Getting the Most out of the Museum

Art museums will commonly have one fatal flaw -- they're simply too large. In order to fill their gallery spaces, museums will throw up a large percentage of their collection. It make sense. The more art you can display, the broader your appeal, and the more visitors you can attract. But if a visitor doesn't approach the museum with a plan of attack at least sketched out, that person is going to rapidly become overwhelmed and not get the full benefit of the visit.

I'll provide a recent example of this from my own experience. A few years ago, I visited the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston. At first, I was extremely impressed by the breadth and scope of their collection. A few pieces (especially from their antiquities) jumped out at me and I was excited to delve further into the museum. However, by the time I'd reached the Northern Renaissance paintings, I was over it. I was tired of religious imagery. "Oh, look. Another Madonna and Child...I want to go home." I was even too satiated to properly examine the works by my beloved JMW Turner. Instead, I just wanted to drink beer and settle in for a Beavis and Butthead marathon -- not quite the intellectual experience I'd been hoping for.

So, where did I go wrong? Well, I tried to view everything. It's a natural reaction to being in a place that you're not likely to visit again in the near future. But because I became so heavily saturated, nothing really stuck in my mind. Well, there was this one painting of Jan Gossaert's (The Holy Family) that stuck in my head. But it's mainly because Joseph looked rather like the Toxic Avenger and Baby Jesus looked like a middle-aged hobbit.

Anyway, I learned a valuable lesson that day. Not too long after that, I found some wonderful advice from Thomas Hoving in his Art for Dummies book (don't laugh -- there's good information in the For Dummies series). Inspired by Hoving, I offer a mix of his advice and my own on how to properly visit an art museum.

1.) Know What You Want to See
Most museums will have a few works they're quite proud of. The Dallas Museum of Art has Frederic Church's The Icebergs, the Museum of Modern Art in New York has Vincent van Gogh's Starry Night, etc. These works are often displayed under a "collections" tab on the museum's website. Before visiting the museum, check out their site to see what they have that might be of interest to you. Then make a point to see those works before checking out everything else.

If you don't have internet access or if the visit is a spur-of-the-moment sort of thing, then go to the gift shop as soon as you walk in. Go to the postcard rack and see what they have. Their more famous and impressive works will always be available in postcard form. And, if you're in a country where you don't speak the language, the postcard will help you find the original work. Just hold it up to a gallery attendant and they'll point the way.

Now, like everything else, there are times when this first piece of advice might not apply. I'm thinking specifically of the Mona Lisa. I mean, just look at all these people clamoring to get little more than a glimpse at a painting that I fail to see the fuss over. With so many other absolutely stunning works at the Louvre, why engage in mosh pit-like behavior for what is arguably the most reproduced image in the Western world?

2.) Look at What You Don't Like
I know this seems to be contradictory to the first bit of advice (this is straight from Tom, not me), but it makes sense. Most people who enjoy art find that it will broaden their scope of knowledge indirectly. Art exposes you to new ideas and concepts, but you must first expose yourself to the art. I typically don't care for contemporary art. A lot of it seems overly pretentious and mastrubatory to me. That being said, I have learned to really appreciate the mood created in the works of Mark Rothko. I wouldn't have benefited from the sense of serenity that his paintings give me if I hadn't forced myself to give a more modern gallery a try. Sometimes viewing art is like eating vegetables -- you never know what's going to move you until you give it a try.

3. Don't Study Everything
I can't stress this one enough. While I did just tell you to try something new, don't try everything. Think of a museum as a buffet table. If you fill your plate from every single dish on the steam table, you're going to be full and miserable in no time. But no one does that (at least I hope no one does that). Instead they scan the offerings and think, "Nah, that broccoli looks kinda gross, but those mashed potatoes look divine!" Same thing applies with art. Walk through the galleries and glance everything over, but only linger in front of the works that speak to you in some way. This will give you ample time and energy to really study what you're going to enjoy.

4.) Don't Be Afraid to Go Alone
I enjoy doing things alone and some people think I'm weird for this. But I think there's more value in visiting an art museum alone (at least for the first time). When looking at a work of art, I find it's best to be alone with my thoughts. I'm not really interested in what someone else has to say about a work of art when I'm first processing what I see. And going solo affords you the ability to linger as long as you like in front of a particular work. A companion may not be as moved by the same things as you, and will likely make an effort to herd you along prematurely. If you're just not comfortable going alone, at least choose a companion that knows how to be quiet.

5.) Don't Take Things too Seriously
While appreciating art sometimes requires serious contemplation and study, it's often just has helpful to have fun with it. My girlfriend and I can often be found walking around the Indonesian and Mesoamerican sections of the DMA speculating about which artifact is the most haunted in the museum. I think we've decided that the greatest risk of malevolent spirit activity comes from this Indonesian funerary figure or tau-tau:

Having a bit of fun with art helps you to remember what you've seen. It also encourages you to pay closer attention to the details as you look for more fodder for jokes. If you're comically-challenged and would like an example of how to properly make fun of art, I present "39 Renaissance Babies Who Can't Even."

P.S.: Here's a cheat sheet for Tom Hoving's advice.

The Art of Classifying Art

One of the most intimidating things about art to the unfamiliar is its convoluted categories and classifications, some of which often seem completely arbitrary. What is the difference between Renaissance art and Mannerism? Was Manet a Realist or an Impressionist? Is Van Gogh considered Post-Impressionist or Expressionist? If you’re just stepping into the world of art, the most important question is, “who cares?”

When you first start visiting art museums and galleries, you’re likely to hear people say things about different periods or movements in art. Terms like “Neoclassicism,” “Romanticism,” “Abstract Expressionism,” etc. all sound very scholarly and can be a bit daunting to those who have not made a serious study of art. However, none of those terms ultimately matter, especially not at first.

The important thing to realize is that there aren't any hard and fast criteria for assigning a work of art to a particular school or movement. The paintings used to represent a certain school or movement will share certain characteristics, but there isn’t a checklist of criteria that a painting must meet in order to be included in a certain category. But I'll give you an example of the criteria that are used to separate works of art into categories. For my example, I'll use works from Neoclassicism and Romanticism simply because I'm more familiar with late 18th/early 19th century art.

Okay, let’s take a look at two paintings from the same country and roughly similar time periods.

First we have Oath of the Horatii by Jacques-Louis David (1784).

Next we have Liberty Leading the People by Eugene Delacroix (1830).

Take a look at both of these paintings. The first is often considered the prime example of Neoclassical painting, while the second is heralded as one of the greatest works of Romanticism. What similarities and differences do you notice? What jumps out at you?

Let's start with the similarities. They're both French. Both are politically charged and patriotic paintings (though that may not be obvious in the first one without some background knowledge). They both make use of dramatic gestures and lighting. Both hint at strife and battle (well, the Delacroix does more than hint). 

Now let's look at the stylistic differences. Notice the orderly nature of David's composition. The brothers swearing to fight for Rome on the left, their mother and sisters showing restrained sorrow on the right, and the father holding the swords out to his sons separates to two sides. It's an illustration of the division of fear and sorrow from the dedication of duty to the state. You notice the brothers and the father more easily than the Horatii women. By using this calculated composition, David is showing that love of the state is more powerful than love of oneself or one's family. This was a powerful statement indeed in the days leading up to the French Revolution. Also pay attention David's clean and clear lines. The sharp focus of the painting makes it evident that everything on the canvas was carefully considered and meticulously executed. This is 18th century high definition. 

Now let's look at Delacroix's work. There is no clear division in the composition. By comparison, Delacroix's composition is downright messy. You have the personification of Liberty waiving the French Tricolor with a rifle in her hand. She's stepping over the dead and dying as scores of ordinary Frenchmen follow her into battle. Whereas David's figures are stiff and stilted, Delacroix's are fluid and dynamic. The same can be said of the brush strokes in each work. David's highly calculated painting and Delacroix's more visceral one.

And therein lies the main difference between Neoclassicism and Romanticism -- it's the head verses the heart. Neoclassicism (like most things associated with the Enlightenment) is appealing to the intellect, to reason. Romanticism appeals to the gut. A lot of Neoclassical work assumes a certain familiarity with classical stories and themes. Romanticism assumes you're a living, emotional human being. That's the difference.

But that's not to say that there is always such a clear distinction between the two, or any other art movements for that matter. Art historians use periods and movements to separate artists and artworks just to make it a bit more orderly for academic purposes. And some of these movements and schools were en vogue at the same time, so there is often a lot of overlap. Art historians will even argue amongst themselves about how to classify this artist or that painting. So don't feel bad if you're totally lost. Most people are. You don't need to know all the subtleties right off the bat, or ever, for that matter. But learning how to spot them can be part of the fun. Make a game out of it, but remember that it's rarely a pure this-or-that sort of situation. 

I've just given a brief primer on the differences between Neoclassical and Romantic paintings, but I'm not going to jump down anyone's throat for looking at these two paintings and thinking that they are both either Neoclassical or Romantic. But see if you can figure out which one is which (it should be easy by looking at the artists' names).

Jacques-Louis David Napoleon Crossing the Alps (1801)

Théodore Géricault The Charging Chasseur (c.1812)