MICHAEL KIMMELMAN muses on why visitors to the Louvre, or any modern museum, don’t look at the Art, anymore, they just snap a picture.    By the way, I do tend to stop and look and would rather take in a place the the Louvre, in several visits – trying to see it all at once is too hard, and the value of a visit like that – is much less.

See …

At Louvre, Many Stop to Snap but Few Stay to Focus

But, of course, if all you have is one visit – maybe there’s little choice but to snap pictures or videos and I did it myself, two years ago, when I spent a few afternoons at the Louvre and at Delacroix‘s museum and then Aix in Provence and Cezanne’s studio, etc.

In Museums and the Public Understanding of Science -By John Durant, Committee on the Public Understanding of Science it’s put forward, on page 28, point 3, below,  that most of the value of a visit to a museum happens in the first 30 minutes:

On page 29, Museum Fatigue is mentioned – with the attempt to understand it – but I think the modern tendincy of the visitor to an Art Museum is not to look, but to snap a picture – and if that happens, according to this study, quoted above, your maximum value of what you want to look at is going to happen soon after you arrive.

With that in mind, I think a modern viewer ought to plan the first 30 minutes to exactly what they want to see first, if they know what that is, with out taking photos or videos, and then, afterwards, once attention span is less, to take pictures as one can, to process the information later.

I was thinking about the events, conferences, technologies and industries I’m involved in both from a Web Analytics, Social Media and Art Perspective.  I’m also thinking about weather it makes sense of me to maintain a studio that I hardly ever use (over at Brooklyn Artists Gym).

Maybe, I’ll take a breather for a few months to decide if I really need to create anything there, anymore, or my sketches and spontaneous works,  most of these I post here, are enough for me.

I don’t know – but I do know that Art, Art and what it means to be a Artist, today, needs to be re-defined.  I’ve never really fit into the Art World that well – I feel more like someone that goes back and forth between different realities, at the same moment – that’s unlike most people, that put on one hat, take it off, and put another one on – I don’t.

I wear all my hats – all at once (I guess that doesn’t make a hell  of a lot of sense if we were talking about “hats” and not something else – which has little to do with “hats”).

I was “tweeting” (using Twitter) today to mention an Mashable Event I went to last night – here’s the Tweets:

	webmetricsguru the challenge of an artist, today, is to redefine what art is, in light of all that’s happened about 2 hours ago from web
	webmetricsguru and, now, where it’s happening might not be location as much as it’s a process, site, idea, network, community about 2 hours ago from web
	webmetricsguru as an artist, for example, painting, the act of art, perhaps Art, needs to be redefined, in light of all of this about 2 hours ago from web
	webmetricsguru I’m near the center of “it”, even if my role is less visible. it seems to me, today, our Rennisance is Internet and Social Media about 2 hours ago from web
	webmetricsguru feel pretty good about some of the social media reporting I’m doing, new ground I’m coming up with. I like that much of what is “happening” about 2 hours ago from web

Was kinda thinking about the idea that “painting” doesn’t really excite me that much -  probably never did – it’s more the idea of “connecting” and painting feels to me like a bridge to that.

To the extent Painting, and Art, promotes “connecting” I think it works for me.  To the extent that it doesn’t, it becomes a detractor for me.

And that reminds me – today Paul Krugman wrote a post that reminds me of my Tweets – that we need a new vocabulary for Art, just as we need a new Vocabulary for Economics – We need a new business cycle vocabulary

The point, I think, is that the traditional definition of recession only worked well in the face of a jagged business cycle; if we now have smoother, longer curves — maybe due to better inventory management, or whatever caused the Great Moderation — the question, “Is this a recession?”, no longer means much.

And, I think, the same thing holds true of Art.  What’s painting … anymore?  Does anyone know?

How about Drawing?  Sculpture?  Cinema, Directorship?

Does anyone know?

Maybe we need to sit down, and re-define all of what means  – today.

I, for one, don’t want to spend my time, creating things that no one really wants – most artists do – it’s only the force of their personality, their own Social Networks, that make the difference between success and failure – the money thing is only the indication of what has already happened, or didn’t.

Being “influential” in a satisfying way, via Self Expression, is something that artists always wanted – I suggest we re-define what that means in the 21st Century (instead of letting some Museum Curators, Gallery Dealers and Art Publications decide that – maybe the “Artists” that feed all of this ….  maybe They should be one’s to decide, what Art is, today.

I had several reviews of my work recently - and that process (opening one self up for being seen and commented on) threw me for a loop – so to speak – the way I see myself and my work is much different than how others see it and experience me.  I suspect,  most people see themselves and their work in a different way than the world sees it – and every so often, it’s good to get feedback – even if that feedback does nothing but throw you back on yourself – as it did for me.

I suspect that most guidance and direction really needs to come from “within” – that even well meaning people, often give the feedback and criticism from the prospective of what “they” would do, what they “like” but what an artist needs to do is filter that feedback, and decide, by going “within” what is right for that person.

I believe the best teacher is oneself – one’s own inner self – and feedback that comes externally will only be valuable as it echos in one’s inner voice.   Perhaps, the best thing to be said from external critiques and schools of art, is that the refine your technique and perception, perhaps also helping in forming social networks and communities the artist can draw on later – but one’s inner voice is where the real seat of wisdom lies – and that can’t from from anyone else, but you (me) – at least, for me it’s that way.

I also ended a friendship, more or less, last week, and that was and has been painful for me, but I’m getting over it (and who knows if anything really ever ends?).

At any rate, here’s a new work, something I did yesterday, did it differently, taped two sheets of paper on the wall and I’m not really sure if it’s really done – or if it even matters.   I just want to have fun with it – and maybe, that’s more what I need to do anyway:

I’m not really sure what I’m painting – but I know I need to do something beyond what I have been – just don’t know what. 

I guess that’s the challenge for Artists in this 20th and 21st Centuries that’s somewhat different than the past – there really is no established path, and in fact, no real “social need” for Art – and yet, there’s still Art.

Why?   I don’t know, perhaps it’s a fundamental need of ours to create – to comment on our lives and what we think of it all.

As I wrote recently in Webmetricsguru.com about Interesting post on the value of Blogging and the difference between internal valuation and external valuation; the value of Artwork is determined by at least two factors:

1. Your own self valuation
2. Valuation of Art Authorities, Museum Curators, Communities

At the end of the day, Artists need to believe in themselves and their own vision – and all work, I believe, should be done out of self development, self growth and not for money – money really should not be part of the equation – not for doing the work.

On the other hand, the value of work we do is determined by externals, by supply and demand and fundamentally, by what communities of influentials believe your work is worth – and while the Art Market can be, and has often been gamed in the short run, in the long run, it can not be – as time shows a truer picture of what’s really valuable (to the world) and what’s not. 

And all of that – involves community and Social Networks of influentials – there’s no way around it – it’s an ecosystem one can’t really avoid – might as well embrace it.  

Someday, I’ll write a book on this, but I’m not ready yet – the ideas are still forming in my mind, as I write.

Seth Godin is the smartest marketer alive – and I always read his blog, most of the time commenting in Webmetricsguru.com; today my comment belongs in ArtNewYorkCity.com because Seth talks about why more people don’t go to museums.

a. the curators think the item on display is the whole thing. As a result, they slack off and do less than they should in creating an overall story

b. they assume that visitors are focused, interested and smart. They are rarely any of the three. As a result, the visit tends to be a glossed over one, not a deep one or a transcendent one

c. science museums in particular almost beg people NOT to think.

I can’t remember the last time a museum visit made my cry, made me sad or made me angry (except at the fact that they don’t try hard enough).

Besides, some people have negative associations with museums; my wife was raised in Poland where Museums were considered old, stuffy and boring!  I don’t find Museums boring, but I understand why many do – they don’t engage visitors enough (sounds like Musuems are often like bad websites that don’t work well enough).

“They asked how long it had been since he had been to a museum.  But the group that liked his books spoke up pretty quickly, and first acknowledged that he was trying to needle them, but then said – wait, he is part of our audience, and clearly he has thought this.  And if we are not listening to our audiences, then we may not be doing our jobs well at all.  This was bounced around for a while.  At the end I pulled it back towards Godin’s books and asked what, if anything, they got from the books, felt like they could take back to their museums and use, or share with their bosses.  Even a couple of the Godin-haters mentioned things they got from them.  After the book club, back at the cabin we were staying in, there was a lot of talking around the fireplace about branding and stories, so it was clear the books, and the discussion, made them think.”

Sounds like Seth Godin’s books were examined by museum directors and it got them to think.  If you stop to think, getting people to a museum and keeping them engaged is the same exact problem as getting people to a website and engageing them enough that they stay. 

The solution for a website is usually better content and better design.  In the case of museums, it’s not so much the content as the presentation and activities at the museum that encourage people to want to be there and have a positive experience.

Again, I’m not the person who has a problem with museums – I like them overall, but many don’t like museums and there’s probably a valid reason why.