How Long Should You Look At A Photograph?
Written by Sara TrulaI was reading this piece on the BBC, which talks about the upcoming Leonardo Da Vinci exhibition at the National Gallery. In it, the show’s curator, Luke Syson, argues that each Da Vinci painting needs at least 10 minutes’ of looking to really appreciate it.
Which reminded me of something an art friend once told me – that we generally spend less than 30 seconds looking at each work of art in a gallery. That’s less than one television advert per piece.
And also reminded me of the critic, Robert Hughes who, in his programme, The Mona Lisa Curse argues that modern art has reduced going to an art gallery to being able to say “I was there” (he uses the example of people lining up to see the Mona Lisa while it was on tour in the US, and having only a few seconds to actually glimpse the work, too little to fully appreciate it).
So how long do you spend looking at a photograph? Does the time you spend depend on the medium in which it’s presented? Do you spend longer looking in a gallery, or in a book, or online? Does it matter?
And what does the amount of time we spend with any one photographs tell us about the point of making these photographs?
Discussion (12 Comments)
A peculiar choice for an analogy. I’ve seen the Mona Lisa at the Louvre and it was impossible to get within 10 feet without barging my way through other tourists.
Often the best time to look at a photo is when it’s in a book, and when you can dip into it at your own leisure.
Oh, what a fabulous question! There’s “how long,” and there is also “how well.” When we do a , we spend 90 minutes looking at an edit of 9.
whoops – was supposed to read: When we do a BagNewsSalon (with the link on BagNewsSalon). Thanks!
Online viewing has shortened attention span for photographs mainly because they’re so readily available (NEXT!) and don’t offer as much information as a good print. Unfortunately, I find this method of speed viewing creeping into how I view books and often have to remind myself- it’s OK, relax, enjoy… turn the page at your leisure.
Today’s wall sized gallery prints demand two viewing distances- one, literally at a distance, so you can appreciate the image as a whole (which also tends to negate any sense of intimacy with the subject matter), and then again, at close range to appreciate the details. Sometimes, this little dance makes it rather disconcerting, if not impossible to appreciate the damn thing as one whole.
“Medium” sized prints allow one to appreciate content and detail, as well as provide a certain sense of “expanse” without having to back away from what it is you’re actually trying to relate to.
Also it can’t be said enough times- what you see online is often not a fair or valid representation of the image that you think you’re looking at. So many times I’ve seen “mediocre” photographs online, only to be knocked out cold seeing them (for what really is the first time) live and in person, in print.
Good comments all, appreciated. 🙂
Stan B – some interesting points. I particularly noticed the effect of large prints at the Mitch Epstein American Power series at Open Eye Gallery just last weekend – the moving back and forth made it hard to feel I’d had a conclusive viewing. I want to send more time with them. In his case, the size really supports the thrust of the work, I suspect; it flows from the work’s premise. But, in other cases, I feel it really detracts.
And you raise good points about the difference between online and print viewing too – I’m young in photo years, but make a habit of ordering small work prints as much as I can, and when I started doing this after shooting some months’ of digital work, it was a complete eye-opener to me to see what worked in print and what didn’t. It’s something I’d really advocate doing more of, I couldn’t keep working without it. Not in a way that would satisfy why I started doing this, anyway.
It can also be hard when you’re constantly talking photography and inevitably someone says, “have you seen…?” and you don’t know the work. There’s so much history to photography, that young photographers in particular (maybe all of us?) can feel very pressured to have seen it all, to “be aware of wider practice” as rubrics are so fond to require. Funny, I heard Donovan Wylie say he spent a long time failing to do any of that, and maybe it shaped his voice, that wilderness. But that need to be omniscient can encourage to gloss too quickly over things. I know myself I’ve enjoyed recent weeks being able to sit down with several different Norfolk books and just keep returning to those pictures, to his words, to what he does. So much better than a quick browse of his website permits, by far. Keep reminding myself that the rush to devour the work of others devalues my own work that I spend so much time on – if I can’t give an image by Norfolk 10 minutes’ of my time, why should I expect anyone else to give that to one of mine?
Gotta agree on Epstein’s American Power- the subject matter really does shine with the grandiose size.
Not sure what I think about American Power Stan/Sara. The politics behind it make me want to like it but it feels a bit didactic, specifically on account of the project’s scale and the way I’ve seen it exhibited.
The answer is of course is that there is no answer. It depends on many things, primarily the dialogue the photographer/artist establishes with the viewer. The very best image makers (in a gallery sense) will have a handle on this and instinctively or otherwise mimic the experiential aspects of painting that might make you want to stay and stare for 20 minutes. Jeff Wall has spent his whole career exploring this aspect of photography.
Size is of course a major factor – Simon Norfolks’s work in book form doesn’t really offer me much in the way of stimulation or engagement, but in big (whether up close or from afar) it’s a different kettle of fish. That could be as a digital projection or a physical print – the effect is the same for me.
Great comment.
I hate to admit it, but I have no patience for photo presentations on the wall. And believe me, I’ve tried..
When I’m at home, cosy on the couch, I really enjoy my photobooks. I read all captions (even if they are 1000 words) and I take the time to really look at the pictures.
I don’t enjoy multimedia on my computer, but when could watch it on TV: different game.
I think we can agree on the fact that I’m just a lazy person..
Lazy? Never.
Paticular?
YES.