When I look at a piece of art I don't know what I'm supposed to think

[spacedonkey]

Is this normal?

I'm sure the thoughts I do have are banal.

Any guidance from art appreciating culture vultures?

Hi spacedonkey, I used to work in museums and galleries and a big part of my job was to try to break down the barriers which cause this type of feeling. What you're feeling is a completely honest response to what you're seeing! Your thoughts about Ali McGraw or posters for Hair are just as valid (and far more interesting) than many art crtitics' comments.

To me, the arts occupy a part of life which doesn't have to be explained or justified. Nothing you have said is banal!

Space Donkey,

I think your putting yourself down.

Art is as people have said earlier in the eye of the beholder. You don't have to be cultured, tutored or knowledgabe in anyway of art to be able to enjoy or apreciate it.

I do think as time goes on if you study art - or become interested in a painting or painter and spend more time admiring thier work then your comments on it change form the banal (as you say) to something more formed and thoughtful. Often as you say my first thoughts on an art work could be incredibly uncultured, your brain works fast and if something reminds you of something else it will pop into your head. Theres nothing wrong with that.

I take adult students to the Tate Britain and National Gallery four or five groups a year - who have either never been to a gallery or don't go any mre as they find it intimidating - or they feel they don't understand, don't know how to comment etc on art and so are intimidated out. I take them to look around the gallery with something else in mind. Not to worry about what they are meant to think but to look at the paintings and find things - no matter how banal that they like about them - or could give them an idea to create their own design. I find once they have overcome the first five minutes of being in a gallery - it becomes an enjoyable excercise and they forget being stuffy about it and start being braver with thier thoughts.

Never feel your thoughts are nothing - or boring. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and what I enjoy and what you enjoy may be completely different but it does'nt make either of us wrong - just people with differnt perceptions.

spacedonkey -
should clarify perhaps - your first impressions are not that unusual!

Thank you for the reassurances

I do like going to galleries (the National Portrait Gallery is my favourite), symphony effect notwithstanding. But I do tend to find myself aimlessly milling and rarely stop and look for any length of time. I would like to be able to get more out of the experience.

agree with ediemay re your first impressions....why do you assume they are banal because they're not poncey???

am loving this thread btw...thank you

I think the simple answer to my problem is ... chill!

here is a picture that stopped me in my tracks

Yes, chill! Rememebr - galleries are a good place to shelter from the rain/wait for the bus and get a coffee, it doesn't have to be more than that! If you see a pic or two you like as well, that's a bonus.

If you feel you want to 'get more out of it' lots of galleries run all kinds of outreach programmes. It might be worth contacting the Exhibitions Officer at some of your favourites (NPG perhaps?) and asking what sort of courses/sessions they run. The national collections belong to you and the galleries looking after them have a duty to make them as accessible as possible.

If you could scan minds walking round a gallery, most people would be thinking just the same thoughts.

Oh donkey-donk,

Like others have said, I think your quandary is not uncommon at all. I usually wander around a gallery twice --- first just to get an overall quick impression, and make a mental note of ones that struck me. Then I go back to those and look at them more closely.

I think chilling is a very good idea, indeed!

Oh, what a great discussion. Do you mind if I come and feel like a pretentious tit too? It's not often I get the opportunity to practice even though I'm doing an f'ing degree in modern art.

I like whatever Matthew Collings tells me to because I think he's faberoony and I lurve him

Seriously though I think it's a personal thing - go with your gut feeling in the first place.

If you are attracted to something, try to find out a bit about the artist and their other work and how it has progressed and you may understand it more fully. It may also lead you onto other artists who have been influenced or are influencial. Don't get bogged down - enjoy it. Look for humour too, some of it is meant to be funny.

I think modern art is especially supposed to be about your own reaction to it like with Rothko. Some art has particulaly political overtones as with the Realists. You have to study a piece of art in context to the age it was made in order to see what it's reflecting about that culture.

I really like Tract Emin actually but I can see why she's easy to dismiss. She's very of the age I think, a bit lost and vulnerable. I think many people don't like it as it's like looking in a kind of mirror and seeing only the bad aspects of yourself reflected back. A negative and reactionary response is natural in that respect; none of us like to be told of our faults and it's certainly contry to the crap arse licking flattery of advertisng that tells us everything we'd love to believe about ourselves but is just a lie to get us to buy meaningless products.

this one made me think! There's soooooo much in it.

I'm not a fan of modern or abstract art. I prefer fine art. I always used to wonder about people you saw sat in a gallery just looking at a picture - when I saw Paul Delaroche's Execution of Lady Jane Grey I understood

Jools, to me this is a very disturbing piece - it obviously does what it was intended to.

Art is such a personal thing though. Whether it makes you think 'urgh' or 'wow' or nothing atall, it is having the desired effect. Everyone is qualified to have an impression of how they feel about a piece of art and should be allowed to express that without feeling they are being undermined, which unfortunately is often the case.

it is disturbing - which means the artist has really captured the moment - there's something in every corner of this picture

What do you make of this?!

Dada

Really, it's a very famous piece of post war art!

monkeytrousers, when I look at that I think "mmm, that looks like an old urinal ... ah it IS an old urinal ... ". Then there's a great big blank as I wonder what the artist wanted me to think!

LOL Spacedonkey. I'm trying to get my head round it too. I think that in the way that Jool's says that Delaroche captured a moment, this also captures a moment in history - the emergence of mass production and kitsch objects as a counter to fine art elitism.

The Dada's meant to turn art on it's head, and challenge the meaning of art itself. The name Dada is from the baby nonsense word.