Why do people stare at art for way too long?

Question

I don't understand why some people can spend well over 10 minutes staring at a piece of art. I like art too, but it doesn't change from staring at it like a Magic Eye. Please explain!

Answer 1

I disagree! Art definately changes the more you look at it! I've learned that it's not nececarily that you'll find something in the image you missed (which many times you do,) but that it's more about the train of thought when thinking about an image. You need to observe it, and think about what is literally represented in front of you. But after that think about what you get from the image, and the more that you think of it, the more thoughts that come out of that one little image! What the artist is metaphorically showing you. But personally, I sometimes find it problematic when I don't have background information on the work. Sometimes I can understand a piece by looking at it, but there are times where extra information is necessary. For example I know a photographer who did a body of work that looked like nothing more than a bunch of houses. But the project really had to do with the Halocaust and was actually very interesting and highly conceptual. However you never would have known that just by looking at it. The average time people look at art is around 4 seconds. That hardly seems adequate considering the artist spent anywhere from hours to years working out the artwork. There's often a lot of information put into one little image. It's kind of like a book; only it is shown to you all at once rather than one word at a time.

On a side note, if you are asking because you are interested in art, try taking a painting or photograph that has been critiqued and think about it and analyze it. Afterward read the critique and see what that person got from that same image--it will help you see how people get information from art. (I say this because many times critics don't have too much prior information about art when they critique it.)

Answer 2

Art is like a puzzle with many layers. What it is of, is only one level. Why did the artist use the colors that he did? How do shapes interact? What is the feeling of the piece? What other artworks is it related to? What art style, time period, historical context, place can be gathered from it? Can you see the brushstrokes? Does it give the idea of a feeling? Does it indicate how the artist was feeling? How did his culture affect what he did?

There are often subtler shadings, tints and tones you might miss with a quick look. There may be things hidden in the picture. For example, Michelangelo put a self portrait as one of the characters in the Sistine Chapel. Take an art appreciation class, and you will learn to really see, deeper and deeper, not only art, but life as well.

Answer 3

Because looking at art isn't like watching TV. TV is made to be obvious and easy to follow. So are advertisements. Art generally has more than one meaning, or you can look at it and get those other meanings, or think about your own, different meanings to it. Many art pieces make connections between ideas or concepts. It may take a bit to figure it out. That's why it's worth more to look at than an episode of the OC. It's more complex and has meaning in different ways and from different directions of thought. It's also meant to spark the imagination, which is cool because you can look at a piece that other people think means one thing and to you it means something new or unique. Art is also supposed to bring man together in common feelings and shared ideas.

Answer 4

You're right, it's not like a Magic Eye, but it is interesting! People look at pieces for longer periods of time to learn more about them, basically. There can be hidden meanings in many works and just a glance will not open these up to the viewer. Think of Impressionist paintings - these in particular are interesting to look at from both far away and up close, so that you can see the finished image, what it is supposed to be, and on closer inspection see the brushstrokes and thus gain a clearer perspective on the technique used.

You should try it sometime - find a painting you like and examine it. Keep looking at it, from differing distances. I bet anything you'll begin to see more in it than you initially did!

Answer 5

Perhaps they are trying to understand what the artist was attempting to communicate, or maybe the piece makes them feel an emotion they'd like to hold onto for a long time. I try to visit a gallery at least once a month, and some pieces I feel an attraction to and want to stare at for a very long while, and others don't affect me much, so I don't spend much time with them. It depends on what appeals to people.

It's really a relative thing. What is "too long" for you, isn't necessarily "too long" for someone else.

Answer 6

I persist with my coronary heart while finding at a artwork of artwork. If a portray, to illustrate, catches my eye, I give up and take it in. each so often, on a similar time as doing so, a small ingredient stands proud, and that i evaluate the way it reflects/complements the comprehensive piece. As a author, i discover this advantages me, as small components in a bite of fiction artwork in distinctive procedures. I variety between contemplative/passive absorption of a portray, and energetic psychological attention of craft.

Answer 7

They're savoring it, taking in every detail. In these cases, the piece of art is usually moving the observer in such a way that the observer can feel it down in her or his very marrow.

Answer 8

to appear sophisticated and look like you really are deciphering the meaning of each piece