Why Is It
By RAYMOND
J. STEINER
July, 1995
WHY IS IT that the same person who might hesitate to interrupt you while
you were engrossed in a book, who would never be so rude as to begin talking
to you during the performance of a philharmonic orchestra, will never
think twice about bombarding you with questions and idle chatter while
you are attempting to view an art exhibition? I rarely attend opening
exhibitions precisely because the easy mix of conversation and viewing
is taken for grantedno one really expects you to be looking at the
art. A reception is a social affair and one is expected to bewellsocial.
At best, Im not a very sociable guy but when I do want to mix with
people, I rarely do so when there are pictures to look at. Since I must
visit a great many art shows during a month, I tend to be somewhat jealous
of my time and, when I show up at an art gallery or museum, I expect to
look at art. I look at art for a reasonmost often to critique it,
or to review it, or to learn more about it or, best of all, to simply
enjoy it. In fact, the last two reasons Ive just noted are pretty
much the same reason I read books or attend concerts. So how come I cant
expect the same courtesies of silence when Im viewing art? Im
spoiled, I know. When I attend press openings at, say, the Metropolitan
Museum of Art for example, Ive grown used to the fact that no oneno
onewill interrupt my train of thought. It is not only that other
artwriters respect each others need for concentrationeven
the museum staff stays out of ones way, never speaking to you unless
you approach them. As professionals, all of them know that looking at
art is just as demandingif not more demandingthan reading
a book or listening to a concert. Unfortunately, one doesnt always
find professionals at an art exhibitionreception or not. For more
times than I am willing to recall, I have been startled out of my concentration
by someone coming up behind me and asking "Well, whaddaya think?"
or "Can I help you? If you have any questions, Im right here." If
I were engrossed in a book, these same people might wait for me to close
its coversor look upand if I were at a concert or opera, surely
they would wait for intermission to barge in on my thoughts. Aside from
courtesy, its really all a matter of education. Too many people
simply do not know how to look at art. It is surprising (at least to me)
how many think that reading about art is the same as looking
at art. One reason art critics wield so much power is precisely because
of this misconception. Many highly literate people assumewronglythat
comprehending linear type is the same as comprehending color and form,
or that explanation is the same as understanding. It is notas any
artist (even illiterate ones) can tell you. No matter how glib the critic,
if he knows what he is talking about, he has arrived at his glibness through
considerable training in looking. And, at bottom, he can only tell you
what he seeswhich is not the same as what you might
see. Ultimately, if you really want to understand art, you must take the
time to grasp it on its own terms. It takes as much effortand effort
of a different kindto "read" a picture as it does to read a fine
piece of literatureor to "hear" a sonata. So, consider yourself
on noticeif you find me in a gallery, Im there to look at
artnot to hear you talk. Artists deserve my total concentration;
art takes my total concentrationnothing less. If you really
want to talk, make an appointmentotherwise, just let me look.
Return
to Peeks and Piques Index
Art
Times HomePage
|