I Am The Man Who Was Not There.
MVM
join:2001-04-03
Reston, VA

jvmorris

MVM

To some extent, you could say that art is a spectator sport. If we had playoffs in the performing arts every year and end up selecting a National Champion, then the cycle is almost complete. All you need is to build some stadiums where 70,000 people can sit around, drink beer and watch someone sleep in a plexiglas box -- and charge for it, of course.

darcilicious
Cyber Librarian
Premium Member
join:2001-01-02
Forest Grove, OR
·Ziply Fiber

darcilicious

Premium Member

said by jvmorris:

To some extent, you could say that art is a spectator sport.

Did you know?

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ar ··· ic_Games

jvmorris
I Am The Man Who Was Not There.
MVM
join:2001-04-03
Reston, VA

jvmorris

MVM

Gee, it would be cool if I could say I did! . . . But I didn't.

DownTheShore
Pray for Ukraine
Premium Member
join:2003-12-02
Beautiful NJ

1 recommendation

DownTheShore to Kearnstd

Premium Member

to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd:

I bet some of this is simply the fact that people do not have the money to travel. And the primary art museums are in cities like New York, Philly, etc.

I agree. The prices to get into the museums might be reasonable, but the transportation cost is the killer.

I don't think it's a matter of "what passes for art" because there isn't one single type of art and art is, after all, in the eye of the beholder. Performance art and the like are just one facet of the art world.

I think that folks are to some extent intimidated by the locales. How many are going to wander into an art gallery to look at the art there, without thinking that they are supposed to be at least a potential buyer? I also think that some of the large museums are overwhelming - there's just too much to take in all at once and too much real estate to cover. And a lot of times there's nowhere to perch if you just want to sit and take it all in slowly.

Slow Art is a good idea, but I think it only really will benefit most people if they have some context to put what they are seeing within. Staring a painting or a photograph is good if you can appreciate the technique, the historical and social context, and/or the idea behind the work. For example, I can stare at the images on the Shorpy site for a long time because I am fascinated by the looks into the past. To someone with no interest in that, staring at the image would probably be a waste of time. Just like a lot of primitive art wouldn't hold my interest though I can appreciate its historical significance.