abbyjean:

In a finding sure to evoke concern and curiosity among curators, newly published research suggests presenting contextual information alongside a work of modern art may be counterproductive in terms of eliciting enjoyment or appreciation.

I have a lot of issues with this. Issues I might not be able to properly address at 10:30 p.m. after a long stressful day, but it’s the internet so I’m going to do my best!

(1) The study didn’t really address “context” for each individual artist or work of art, but rather “context” within an art movement or style. I think lumping art into categories like that leads to the problem like that of, oh, say GENRE in music. If soon as you start to get closer and actually think about what you’re saying, distinctions and labels quickly break down and lose meaning.

So in this study, when handed a description of an art style, people’s enjoyment lessened when they found a work didn’t measure up to what they expected from the style. Is that really a dislike of the art, then, or is it just frustration from chafing up against restrictive and arbitrary aesthetic boundaries? TELL ME.

(2) The article says the survey reflects what some philosopher named Thomas Adajian said about how we all possess an “internal prototype of what constitutes art.”

IF WE ALL HAD PERFECT INTERNAL PROTOTYPES OF ART INSIDE OF US, WOULDN’T WE ALL BE GREAT FUCKING ARTISTS, TOM? HUH, TOM?

AND, really, isn’t part of the reason we go to galleries and museums and exhibtions and look at crap on the internet or whatever because we want to expand our notions of what we like? Or, like, discover something new? Don’t you need to sometimes spend some time with things before you really “get” them? Which is not to say you’ll always like everything if you spend enough time with it, but to say that we’re born with a perfectly formed internal prototype of this totally abstract and completely unbelievable personal thing is just so fucking philosophical.*

(3) The “context” of a work of art is totally unique dependent on the work. When you read those little plaques in a museum, they don’t give you an overview of a style of art, they speak very specifically to the work you’re viewing (at least the good ones do). This study really didn’t seem to take that into account.

I actually really don’t know if the researchers are to blame for everything I’m griping about or the lazy journalists who don’t really “get” “science” and then try to write about it anyway, but SOMEONE is gonna take the fall for this one, damn it.

*I think being too philosophical is, like, the worst, y’all.