4 ms·

Having had my mind changed when visiting some massive and site-specific art, my recommendation to those who say from photos that they don’t like it: withhold ju

Having had my mind changed when visiting some massive and site-specific art, my recommendation to those who say from photos that they don’t like it: withhold judgement until you’ve been there. Immersion in something of this scale, in a setting like this, in a place so remote that getting there is a journey, is likely to have an effect on you that aerial photos you look at on your phone do not.

CPLX 4y ago
Exactly. It’s literally the core concept to consider when considering art. You have to actually see the real thing to experience it. That doesn’t mean you’ll like it there’s an excellent chance you won’t. But experiencing art in real life is fundamentally different than seeing images of it, and this is doubly true for larger scale or more installation oriented pieces. A good example that’s a little closer to home and easier to experience for many is DIA Beacon outside of NYC.
- acomjean 4y ago
  Dia beacon is a really great museum and fun to explore. The subject artist Michael Heizer artist has a piece there. https://www.diaart.org/collection/collection/heizer-michael-north-east-south-west19672002-2003-174-1-4 https://www.diaart.org/collection/collection/heizer-michael-... Walking through the Richard Sera pieces was a trip. https://www.diaart.org/exhibition/exhibitions-projects/richard-serra-exhibition https://www.diaart.org/exhibition/exhibitions-projects/richa...
- i_am_jl 4y ago
  >A good example that’s a little closer to home and easier to experience for many is DIA Beacon outside of NYC. Just want to add, if you're heading to DIA Beacon and the weather is nice, don't miss Storm King on the other side of the river.
- doctorhandshake 4y ago
  Yeah def had Serra and Beacon in mind as well as Naoshima, Teshima, Turrell, etc.
deebosong 4y ago
That's how I felt about the Rothko color wash paintings. Not gonna say the prestige around them (aka, the dollar valuations that contribute to the hype surrounding those works) didn't influence me. I'm sure it does on some level (but other hyped-up works of art don't really do it for me, like stuff that Koons & Damien Hirst make). But seeing Rothko's paintings in a huge room, as a series, is very imposing, ominous, and for lack of better word, cool. Felt like a sensory immersion experience that taps into other parts of you that you didn't expect, not unlike looking at a vast beautiful landscape. If you only see it as a jpeg/ png that's like, 4-6" on your monitor, or as a 8" x 11" print in a coffee table book, it'll pale in comparison. Even if the discrepancy sounds utterly obvious, the in-situ experience is so vastly different, that even if it doesn't hit you like it does for others (i.e., me), it's still worth it to go see it as is, just to see how you'll respond to it or not.
- thanatos519 4y ago
  I felt that way about https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    +1 for Guernica It's 11.5ft (3.5m) tall by 25.5ft (7.75m) wide. When you're standing in front of it, and it fills your entire vision, the horror comes through in a way that a postage stamp sized picture cannot trigger. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernica_(Picasso) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernica_(Picasso)
    - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
      Totally agree with you, but not sure the comparison is apt. When I look at Guernica on my phone, I think "Wow, that's cool, I bet it would be so imposing at full size." When I look at parent's link to Voice of Fire, I think, "Am I getting punked?" Point being that the small version makes me think "this is dumb", but I can appreciate that the scale of the original leaves a totally different impression.
jeffrallen 4y ago
"look at on your phone on the toilet" FTFY. ;)
Balgair 4y ago
Had similar experiences with van Gogh. On a screen it's just some swirly images and color. On paper, the colors are better, but still just some swirly images. But in person, woah. You get to see the real colors. And those subtle differences between RGB and CMYK and reality do end up mattering. And the way he used his brush. It wasn't so much that he was painting, he was more sculpting with paint. The swirls aren't swirls, the strokes aren't strokes. They're glops of paint that get smoothed and cut into the right places. To do the color mixing with that much paint off canvas is really tough, especially in the sunlight. In person, I finally got to experience the technical mastery of painting that van Gogh had, something I never knew was there before.

CPLX 4y ago

Exactly. It’s literally the core concept to consider when considering art. You have to actually see the real thing to experience it. That doesn’t mean you’ll like it there’s an excellent chance you won’t. But experiencing art in real life is fundamentally different than seeing images of it, and this is doubly true for larger scale or more installation oriented pieces. A good example that’s a little closer to home and easier to experience for many is DIA Beacon outside of NYC.

acomjean 4y ago
Dia beacon is a really great museum and fun to explore. The subject artist Michael Heizer artist has a piece there. https://www.diaart.org/collection/collection/heizer-michael-north-east-south-west19672002-2003-174-1-4 https://www.diaart.org/collection/collection/heizer-michael-... Walking through the Richard Sera pieces was a trip. https://www.diaart.org/exhibition/exhibitions-projects/richard-serra-exhibition https://www.diaart.org/exhibition/exhibitions-projects/richa...
i_am_jl 4y ago
>A good example that’s a little closer to home and easier to experience for many is DIA Beacon outside of NYC. Just want to add, if you're heading to DIA Beacon and the weather is nice, don't miss Storm King on the other side of the river.
doctorhandshake 4y ago
Yeah def had Serra and Beacon in mind as well as Naoshima, Teshima, Turrell, etc.

deebosong 4y ago

That's how I felt about the Rothko color wash paintings. Not gonna say the prestige around them (aka, the dollar valuations that contribute to the hype surrounding those works) didn't influence me. I'm sure it does on some level (but other hyped-up works of art don't really do it for me, like stuff that Koons & Damien Hirst make). But seeing Rothko's paintings in a huge room, as a series, is very imposing, ominous, and for lack of better word, cool. Felt like a sensory immersion experience that taps into other parts of you that you didn't expect, not unlike looking at a vast beautiful landscape. If you only see it as a jpeg/ png that's like, 4-6" on your monitor, or as a 8" x 11" print in a coffee table book, it'll pale in comparison. Even if the discrepancy sounds utterly obvious, the in-situ experience is so vastly different, that even if it doesn't hit you like it does for others (i.e., me), it's still worth it to go see it as is, just to see how you'll respond to it or not.

thanatos519 4y ago
I felt that way about https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire
- ethbr0 4y ago
  +1 for Guernica It's 11.5ft (3.5m) tall by 25.5ft (7.75m) wide. When you're standing in front of it, and it fills your entire vision, the horror comes through in a way that a postage stamp sized picture cannot trigger. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernica_(Picasso) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernica_(Picasso)
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    Totally agree with you, but not sure the comparison is apt. When I look at Guernica on my phone, I think "Wow, that's cool, I bet it would be so imposing at full size." When I look at parent's link to Voice of Fire, I think, "Am I getting punked?" Point being that the small version makes me think "this is dumb", but I can appreciate that the scale of the original leaves a totally different impression.

jeffrallen 4y ago

"look at on your phone on the toilet" FTFY. ;)

Balgair 4y ago

Had similar experiences with van Gogh. On a screen it's just some swirly images and color. On paper, the colors are better, but still just some swirly images. But in person, woah. You get to see the real colors. And those subtle differences between RGB and CMYK and reality do end up mattering. And the way he used his brush. It wasn't so much that he was painting, he was more sculpting with paint. The swirls aren't swirls, the strokes aren't strokes. They're glops of paint that get smoothed and cut into the right places. To do the color mixing with that much paint off canvas is really tough, especially in the sunlight. In person, I finally got to experience the technical mastery of painting that van Gogh had, something I never knew was there before.