Bob Michaels
nobody special
If it is the Mona Lisa, about 10 seconds is the time you get to view it. You really don't get to stop but slowly shuffle by. Last summer at the Louvre, the line to see the Mona Lisa was about 1 1/2 hours long.
How Long Does it Take To Look at a Painting?
- Thread starter raydm6
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 38
- Views 2K
If it is the Mona Lisa, about 10 seconds is the time you get to view it. You really don't get to stop but slowly shuffle by. Last summer at the Louvre, the line to see the Mona Lisa was about 1 1/2 hours long.
Archlich
Well-known
It ceased to be a painting at one point. An installation, a monument, or a relic. People become pilgrims. It's no longer the act of look but simply by being there that matters.
Wow, that sounds like quite an experience! I visited the Louvre in June 1964, and recall they charged an extra admission fee for the camera and tripod. There were other people there, probably mid-afternoon, but it wasn't crowded and there were no lines to stand in. I recall the Mona Lisa but IIRC one could not examine it closely. For some reason I have a better memory of the marble Victoire de Samothrace set on a stair landing.
Joao
Negativistic forever
Absolutely! To the point that the people at Louvre were considering to place Mona Lisa in a separate part of the museum, so one can go there, see it and leave without wandering trough the museum.
Jamie123
Veteran
My favourite way to visit a museum is to stroll through it at a regular walking pace until something catches my eye and then I look at it for longer. Museums should be enjoyable and not feel like a chore where you have to carefully look at each and every item.
That being said, this way of visiting a museum is best when you can go multiple times. When I lived in London I used to stop by the National Gallery every one or two weeks and just pop in for half an hour to look at a few things. Since entry is free there it's the perfect place to do this.
That being said, this way of visiting a museum is best when you can go multiple times. When I lived in London I used to stop by the National Gallery every one or two weeks and just pop in for half an hour to look at a few things. Since entry is free there it's the perfect place to do this.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Yes, that is a great way to do it. Wonderful to walk into the National Gallery for looking for half an hour or so at Mme. Moitessier by Ingres.
Erik.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Look at her finely modeled mouth – not even a sculptor’s chisel could open it. One can only imagine her lifted out of the drawing room, put in the garden and weathering in the rain.
Hmm wonder who said that 🙂
Hmm wonder who said that 🙂
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I look longest at paintings by Degas and Renoir. But I have looked so repeatedly at some of the photos in our gallery that I may have looked longer at those at at any painting!
robert blu
quiet photographer
I read that if you ask people who went there to watch the painting when they go out of the Louvre what is in the background of Mona Lisa most of them are not able to answer !
oftheherd
Veteran
Interesting. I had never been to an art gallery until I came here to the Washington, DC area. I first went to a display of photographs by Ansel Adams. Frankly, most of the photos on display didn't impress me much. I spent a lot more time than one would have thought because I kept trying to see what had caused them to be put on display seeing they were from such a famous and respected artist. (of course there were some of his famous photos there too).
The next time I went The National Gallery of Art to see some of the many paintings, again taking my family. I didn't spend much time with each painting, probably no more than one minute. But some of them really caught mine and my oldest daughter's eye. I would just stand there and drink them in, looking at the subject matter, the lighting used to display the painting as well as the the lighting of the photo by use of the paints. Enlightening experience for me for sure.
Not sure what all that has to do with this thread but I have never forgotten how so many of those paintings took on a new life for me when seeing them there, with the good lighting, as opposed to seeing them in books, even well published books with good paper.
The next time I went The National Gallery of Art to see some of the many paintings, again taking my family. I didn't spend much time with each painting, probably no more than one minute. But some of them really caught mine and my oldest daughter's eye. I would just stand there and drink them in, looking at the subject matter, the lighting used to display the painting as well as the the lighting of the photo by use of the paints. Enlightening experience for me for sure.
Not sure what all that has to do with this thread but I have never forgotten how so many of those paintings took on a new life for me when seeing them there, with the good lighting, as opposed to seeing them in books, even well published books with good paper.
icebear
Veteran
Ralph Gibson told me 2017 why he is still potographing at 78 (he's 80 now) ... because he wants some new photographs up at his studio wall. He has them on the wall and if they are still interesting after 3 or 4 weeks looking at them every day, then he considers them worthy to be published. Amoung other things about composition, light and shade balance, forground background etc. there needs to be a certain aspect of enigma, something that doesn't reveal itself or the photograper's intention to the viewer. That's catching the viewers attention for a longer period of time and makes him/her start thinking about the image.
If the viewer can grab everything the image has to offer in a split second, it's ... next ... next... next.
If the viewer can grab everything the image has to offer in a split second, it's ... next ... next... next.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
I can empathize completely. Back in 1993 I had the opportunity to spend 23 days in France as part of a photography workshop that was run by my school. One of our field trips was to the Musee D’Orsay (amazing the things they can do with a former train station!). Anyhow, I recall going up the stairs to the 3rd floor, rounding the corner and BAM - Renoir’s Bal du Moulin de la Galette smacked me right in the face. Now I had seen this painting countless times in books, on mugs, t-shirts, umbrellas, you name it. But nothing prepared me for the real thing. What really struck me was how beautifully dark BLUE this painting was - that was never depicted in any reproduction that I recalled. I must have stood there for about 15 minutes, transfixed by this stunning painting.
JeffS7444
Well-known
I find that Ansel Adams' work looks best with fairly bright illumination, but under dimmer conservation-minded light, can look dull and muddy. And some of his works are far more awesome when you realize how fleeting the moments were.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Robert: this was a trip where my wife was "drinking from a fire hose". She is Cuban, majored in Culture, and spent her working career with the Cuban culture system. Before me, she never envisioned ever having any experience outside Cuba. On this trip we had spent 5 days in Athens, 5 days in the Greek islands, and then 5 days in Paris. All experiencing things she had studied but never thought she would actually see in person. It was like we had a few hours for the Louvre, what do we see and experience.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
One of my favorite paintings is Renoir's "Little girl with a watering can." My wife and were walking through the national gallery, and, "Oh, my God, there it is!" I spent some time looking at it! I have that experience just every so often. Degas made a wax sculpture of a teenage ballerina, called (in English) "Little dancer aged 14." Seven copies of it were struck in bronze. Sue and I saw one of them in a Paris Museum. It was stuck inside a glass case, you couldn't get anywhere near it. We have another of the seven right here in the St. Louis art museum. Ours is on a pedestal, right out in the open and you can walk right up to it and photograph it. I can't go to the museum without seeing it. And I have a small version of it at home. It's my favorite piece of artwork.
Here is my photo of the one in the St. louis Art Museum.
I have no idea how many hours I have spent looking at it.
Here is my photo of the one in the St. louis Art Museum.
I have no idea how many hours I have spent looking at it.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
And here is my photo of "Little Girl With A Watering Can" by Renoir.
RichC
Well-known
They can be the same thing. There is a certain space where they meet, where a photograph both shows reality and references the unseen, feeding the imagination.
Photographs can be allegorical too. My series Fast on convenience food is full of symbolism, and needs time to decipher (probably not years!). This is titled KFC with Frog.
robert blu
quiet photographer
I just finished to read both linked articles, which (english is not my native language) alreadfy took some time ! And I read all the answers and comments here. For sure interesting.
In the pre-covid times I was used to go to, together with my wife to exhibitons at least a couple of times each month, photograhy, painting and drawing or other art like installation or what it could be. Usually it was one day trip done with the specific purpose to visit "that" exhibiton.
When with my wife and friends as well I noticed each one has his own rhythm, we start together and after a few minutes each one is in a different place in front of a different work.
Than each one stops a longer time in front of a work, again each one of us in front of different works.
We usually meet at the and than exchanging a few impressions oft we go back to certain works to look at them and share our impression, included what we see and what we feel.
I assume the time we spend in front of a work of art depends very much on how much it is interesting for us, which can happen for many different reasons, subject, aesthetic, technique, mood...
Personally because learning (trying to learn!) drawing and painting I sometimes spend much time trying to understand the technique, how the artist did it (should I try this way in my exercise? Am I able to?) and why he did use a certaint technique.
With photography it is less so, I'm really interested in the "feeling" of a photo and not so much in the technique. Unless there is a special technique.
When traveling, holidays time and desiring to visit a certain Museum (or Art Gallery) I learnt (it took me years) to select only a specific series of painting, a few rooms and not the entire museum.
This I learned from an italian art critic, Philip Daverio who suggested to look only at selected works, saying when we go in a good restaurant we do not eat all what is on the menu bvut we select what we prefer. And we shoul use the same approach in confront of art, going slowly and with more attention.
In the pre-covid times I was used to go to, together with my wife to exhibitons at least a couple of times each month, photograhy, painting and drawing or other art like installation or what it could be. Usually it was one day trip done with the specific purpose to visit "that" exhibiton.
When with my wife and friends as well I noticed each one has his own rhythm, we start together and after a few minutes each one is in a different place in front of a different work.
Than each one stops a longer time in front of a work, again each one of us in front of different works.
We usually meet at the and than exchanging a few impressions oft we go back to certain works to look at them and share our impression, included what we see and what we feel.
I assume the time we spend in front of a work of art depends very much on how much it is interesting for us, which can happen for many different reasons, subject, aesthetic, technique, mood...
Personally because learning (trying to learn!) drawing and painting I sometimes spend much time trying to understand the technique, how the artist did it (should I try this way in my exercise? Am I able to?) and why he did use a certaint technique.
With photography it is less so, I'm really interested in the "feeling" of a photo and not so much in the technique. Unless there is a special technique.
When traveling, holidays time and desiring to visit a certain Museum (or Art Gallery) I learnt (it took me years) to select only a specific series of painting, a few rooms and not the entire museum.
This I learned from an italian art critic, Philip Daverio who suggested to look only at selected works, saying when we go in a good restaurant we do not eat all what is on the menu bvut we select what we prefer. And we shoul use the same approach in confront of art, going slowly and with more attention.
Tom R
Established
That depends. If you're creating the painting then it takes a much longer time to "look at it," perhaps.
I lived nearly twenty years right outside of Washington, DC. Naturally, I spent lots of time in three or four museums.
Perhaps I have a different take on your question because I had free access to many venues: How many times does one "revisit" a work? Or, why is it that some paintings (photographs, sculptures, installations, etc.) keep engaging a viewer where others do not?
I lived nearly twenty years right outside of Washington, DC. Naturally, I spent lots of time in three or four museums.
Perhaps I have a different take on your question because I had free access to many venues: How many times does one "revisit" a work? Or, why is it that some paintings (photographs, sculptures, installations, etc.) keep engaging a viewer where others do not?
