One aspect of art appreciation that I think may be quite important is Context: the context in which you are viewing a work of art.

The Internet has made works of art (especially two-dimensional art) accessible to millions of people on their computers and other digital devices they typically own. Much art viewing is happening in this electronically mediated context.

So the viewing context is the computer or device screen/s that people use to view art, and also: websites, email, weather reports, word processing documents, cell phone snapshots, etcetera. A computer or digital device is a general viewing (and listening) platform for the communication of digital information; it is not specialized for viewing art. So the art gets “mixed in” with all the other digital information perused on one’s computer and/or digital device.

Compare this experience of viewing art with seeing it at a gallery or art museum where the environment affects and becomes part of one’s perceptual and emotional experience of the art. Even a coffee table book brings more “context” (e.g., the cover: its design, material and texture) to the viewing of visual art than does a computer or other electronic device. Sure, a website can provide some design surrounding the display of the artwork; but in most cases, backgrounds are best kept neutral or plain white or black so as not to take away from the appreciation of the artwork; this doesn’t leave much “context” except for the viewing device itself.

Related to the context (and somewhat bound up with it) is the tangibility of the artwork. The physicality of the artwork too affects one’s experience of it.

On one end of the spectrum is an ephemeral, slightly flickering (e.g., at 60 Hz or whatever…fast enough so you don’t consciously notice) digital image that goes away when you turn off your computer or electronic device. Sure, you can bring it back onto your screen when you click the power switch back on; but it’s clearly not a permanent physical element in your environment.

Contrast this with a 4 ft X 6 ft framed photo or painting on a wall that you can get up close to and see the details of the brush strokes or paper texture, the sheen off the print/glass/frame, the depth of the frame and its texture, its distance from the wall, its weight (if you have the opportunity to touch or hold it), and so forth. This object has a true (possibly commanding) physical presence and will decay and interact with its surrounding environment like any other physical object. This is an artifact, not just a momentary pattern of pixels.

Now, it seems likely that good and/or inspiring art is likely to show through regardless of the viewing context–whether on a PC monitor or at MoMA. However, I think few would argue that the environment in which artwork is viewed or the physical qualities of the artwork itself has no impact on the viewer’s psychological or emotional response to the artwork. Making a trip to an art gallery or museum is a clear signal to one’s senses that something special is happening–that you are somewhere other than home or work or on your commute–where a less than everyday experience is a possibility and should be prepared for and expected. The same with opening a beautiful new coffee table book that contains engaging printed images.

A human being’s intellect and finer sensibilities are not totally removed from their physical nature. People respond most (best?) to art that is also physically present. Maybe its a feeling of kindredness, I don’t know; but people seem to feel closer to something that shares their physical nature–maybe because it more fully engages their senses?

The importance of context similarly points to the relevance of multiple dimensions or sensory inputs regarding a human being’s experience of art: artwork is not experienced in a sensory vacuum, and whatever “surrounds” the artwork is inevitably part of one’s experience of it.

So, have art galleries and museums and physical prints and paintings lost their value and soon, all two-dimensional art will be viewed primarily on digital devices?

I think it would be pretty tragic because I suspect the value of art itself in peoples’ lives would decline and an important source of inspiration and enlightenment would be lost from peoples’ lives…and they may not come to realize it until the availability of physical art dwindles to the point of being hard to find.

 

 

Visit Michael's Art Photography Portfolio at SaatchiArt.com!