, Dan Hill examines how we look at artwork, using an experimental approach that combines eye tracking with facial coding. |
| Image Courtesy Dan Hill, Sensory Logic |
Facial coding involves the careful tracking of minute facial expressions that animate the face of a viewer while reacting to a stimulus. As we process images through our brains, the information passes through an emotional filter before we can rationalize what we're seeing.
Hill uses a market-research approach to analyzing our response to art. In a controlled experimental setting, he invites viewers to respond to a variety of famous paintings and photographs. The book is an informally written summary of his experimental results.
 |
| Image Courtesy Dan Hill, Sensory Logic |
Hill says: "an art work's window of opportunity for creating an emotional connection is typically super brief." After spending many hours in many different museums carefully watching how people interact with the art on the walls, he concludes that the average viewing time per painting in an art museum is about 10 seconds: "Most often, you're likely to look at an artwork for four seconds before taking five seconds to read the plaque (i.e., "tombstone") describing the work's title, the artist's name, and so forth. Then if still interested, you'll glance back at the artwork for another second, before moving on. The vast majority of museum viewers, he observes, read at most twenty words of the museum caption before their attention falters.---
On Amazon: First Blush: People's Intuitive Reactions to Famous Art
10 comments:
And then there are the paintings with captivating light you can stare at much longer...
Could it be because we are increasingly being exposed more and more to media that moves, so a still image can no longer hold our attention the way it used to? I've noticed that some of the most successful YouTube art channels in terms of views and subscribers are no more than videos of the artist painting, no talking, no instruction, no or little text, just music and an artist moving paint around on a canvas. Is that becoming a preferred way to "experience" art?
Phenomena of the times. See it in some context every day. Facebook communications are 3-5 words or so, Twitter is less, Pinterest is even less still. Attention spans are as short as their intellect. There is no discussion, no dissertation, no broadening of the collective knowledge. If it can't be summed up on Wikipedia in half a page it has little worth.
However, that said, sitting just yesterday near the cashier at an art museum waiting for my ride I watched tens of many people file in, pay their fees and proceed. They may only read half the "tombstone" but they've payed the bucks that allow the minority of us to see and be captivated, spending as much time as we wish enjoying what they have paid to glance at for 10 seconds. Thank you.
Most people, yes, but as Lou says, thanks to them who've paid their fee. I see a few people sketching or making notes, as I do, when I go to exhibitions, mostly young people. That's not counting the school groups going through ticking off their worksheets. But it's the same as some people taking a selfie at a famous view or monument, then focusing on their phones, and other people being absorbed in it.
As for me (scientist, musician) I took two art history classes in college and with the exception of a Norman Rockwell roadshow, Remington or Wyeth adventure painting, or some cool Sci Fi rendering, I would just spend the aforementioned 10 sec at most looking on a painting in a museum... it was not until I took art lessons at age 55 down at the Junior College that I had any appreciation for what went into even a children's illustration, and now take much more time looking at a painting... I think most folks (myself included) know there is something there, but are just ignorant about what to look for...
Not Surprising. As a designer/illustrator, going back 30 years, I was quite aware that when working on posters or book jackets you had about 3 to 5 seconds to grab your audience’s attention to deliver a message in a memorable way. As artists I think we tend to move past that initial experience with an interest that goes much deeper, how it was done, composition, materials, technique etc.
That must be due to time, where people feel rushed even when they aren't. If a person wants to learn, glean all the information and instruction possible the time crunch goes on the back burner.
The people in the big art museums like the met are visiting the museum itself. It has 2 million works of art in its collection, and it actually represents a challenge to any visitor. A more interesting metric to me was what I gleaned from asking the main information desk (the professional there not the volunteers.) to which paintings do people ask directions. I remember he said Rosa Bonheur's "Horse Fair" and Rembrant's "Aristotle Contemplating a Bust of Homer". There was one other I forgot. Nowadays it might be Washington Crossing the Delaware or possibly the Heart of the Andes (which was you were to supposed to look at with binoculars. In general there are many more people in the impressionist galleries than anywhere else including their modern collection. So I think what each individual does is not as revealing as what the group as a whole does.
I also believe the behavior of people in commercial galleries is very different. They often seem to talk to each other about a painting.
Thinking about this issue, I think it is better to ask a question of yourself or your companion about an individual painting or a room of painting like "If you could have one, which one would you want?"
There it is, time and... you called it ignorance. I'm not so sure... I think it waht Mr. Gurney talks about, paraphrased I call it seeing the invisible, the spirit and life behind the picture. As for myself I've always loved art and enjoyed it greatly. Two things have happened to me almost simultaneously, number one is, I just turned 63 and... Secondly, I just got reaquainted with my art. Wth the freshness of my art I've begun to see things differently. Throught the eyes of the artist within or maybe the child within I see the spiritual / invisable much more clearly.
Post a Comment