NEW YORK—Members of the public don’t seem to like looking at modern art or installations and prefer the classics, according to an experiment conducted at the Tate Britain by Philip Hensher, an art critic for MailOnline.com.
Instead of conducting a survey, Hensher and eight other observers recorded museumgoers’ genuine reactions. The investigation put modern artists Damien Hirst, Tracy Emin, and Rachel Whiteread, and historic great masters such as Whistler, Hogarth, and Sargent to the test of time.
The MailOnline article, published in March, ran with the provocative headline “We know what we like, and it’s not modern art!”
The observers spent a day recording how people reacted to four classic paintings versus works by the four famous contemporary British artists, explained the MailOnline article, a British publication. The observers counted how long visitors viewed the paintings and what kind of visitor each work attracted.
“Surprisingly, despite all the controversy and the public promotion of new British artists, they did less well in this test than the 18th and 19th century artists,” according to the report.
For example, the average viewing time of 379 visitors for a Damien Hirst painting, consisting of a large square with small colored dots, was five seconds, while the longest was 30 seconds. The observers noted that most people just walked past the piece.
“One middle-aged woman sighed, stepped back, shook her head, and then walked away. A 24-year-old woman said, ‘It just looks like wrapping paper to me. Pretty pattern though,’” the report said.
Observers noted that the groups of school children were interested in Hirst’s pickled sheep, which “prompted giggles.” The dead sheep floats in formaldehyde in a glass case.
The Damien Hirst Room comprised five important works spanning Hirst’s career, according to the gallery, including dead butterflies and a photo of a severed head.
“Ophelia” by Sir John Everett Millais was a favorite. It depicts Shakespeare’s tragic heroine who slipped into a stream and let herself drown.
Of the 562 visitors, the average viewing time for this painting was 1 minute, 57 seconds, while the longest look was 30 minutes. Overall, viewers were captivated, and according to the records, about half discussed the painting. In contrast, people only tended to glance at the contemporary works.
“Carnation, Lily, Lily, Rose” by John Singer Sargent was another favorite, with an average viewing time of 59 seconds and the longest at 3 minutes, according to the experiment. The painting is a beautiful image of two girls in a garden surrounded by blossoms. They are holding lanterns in what seems to be the light of dusk. Viewers openly expressed their love of the work.
A 56-year-old man from Florida said in the report, “I was taken by the light and the texture of grass around their feet. I prefer the more traditional works. There is something about the modern pieces which are less hopeful.”
Museum and gallery curators may want to think twice about what they are embracing on the public’s behalf.
Art Renewal Center Chairman Fred Ross said in his speech “Good Art, Bad Art: Pulling Back the Curtain” at a 2001 conference at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, in New York: “Modernism is art about art. It endlessly asks the question, ad nauseam, What is art? What is art? Only those things that expand the boundaries of art are good; all else is bad [in Modernism]. It is art about art. Whereas all the great art in history, my friends, is art about life.”
Instead of conducting a survey, Hensher and eight other observers recorded museumgoers’ genuine reactions. The investigation put modern artists Damien Hirst, Tracy Emin, and Rachel Whiteread, and historic great masters such as Whistler, Hogarth, and Sargent to the test of time.
The MailOnline article, published in March, ran with the provocative headline “We know what we like, and it’s not modern art!”
The observers spent a day recording how people reacted to four classic paintings versus works by the four famous contemporary British artists, explained the MailOnline article, a British publication. The observers counted how long visitors viewed the paintings and what kind of visitor each work attracted.
“Surprisingly, despite all the controversy and the public promotion of new British artists, they did less well in this test than the 18th and 19th century artists,” according to the report.
For example, the average viewing time of 379 visitors for a Damien Hirst painting, consisting of a large square with small colored dots, was five seconds, while the longest was 30 seconds. The observers noted that most people just walked past the piece.
“One middle-aged woman sighed, stepped back, shook her head, and then walked away. A 24-year-old woman said, ‘It just looks like wrapping paper to me. Pretty pattern though,’” the report said.
Observers noted that the groups of school children were interested in Hirst’s pickled sheep, which “prompted giggles.” The dead sheep floats in formaldehyde in a glass case.
The Damien Hirst Room comprised five important works spanning Hirst’s career, according to the gallery, including dead butterflies and a photo of a severed head.
“Ophelia” by Sir John Everett Millais was a favorite. It depicts Shakespeare’s tragic heroine who slipped into a stream and let herself drown.
Of the 562 visitors, the average viewing time for this painting was 1 minute, 57 seconds, while the longest look was 30 minutes. Overall, viewers were captivated, and according to the records, about half discussed the painting. In contrast, people only tended to glance at the contemporary works.
“Carnation, Lily, Lily, Rose” by John Singer Sargent was another favorite, with an average viewing time of 59 seconds and the longest at 3 minutes, according to the experiment. The painting is a beautiful image of two girls in a garden surrounded by blossoms. They are holding lanterns in what seems to be the light of dusk. Viewers openly expressed their love of the work.
A 56-year-old man from Florida said in the report, “I was taken by the light and the texture of grass around their feet. I prefer the more traditional works. There is something about the modern pieces which are less hopeful.”
Museum and gallery curators may want to think twice about what they are embracing on the public’s behalf.
Art Renewal Center Chairman Fred Ross said in his speech “Good Art, Bad Art: Pulling Back the Curtain” at a 2001 conference at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, in New York: “Modernism is art about art. It endlessly asks the question, ad nauseam, What is art? What is art? Only those things that expand the boundaries of art are good; all else is bad [in Modernism]. It is art about art. Whereas all the great art in history, my friends, is art about life.”
