Looking

One of the common comments you'll read or hear about museums regards how little time people spend actually looking at the art. According to several studies visitors to museums generally spend less than 30 seconds total looking at an exhibited work. With visits to museums and galleries of art at a high, one wonders why. if visits are so popular, does the art seems to command so little time and attention. It is puzzling but there are probably a lot of contributing factors.

Crowd at the Louvre

For most people, a visit to a major art museum is a special occasion because so many are from out of town. That contributes to the idea that you need to hurry and see as much as possible because after all, who knows when you'll return. In a huge art museum like the National Gallery or Louvre, the pressure not to miss any of the masterpieces (and alas, take a selfie) is enormous. A moment's thought might help a visitor realize that the task is an impossible one--you simply can't see it all. On the other hand, many try. Another factor in how long people look at art is the size of the crowd. In very busy museums like the Vatican, the pressure is always to keep moving.

Should people spend more time looking carefully at art? The easy answer is yes, but there really isn't an ideal amount of time to spend--it depends on the visitor, the art, previous experience, and all sorts of other things. Some people spend little time looking at painting or sculpture in a museum because they are familiar with the work and only want a reminder of what attracted them to it. Others may have little interest in the style, era, medium, or subject. But for those who do want to delve deeply in a work of art, into the art, the artist, the materials, or more, there are strategies that can help.


Perhaps the most important step to appreciating the art one visits is to develop a system for looking. That sounds more like school than fun, but a system of looking can provide enormous insight that otherwise might be hidden. A good, simple system is to follow a few steps--look, then see, then think about what you've discovered. Looking means spending time with the overall image but also with detail. Most basic is what do you see--what is the image? Is it abstract or realist? What medium or material is it--a painting, photograph, sculpture? What is it made of? Is it smooth and carefully finished or rough and casually made? What details strike you immediately? What did you overlook at first? Each of these are possible questions to ask as you look at a work of art. But there is considerably more to appreciating the piece. Seeing is also required.

Edgar Degas, "Dancers in Pink & Green," pastel, ca.1890

Consider the pastel by Degas posted here. Looking will tell us it is a painted picture of ballet dancers, made in pastel. It is fairly smoothly finished, accurately drawn. The dancers are all young women in green tutus with red bodices. They are not dancing but seem to be adjusting their appearance. But these are only superficial attributes of the picture. To appreciate the painting more deeply we need to see it too.

Looking is all about what is in front of us--the physical object. Seeing, on the other hand, is delving into what the object and its construction could mean. Art is rich in symbol and metaphor, some obvious some less so. Looking and describing begin the process, but seeing symbols in art brings a deeper level of understanding. Sometimes a knowledge of context helps the viewer understand a work more fully, but not always. For example, a skull included in a still life is inevitably a symbol of mortality, regardless of setting. So it is important to think carefully on what one sees--what might it mean. Do the flowers in the sculpture make me think of spring or of funerals? Is the color scheme intended to provoke an emotional response? And so on. Another way to see is to think about what the artist might be saying to the viewer.

So let's look for more to see in the Degas above. As we look at the painting again, it is even more clear that this is during a performance in a theater. Part of the stage and its golden lights are in the background. We can see some of the decorations of the stage as well. and along the right side, a partly seen dancer is seemingly peeping through the curtain at the side. Farther right we see what may be balconies and seats. And there, along the curtain, to the left of the dancer, is a dark shadow...a shadow of a paunchy man in a top hat; perhaps he has a beard, too.

After one has taken time to look, and begun to see, it's time to think over what we are learning. Seeing gives us an opportunity to consider the story (if any), setting, time of day, what the action might mean, the mood of the piece (happy, sad, foreboding, etc.), 

Consider the Degas dancers again. What could that man in the top hat be doing there? Why there at the side of the stage, behind a curtain, looming darkly? Knowing about ballet in mid-19th century Paris will tell you that many of the young women who danced in the ballet were considered one cut above courtesans. They were often "kept" by older men. Regardless, men were always present in the ballet, whether at performances or rehearsals, ogling the attractive young "petite rats" as the girls were known. Is Degas commenting on that situation? Probably. There are other such examples in other works of his. But even without knowing the sordid side of the ballet, that looming black shadow is forbidding, threatening, ominous even. And that is (in part) what Degas may have been trying to say.

So next time you're in a museum, try taking a little more time with the works that strike you. Look at them carefully, then try to see what's beyond the obvious or below notice. Try to see detail and through the details any symbols you discover. Then try putting all of that into an overall idea of what the artist was saying. You'll find that your experience of the museum and the art will be considerably  richer.