You must log in or register to comment.

0986512 t1_jea2oxa wrote

I have the same reaction at zoos. I was recently at Sea World Orlando and it left me disappointed. Give me a little something about the animal- native range, or a interesting trivial fact.

Even QR codes would have been great- it could be available in multiple languages that way too!


jonathanrdt t1_jeabyja wrote

Wikipedia has become my preferred complement to the two or three simple sentences on the placard.


szakee t1_je90brw wrote

the two parts of the sentence kinda contradict?


OzTheMalefic t1_je915ol wrote

Read it again, I made the same mistake


popperinthere t1_je98mbi wrote

It's really badly worded alright. One gallery sticker might say "untitled" - Artist Name. Under that though there's another sticker detailing info about the artist, the medium, process etc. It's often why artists sell pieces the day they have a showing - the artist is there to meet and greet and explain their work (albeit some like to give no info about it and leave it up to the viewer to interpret the work and draw their own conclusions)


CookBaconNow t1_je9fty6 wrote

“High openness”’is clumsy, imo.

These studies make me chuckle - yeah, more info does help me understand better. Haha. No, I didn’t read the article based on the title.


More-Grocery-1858 t1_je9vaij wrote

Art needs some kind of meaning for us to like it. Sometimes it's not about knowing the technique and the meaning emerges from elsewhere. For example:

  • It's an image of a character, location, or story you already know about.
  • It matches an aesthetic you're familiar with.
  • It's a collector's item and will grow in value.
  • It's a souvenir of a place you've been.

The deeper that art penetrates our personal web of experience, the deeper the meaning we feel. 'Good' art often serves as conceptual glue, holding a number of ideas in a single expression of an image. But humans and art are both open containers and anything can go inside, which is why the term 'art' can be hard to define and highly personal.


Equoniz t1_jeagkzp wrote

I think this article is just acknowledging people like me. I don’t care about most of those bullet points for many works of art, but knowing how something is made or done is of value to me. So even if I don’t care about the finished artwork itself (like instances where those bullet points don’t apply to me), I can still find interest in something about it.


seagre t1_jeab4o3 wrote

I don’t read about the art while I am there. I am there to look at the art. Not stand in peoples way so that I can read about it. Just read about it before or after. Or just snap a pic of it and get out of the way.


NPC_over_yonder t1_jeag7bf wrote

What moves people changes with the times. Just like what we thought was funny decades ago kinda falls flat now. Historical context is important.

I’d rather someone who has never taken an art class or art history read the placards and walk away with a better appreciation for fine art, than that same person run through a museum in a fifth of the time to see everything and not actually get anything from it.

My personal enjoyment isn’t more important than increasing the world’s appreciation and support of art. Those people that read the placards and stand in you way for all of two minutes are potential donors and volunteers. They might be inspired to purchase local art from upcoming artists for their walls instead of mass produced stuff from a corporate store. They might pass on that new found love of art onto their future partners or children.

If anything I feel like making art museums even more easily accessible with mini documentaries in a small seating area would be fantastic. Art should be for everyone not just the people that have the education or time to learn about it.


jl_theprofessor t1_jebfmhk wrote

Like people enjoy taking pot shots at post modernist art without taking into account the environment in which it was created and what it was reacting to. But stopping to read the context helps understand why it was produced.


AutoModerator t1_je8zw97 wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


UngilUndy t1_je9jn0b wrote

Depends on how the information is written. It is often composed more out of a sense of pretension than of any desire to communicate.

I much prefer historical context to some "the artist explores spacialities in composition and intertwines content with emptiness in a pattern-centric manner" gargle.


ViennettaLurker t1_jea7iyp wrote

I'm sorry but this feels super opinionated. Not to say there can't be pretentious artists statements, etc. But drawing an audience to specifically notable features, the artists intent, and so on, shouldn't be discouraged. And it shouldn't be too horrible to throw in some five dollar words.

People round these things up to 'pretentious' a bit too frequently in my opinion. Honestly your sentence isn't pretentious at all, maybe a bit garbled or clumsy but it would be a mostly fine starting point for what to look at and pay attention to.


UngilUndy t1_jedibqs wrote

What about the example I gave communicates the artist's intent though? It's not a verbatim take but I've seen a good chunk of art labelled with such weasel words. The term "spacialities" in particular really annoys me as it is as good as saying "the work takes place in a place". To quote another response I got, it's pseudo-academic blabber.


ViennettaLurker t1_jeeclgb wrote

Just off of my first impression I'd say it made me think to pay extra attention to the negative space in the piece.

I get the irritation. And specifically words like "spacialities" or "materiality" which often in many sentences could be rounded back down to "space" and "material" and more or less still be as functional in getting a point across.

But 'weasel words' is a bit much to me. I dont think these things are consistently deployed by people who don't know what they're talking about or trying to get away with something. And its only blabber in specific instances. Obscure word choice to the point of total confusion? Sure. Sentence density to the point of painful? Yes.

But it all means stuff. Something eyerolling like "working through a semiotic lens" is still useful as long as you're familiar with the word semiotics. And when you are familiar, that part of a sentence could actually replace a much larger 'ordinary' series of words. On its own, its not 'blabber'- it can mean something just fine.

And its not pseudo academic, either. Again, depending on the particular instance. A lot of these things are very strictly academic. What I may grant is that they are unnecessarily academic.

But for me at least, its all just industry talk. Its no less eye rolling to me than when people started tacking on "going forward" to every office conversation or for whatever reason we decided "color way" was such an urgent replacement for "color scheme" or (gasp) "color" in product descriptions. You hear industry talk of any kind and it can be easy for it to sit clumsily in your ear, and feel maybe a bit too extra from time to time.


TheEverHumbled t1_jea2f95 wrote

Or the purpose of the blurb.

An art historian writing for benefit of visitors at a public gallery, vs the artist trying to pump their piece to well heeled patrons in a contemporary art market have different goals.

Concrete details like info about technique, similarities across the artists work, peer relations or the context of their art, all of which can give meaning to the piece and make it more approachable to casual audiences.

Pseudo-academic blather may be more intentionally obtuse for an elite contemporary market... "You get it, right?"


Vakulum t1_je9vl3h wrote

Idk. I'm too stupid for art. I get bored in an art museum quickly. Total opposite of I book a guided tour or get a well made audio guide. I just need the context to a painting and done guidance to really appreciate them.


Discount_gentleman t1_jeaux0g wrote

Yep, I always read the labels and it helps my appreciation. I need something to connect me to what are often abstract concepts. Most of the art in museums or galleries is from a person different enough in time/place/culture that it takes me more time that I have available to cross that gulf and understand the subtleties in what they are saying. Labels help.


jl_theprofessor t1_jebfazb wrote

Oh I do this all the time at every gallery. The context in which art was produced is important to understanding it. I see too many people making quick circles through galleries and not reading anything.


arcosapphire t1_jebq4q6 wrote

I wish they had more information. Like ideally each work would have something as in depth as a Wikipedia article. But often there are just a couple of sentences.

Probably a good use case for QR codes.


20sinnh t1_jebvdee wrote

The Elizabeth Stewart Gardner museum in Boston has this problem. In order to adhere to Mrs. Gardner's will they can't alter placement or appearance. They've got audio tour and QR code information on placard stands for the rooms, but it is frustrating to have to be on your phone to get the info. It's a beautiful place but it takes you out of the experience a bit compared to each piece having an info plaque.


ubermeisters t1_jectxas wrote

> You might like this website more if you stop to enable JavaScript and cookies

no thanks, I prefer to enjoy things on my terms.


never3nder_87 t1_jedye5s wrote

I have Aphantasia and I often enjoy the descriptions/intentions of the artist in the captioning, than I do the actual art itself


Jamma-Lam t1_jedzy9h wrote

Boy, do I hate a painting labeled "Untitled."


omissionpossible t1_jea1yi1 wrote

some people like to emotionally connect with a thing through experience, others prefer to emotionally connect with the creator through understanding


Brain_Hawk t1_jeah9f2 wrote

I can understand that. I'm not a big fan most art that you would find in galleries, I don't understand it and I don't think it really speaks to me. But I can understand how if you think of the right context it can help you, on a particular if you think about the technique and how the artists use certain tricks displayed some skillet can enhance the value of the art, or your appreciation

It's like how a musician will appreciate certain musical compositions for their challenging nature or for the way they break conventions or do something interesting or new.

I work in research, and when I see a really elegant research design, I always appreciate the study a bit more. Is somebody from the outside world who doesn't see that elegance as easily because it's outside their experience probably would not feel the same. On the contrary, they might find it a little disconcerting because it's easy to misunderstand or it sounds confusing or whatever.

At any rate, whatever works for people is what works for people.


pablorepe t1_je9khp9 wrote

It feels like if you need the people to read, something is missing on the painting


katarh t1_je9lyhq wrote

Sometimes the little placards provide a lot more context than the raw painting could ever provide.

If it's a portrait, who is the subject? Is there some symbolic meaning behind the objects around them? Who commissioned it, and why? Was the artist just starting out, or was this the highlight of their career?

If it's a landscape, where was it painted? Was it done "in plain air" on site, or was it done from a sketch in a studio? Did the artist live there, or were they just visiting?


pablorepe t1_jebp6zo wrote

I guess that's valid for many people.

What you've said to me remembers me how people approached art in my school days. It was more important to learn than enjoying. Legit, sure.

Luckily, when I go to a museum I get a different experience that is quite deep, personal... And often independent from the life of those who appear in the painting or what was in the painter's mind. I am not trying to start a discussion, anyway.


katarh t1_jec3gbn wrote

I suppose also for some of us, the learning is part of the enjoying.

I also understand the perspective also wanting to appreciate the art as it is presented, and without the context. And as others in this discussion thread have noted, some artists want it to be approached that way - leaving the piece as Untitled and requesting that it be presented without the context or notes.

There's really no wrong way to appreciate art, despite what the clickbait title says. If you find the beauty in the image and not the words, that's valid too.

Cheers, stranger.


DoodlerDude t1_je9wnsg wrote

Nah, adding some historical context can really add to the enjoyment of an artwork.

Personally the more I learn about the impressionists, the more I enjoy their paintings.


pablorepe t1_jebnmcg wrote

I am afraid I am too influenced by Susan Sontag's approach to art to be convinced by that, but I have to recognise that you have a point there.


DoodlerDude t1_jebxeze wrote

I don’t know why you would need someone else’s “approach.” You either enjoy something or you don’t. More context either works for you or it doesn’t. Who cares what Susan Sontag has to say.


pablorepe t1_jec7cwg wrote

Need... Uhm... It's useful in the same way that you need English. To expand your world.

Or just communicate. It's great when you find other's thoughts that you can take as yours.

As long as we don't take it too much seriously, I suppose.


Just-a-Mandrew t1_je9pvm1 wrote

Is art good if it needs an explanation? Is this type of art a visual form? In my personal opinion, I think the best art is the one that is communicated well. Not necessarily instantly, maybe it takes a bit of exploration, but if I have to read an explanation of it, I feel like it fails as a visual medium. You shouldn’t have to read an essay about a piece of music in order to know it moves you.