In this article Shales examines how experiencing an object is fundamentally different when viewed in a museum rather than a home. He says the museum goers are "starved of touch until they get to the gift shop", having been denied any physical interaction with the art. Reading this article I was reminded one of my former Art History teacher Michael Fenton who admitted to being a serial art toucher in museums although he never encouraged us to do the same. Some of the objects that he would touch or have liked to touch were originally intended to be so, such as Meret Oppenheim's cup and saucer made of hair, but over time deemed too important by the museum to get damaged.
I think that it is a natural human curiosity to want to touch and explore things with our hands. I appreciate that museums do not normally allow touching the art because they have a duty to preserve the art and, particularly art like paintings and drawings, would degrade over time. Even so, i think Shales said it best, "Our eyes move too fast and don't slow us down quite the way stroking an artifact can induce an attainment in breathing." I find this true for myself in museums and galleries, walking slowly past art hanging on the walk, occasionally stopping to examine something that intrigued me, but mostly just scanning over the visual information then moving quickly to the next piece. If an object is put in my hand I immediately run my fingers over the surface, finding the edges, feeling the surface and holding the weight. My experience touching an object is so much stronger than a purely visual experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment