Why do people go to art museums if seeing the photos of the paintings offers you exactly the same experience?

Question

Feifei Wang · Accepted Answer

But the photos of the paintings often do not offer exactly the same experience as seeing the real thing.

This is an installation art called “fish-head train” by artist 黄永砯 (Huang Yong Ping - Wikipedia [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huang_Yong_Ping ])

I saw this art when I visiting Beijing back in 2011. Looking at the picture you probably wouldn’t feel much. It’s a train car with a gigantic fish head stuck to it.

But the work was actually quite imposing. I definitely felt the energy and the sense of foreboding when I saw it in the gallery. It felt like this thing (if it moves) could crush whatever in front of it and kept on moving.

That’s just me. You probably wouldn’t feel a thing even if you saw it in person.

And that’s why you have to see the real thing instead of the picture. You never know what you’ll feel. Art is like that. It is personal, it is emotional. Seeing a picture of an art is like having someone (the photographer) see the art work for you. It’s not the same as you seeing it yourself. It’s like having someone describe what steak taste like. It’s not the same thing as eating a steak.

There are plenty of artworks I studied in college and I didn’t feel a thing when I saw the pictures in my textbook. I didn’t know what’s so special about these paintings. And then later on when I went to see the real thing in the museum, I was thoroughly impressed.

Of course, the reverse could also happen. A picture of the painting looks a lot better than the real thing. And you’d probably better off just see the picture instead of stuck in a crowded museum with 300 of tourists who had 2 hours to visit the Louvre and this is the only painting they’re here the see. Yes I’m talking about Mona Lisa. Most pictures of Mona Lisa is better than the real thing. It’s tiny, it was stuck behind a glass cage. You’re like 6 feet away from it, and you can’t see a thing. And there are 200 people around you all want to take a fucking selfie in front of it.

…

Still, other than Mona Lisa, it’s almost always better to see the real thing.

Anonymous · Answer

There are two paintings I love in the National Gallery (London, UK).

Surprised, by Henri Rousseau is huge: 129.8 × 161.9 cm. It’s a totally different experience to see it here than it is to stand in front of it. In real life, I find it breathtaking.

My other favourite is A Woman, by Robert Campin. This is a very small painting: 
40.6 × 28.1 cm.

It’s egg tempera on wood, and I could stand and look at it for ages.

Both of those paintings make me want to stand and look and look and drink them in.

Conversely, Water-Lilies by Claude Monet is an image I always really liked, but when I saw it in the gallery I found it unimpressive.

It’s huge: 200.7 × 426.7 cm. However to my surprise it didn’t draw me in as the other two pictures did.

The reason for going to an art gallery/museum is that there is no way to know what your experience of a painting will be until you stand in front of it. Some paintings you love in reproduction may fail to move you, others may surprise you with their impact.

If you can get to the National Gallery, the National Portrait Gallery, Tate Modern, or Tate Britain, I urge you to go. If not, then try visiting whatever galleries are near to you. You may be surprised!

https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/henri-rousseau-surprised
https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/robert-campin-a-woman
https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/claude-monet-water-lilies

Sarah Henry · Answer

It really doesn’t though. Photos never really give you the same experience. I’ve been to the Dali museum in St. Pete Florida, the first time I went they had one of his HUGE paintings, I mean, the thing was so damned big it had to be put in this odd lowered section of the museum to fit. It’s 14ft tall! Now, I’ve seen pictures, but they don’t Hold a candle to what it’s like to see it in person. It’s so large it’s intimidating, and the detail is amazing. Look up “the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus”, and it’s a lovely painting… picture it TOWERING over you, 14ft high, in person it so much better.

Heck, even with something I’ve painted myself this is true. I recreated Van Gogh’s Starry Night in a room of a place I used to live, and while I have photos, and I actually painted it myself, they don’t come close to what it was like in person. Not to mention the room was too small to get a full picture of it.

Anonymous · Answer

I'll answer this even though I don't think I count as a member of "the art community." I paint animal portraits using photographic references and I work in a realistic style. Try getting a dog or a cat to sit for a portrait and you'll understand why animal artists use photo references.
I'm aware that using photos as a reference is looked down on by the art cognoscenti, instantly marking me out as a second tier artist. It is what it is. I remember reading the novels of Patrick O'Brian and subsequently being amused by an interview wherein he confessed that he hadn't realised that historical fiction was a despised genre before creating his, in my view, timeless Jack Aubrey novels. Would the world be better off without them? Not in my opinion.
My compatriot Jack Vettriano, although very popular, is not considered a really serious painter because he works from photos. But he can represent the human figure accurately and I have seen a lot of portraits painted by people who have gone though art college where basic mistakes have been made as to proportions. They may have been painted from life, but so what? To my mind, mastery of your craft is a forerunner to launching any artistic revolution. Picasso was a master draftsman before he invented cubism. 
I have seen photo realistic portraits which lacked any spark of life. But I have also seen ones where I felt as though I could reach through the frame and stroke someone's hair, or where the subject seemed to be looking back at me with a life-like sparkle in his or her eye.
I have seen all kinds of impressionistic, expressive and abstract paintings. Some of them appealed to me. Some of them left me cold.
There is an alchemy that takes place involving artist, medium and observer. I really don't think it matters the style in which you paint. A truly gifted artist will speak to you no matter what. A mediocre one will not.
And those who write off a whole genre of painting purely because they have rules about what is and is not worthy? My advice is to leave them alone to live within their rule-bound strictures whilst you roam free across the styles, exploring, observing, contemplating and exulting.

Ashes Bijoux · Answer

In my personal experience it is far from the same thing. If you yourself have not been to an art museum I highly recommend it. If you have been but it did not peak your interest, I would say…Find and artist or subject you enjoy and seak out a museum that is hosting an exhibit. There are all kinds of art museums. Or try out a few different kinds and see how that is for you.

I have been to many museums of all kinds. I have enjoyed them all. When it comes to art museums they can do many things to different people. For me, some works can evoke deep emotion. I have been so unexpectedly moved in an a

I have been to many museums of all kinds. I have enjoyed them all. When it comes to art museums they can do many things to different people. For me, some works can evoke deep emotion. I have been so unexpectedly moved in an art museum that I was brought to tears. (How embarrassing right?) I have also felt, joy, wonder, excitement and inspiration. Here are some brief experiences I have had.

I was to see a special exhibit of work by Andrew Wyeth. An artist I knew of but had only seen a few of his works online. I decided to get the audio tour. What an experience, really hearing the life of this man though his paintings. At the end we were met by a relive of his who thanked us for coming and shook my hand. I walked in thinking ok this might be fun and left feeling touched by his work & story.

When I was a teen my aunt visited a Degas exhibit. (She taught ballet and I also took some lessons from her). She was so very excited about having gone she talked about it for a long time. So I was inspired to go a few years later to see for myself. I loved it but I definitely did not have the experience she had. So I feel that visiting works that you have a connection to can play a big role.

I have been to see the Cartoons at the Ringling museum of art. I had no idea what I was getting into there.Their sheer magnitude was amazing to me. I had never seen anything like them, really splendid work.

Someone took me to see an Andy Warhol exhibit once. I was not really interested in going to be honest. I am so glad that I did. His work was really beautiful and amazing in person. I definitely did not see what the hype was about. Now I understand why he is such a popular artist.

I was to visit a small museum of marble sculptures. I was not sure what to expect. Since photos are flat they can never give the true experience of any 3D works. To be around these pieces that towered over me, just really was inspiring. I imagined how the artist created their pieces. The details I'm the human body and fabric folds were stunning to say the least. We were allowed to touch the pieces as well. I was very impressed by this museum, my father was not. To each his own right?

I have never been big into modern art. I visited a modern art museum and it really changed my perspective. It was so much fun seeing some of the wild pieces. They made the exhibits interactive and playful that you can walk into or through. I would never think of this work the same way if I just saw it in a photo.

Recently I visited a Native American museum. There they had a large section dedicated to local Native American artist. It was very different from many of the art I have seen in big museams. It told a deep personal story of their people. It helped me understand their struggles, values and learn about their culture.

I have plans to visit another art museum next month. I can't not wait to go. I'll be seeing a piece I have only admired photos of for a long time. It is very exciting to me and I am looking forward to sharing this experience with my family. It will be my children's first art museum visit.

I hope that you can see the value of art museums. Perhaps you find it in your own way as I did. I wanted to highlight my experiences for you to see how different one museum can be from the next. As well as to show you that some things are not what they seem in a photo. They have texture, character, dimension, and a history. As long as people are willing to visit them, they will be there for future generations.

Ed Caruthers · Answer

Not research, just personal:

I guess my interaction with art is fairly superficial.  I enjoy seeing art, we even have a lot of prints and paintings hanging in our home, but I don't analyze very deeply.  I look at the main composition, at people's faces and landscapes.  I look at line and mass and color in abstracts.  But, most of the time, I don't pay much more attention to art on my walls than to wallpaper.

When we go somewhere on vacation, we often visit art galleries.  Besides the art, the buildings are usually enjoyable.  Some art works make me stop and look for a while.  But most don't grab me or hold my attention.

I do like placards, when they explain something about the art, especially if they explain how this work is similar to and different from other related works.  This makes the art more interesting (at least for me), especially if there are quite a few related works in the museum's collection.  The combination of art and placards that I recall best is the Art Institute of Chicago's collection of French Impressionists.  I visited that three times in a week and it significantly improved my enjoyment of impressionism.

Anonymous · Answer

It's not the same experience at all, why travel to a location when you can watch a documentary about it? Why go to a live concert when you can listen to singer on your phone? Because our sense are not all working when we just see a photo of something.

When you're Infront of a painting, you can see and feel each stroke of the artist brush, you stand in their shoes and relive what they saw. It's an overwhelmingly and beautiful experience, I couldn't help not tearing when I stood for the first time Infront of my favourite art work.

Stephen Carpenter · Answer

The answer is stated in the question. Let me explain.

Online, in a book, as a print, etc- what you are seeing is a picture of an image. The media “picture” is a rendition of an artifact. Any time you translate an image from one medium to another, you lose something. When you take a photograph of a person, what you lose is the sculptural quality (third dimension) of the person and you select and freeze a point of view.

Each of the media that translate an art image for publication set a particular resolution (dpi, ppi, half-tone). Each of these reduces the amount of information that is contained. For reasons of economy, that visual information is just enough to give the appearance of completeness with the most economy.

But with a museum, you get the actual piece. Paintings can have lots of texture which gets flattened in a photograph. There is something called “proximity” which has to do with how you see the piece in the context of the piece. Most museums have multiple pieces in a given space. The pieces provide a context for each other in that setting and you can go back and forth between them for additional visual information. Additionally, if you are not alone, there is the opportunity for conversation. [I once spent an afternoon with an artist acquaintance and we had an extended exchange over the use of pigments and how the artist(s) in question used viscosity to produce the image. The photos never showed that.]

The last point is the sheer size and scale of some of the pieces. When you read the size, what does it mean when the page you are looking at is 11″x14″ or the website is set at a particular dimension? When I saw “Guernica” at MOMA when it was here in the United States, the sheer size was disorienting. Some people actually lost their balance momentarily. That response by the way, was integral to the painting as Picasso conceived it. As Monet lost his sight, his paintings got larger. The size of the painting in relation to your size has an effect on how you “see” the painting.

The arts are in need of an audience. The “live” contextual experience cannot be duplicated because so much sensory experience is subtracted out with a “recorded” image, or music. or dance for that matter. The experience of live art is a new experience every time.

I hope this helps in some way. Best Wishes and do go to a museum or gallery if you want to see contemporary work.

Wes Fisk · Answer

Why would one want to experience a beautiful sunset in person rather than seeing a photo of it. It’s much the same with paintings. When we look at a photo of a painting we are one step removed, and as such we are missing several differences. Many paintings are quite large, which gives us a much a much better visual experience. In person, you are one step closer to the artist and have a chance to enjoy the three dimensional aspect of a painting, as well as the true colors and how the artist employed brush strokes.

Partof Shan · Answer

People go to art museums because seeing the photos of the paintings doesn’t offer them exact the same experience at all.

Michael Burman · Answer

Except that it doesn't.

The colors are more vibrant than in a photo.

The scale (size) of the work can have a strong psychological effect on the viewer. And the larger scale will allow you to see details in the work that don't come through in a photo.

The largest photo of a Pollock painting I'd ever seen was a 3"x5″ image in my Art History text. I was not impressed. But when I saw the very same painting live and full size in the Chicago Art Institute, I was gobsmacked at the beauty and intricasy of the work. It's like the difference between hearing a band on a cheap radio as opposed to seeing them live.

Reed Jones · Answer

I worked for many years in the commercial printing business, and if there’s one thing I understand very well, it is that photography and print reproduction have enormous variability and limited reproducible color gamuts which make reproduction of fine art very much an inexact process. All you need to do is an internet search for an artwork by name and then display all the available images of it. You will see a veritable rainbow of different colors in the collection of images on-screen. The variation between images is striking, so how can you possible know which is the most accurate?

You have not truly seen a work of art until you have seen it in person. For example, a 12-inch-wide image of “The Raft of the Medusa” hardly conveys the power and majesty of the 20ft wide original. Art reproductions are nowhere near the quality and drama of the original. The lone example I can think of where the opposite is true is “Mona Lisa”, which tends to disappoint in person. It is much smaller and less dramatic than your imagination of it, based on reproductions.

Yotam Zohar · Answer

“What does the art community think of photo realistic paintings?”

Let’s excise an important phrase from your question, and turn it into its own question:

“does the art community think”

No, it does not. The art community is scarcely a community, much less is it sufficiently monolithic or in agreement on matters of style, technique, or aesthetics. Instead, let’s take a little walk through the history of photorealism:

Photorealism’s first famous iteration was the middle and late work of Johannes Vermeer, who popularized for modern scholars the use of the camera obscura. The evidence of its use in Vermeer’s work is clear when one observes the circular highlights that could only be the result of transcribing the effect of light through a circular lens:

Photorealism, 1666

With the advent and growing ubiquity of the photographic camera in the 19th century, some western painters entered into a frenzied competition to retain the legitimacy of their craft, while others plodded along on the same course they’d always treaded, knowing full well the competition between painting and photography was a fabrication by critics:

Photorealism, 1876

Fast-forward to the late 20th century, photorealism is still alive and well:

Chuck Close, self-portrait, 1977

From my perspective as a realist painter, photorealism still seems to turn a lot of heads. For one thing it’s technically laborious and most people take for granted or have no idea about the fact that artists have pretty much always used optical tools in order to expedite this process. But even with the use of projectors, grids, and tracing, a great deal of time and effort and skill is involved in creating a work of photorealism. This impresses people, and as long as art is impressive it’s going to have staying power.

Here’s one of the winners from 2016’s BP Portrait Award [ http://www.npg.org.uk/whatson/bp2016/exhibition/prize-winners/ ], a competition I like to use as a metric for “what’s hot in figurative painting these days”:

On a closing note, as always, I want to put it to you and all readers of this answer chain that what tends to matter in determining the popularity of an artistic trend is what is selling, and to whom. If there’s a particular style of art you wish was better represented in the art world, pool your resources and start buying. There are a ton of artists out there making great work, but none of that matters if they’re not selling it, because if an artist makes a lot of work and can’t sell any of it, they will stop making art so they have time to do something that pays the bills, and the person who DOES get paid to make art will keep making art, and that is the art you’re going to see when you go to a gallery or a museum.

Mark Walhimar · Answer

People love to go to art museums. There are 10 reasons behind this.

All points are mentioned below:

* Museums make you feel good
 * Museums make you smarter
 * Museums provide an effective way of learning
 * Museums are community centers
 * Museums inspire
 * Museums help bring change and development to communities
 * Museums are a great way to spend time with friends and family
 * A museum may be your next community partner or business endeavour
 * Museums need your support in order to keep educating and inspiring people
 * There is a museum close to you

Ian Humbertson · Answer

But it doesn't.

Photos of art definitely increase a piece's accessibility— there's no question about that. But photos can't offer the same range of senses one can have from seeing the piece in person.

Let's say there's a painting that's 6'x5′. Would you get that same sense of scale from a photo? The same sense of texture with the materials and techniques used? Heck, even the colors or details— the photos might not be 100% accurate, especially concerning differences in what screens people are viewing from. There might also be distortion in the photos (though I'm sure this would be avoided if at all possible).

And for another, art isn't limited to drawings and paintings. Photos certainly don't do more dimensional works like ceramics and statues the justice of seeing them in person.

Steven Berger · Answer

There are many reasons why people go to art museums; I can only give you my personal reasons why I go.

I love viewing art. With the wide range of art styles, genres, periods and mediums I find art to be challenging, inspiring, comforting and interesting. I also enjoy the architecture of most art museums. Many times I will go through fairly quickly until I find something that catches my attention.

I go for nostalgia I have been going to the Cleveland Museum of Art since I was a child in the 1960–70s. Although most of the museum has changed some things are very consistent, including the Armor Court which is the same as I remember it.

I go to remember my friend who I lost 2 years ago. She was a huge fan of the museum and we spent many happy days together there. She studied art and museum curatorship, so art museums were very special places for her.

I go to museums to discover new items and styles. I find it exhilarating to see art. Some of it is beautiful. Some of it is different. Some can be hard to understand. Some art will put you in contact with different elements of the human condition. I love seeing the skill, the technique and the inspiration that an artist can bring.

There are times I go to an art museum for distraction, to occupy my time. There are also times that go to be renewed. I go to at museums to learn and broaden myself. I go to learn more about other cultures and peoples.

Mostly I go to art museums because I enjoy myself and there is no better reason then that.

Matt Becher · Answer

Photorealism on its own is rather banal, but that doesn’t mean a photorealistic work is good or bad. Rather, experimenting with subject matter and blending techniques can take a photorealistic work to the next level.

There are literally thousands of artists drawing hyper-detailed eyeballs and celebrities from photographs. It’s technically impressive but artistically bland.

Instead, think about Jeremy Geddes creating surrealist portraits and scenes:

White Cosmonaut (2009)

Or the nostalgic still life works of Doug Bloodworth:

Hulk Cheetos

Or Keng Lye, who creates realistic sculptures by “painting” layers of resin:

All of these are great works in vastly different ways, and while each employs photorealism, none of them have value completely dependent upon it. All of these artists are represented by galleries and have had solo shows. That is the difference between good and bad photorealistic art.

Karen Gillis Taylor · Answer

Art is not made solely by talking about art or dreaming of it, but by gathering materials and making it. When you are in a room with the end product of the artist’s efforts, the effort that went into this project is visible and “in your face.” If a piece makes it into a museum display, chances are that its effect on viewers has stood the test of time and/or quality.

Seeing the art in person brings a point of contact you cannot get from looking at a picture of it. As you stand in front of a painting you see more. It’s true size and colors. The way the paint was applied is more visible. Some paintings may affect your emotions in a way that surprises you, because you are seeing them in real life and perfect lighting that enhances every detail. You may come away with a new sense of wonder or inspiration you never could get by looking at art on computer screens or in books.

Additionally, a lot of time and effort goes into creating a museum show as well. Special exhibits can be artistic feats in themselves, with well-designed graphics, background stories, audio presentations with headphones and videos. The lives of artists are often just as interesting as their art works. We begin to appreciate what makes artists “tick.” Why they spend so much of their living days creating, over and over again.

If you take the time to visit an art museum or gallery, and really look, the experience may change your ideas about art and even about the world in a way that could surprise you.

Garima Jharotiya · Answer

As (I hope) everyone knows, art is everywhere, Some people can see it, some people can't. Or choose not to. Some people appreciate it, some people don't, choose not to.

Wether you like it, dislike it or don't care about it, art is important and it should be appreciated. Art opens your mind, art gives you a different vision of the world, the people and even of yourself. That's why dedicating a part of your time to appreciate the art around you is essential, be it paintings, poems, music or even the art of living and being who you are.

%3E “If you ask me what I came to do in this world, I, an artist, will answer you: I am here to live out loud.” ― Émile Zola
Now, let me talk about part of my experience with art. Since I was little I have always been encouraged to appreciate and be in contact with art in various ways, and that is something I'm very thankful for.

Last week I spent great part of my time visitng all types of museums regarding all sorts of topics. But the one that provided me the the best experience was Kiran Nadar museum of Art.

Visiting this exhibit was an eye opening experience. Not only the content but also the design of the museum itself and everything and everyone involved. I can't begin to explain how much I've learned that day.

Everytime you've got the opportunity, you should definitely visit a museum, whatever it is about. Be in contact with art, appreciate art and learn from it.

Thank you for reading!

pictures source : my gallery

Love Garima

Roger Paine · Answer

Totally different experience; you be like picture in a book or digital yeah, like that, looks good then you see it for real and it more like holy shit and fking bloody blazes check that out, I need to sit down