3 ms·

> You might think of this chart as the shape of attention. After clicking to start, thousands rapidly exited, some immediately, some after a minute or two. But

> You might think of this chart as the shape of attention. After clicking to start, thousands rapidly exited, some immediately, some after a minute or two. But if you could make it past three minutes, you were more likely to finish than to give up. And once you hit five minutes, your odds of completing the exercise were very high. A quarter who started made it to the 10-minute mark. This is interesting but the whole experiment is completely undermined by the fact that one cannot choose the painting, or at least choose from a list of paintings. Personally I clicked through to see what it was, then left after 10s because I didn't like what I found. I do like impressionism but not the out of focus and "about to go blind" cataract kind, which actually gives me a headache. For me at least, a blank wall would be preferable to a fogged up scene, assuming a 10 minute timer and a computer screen.

chemeril 2y ago
What you've described is part of the experiment, which asks the question "can/will you focus for ten minutes on something that you did not choose and may not immediately tickle your neurons?". For most the answer is 'no'. The lack of choice is by design.
- sandspar 2y ago
  This is a form of brainwashing. Cult leader: "Will you repeat the word 'Love' 10,000 times out loud?" Why? Leader: "Asking 'Why' means you've failed and shall be liquidated." It's a way of forcing people to commit to you while simultaneously demolishing their critical capacity.
  - voltaireodactyl 2y ago
    Certainly true, but boredom is also the foundation of creativity so there is some middle ground worth seeking out.
  - gumby 2y ago
    Perhaps also a good way to explore why so many kids are bored in school.
  - cootsnuck 2y ago
    It's a voluntary experiment on a website. It's not that serious.
- photonthug 2y ago
  They based the exercise on one where choice was not eliminated: > Our exercise is based on an assignment that Jennifer Roberts, an art history professor at Harvard, gives to her students. She asks them to go to a museum, pick one work of art, and look at only that for three full hours. Since what they have described as the "shape of attention" is more measuring how willing I am to endure a headache for no good reason, I would say it's a poorly designed experiment. The goal for the journalists here is to show something about the "fried attention span" of the twitter generation I'm sure, whereas the goal for the original educator was to get people to deeply engage with art that already spoke to them somewhat. Attention can and should be directed, but in general not by others, so this just doesn't measure what it claims to. And for what it's worth, I say this as someone who is more interested in art than the average person. I've not only looked at a piece of art for 10+ minutes before, but the last time was less than a week ago. Edit to add: What really is the difference between something you don't like & didn't choose vs say an advertisement? Does leaving the room during ads imply anything good or bad about the attention span of the public?
  - Flop7331 2y ago
    I survived the ten minutes, but then when I clicked to read more it prompted me to subscribe. There's probably a little bit of a "get people to chase the sunk cost of their attention" thing happening here too.
- Enginerrrd 2y ago
  In my case, it was broken and no art appeared. Only a black screen with the text overlayed and the "I quit" button. ...Makes me wonder about the validity of their data.
  - Flop7331 2y ago
    Maybe that was the art.
scotty79 2y ago
I think the point was to suffer. And then either quit of find bliss in surrendering to suffering.
Flop7331 2y ago
There wasn't enough there for ten minutes, I don't care how long Whistler took. By the time it was up I had convinced myself that the vague shapes were actually EPCOT Center. The art equivalent of semantic satiation. You can look long enough that the meaning is fully diminished.

chemeril 2y ago

What you've described is part of the experiment, which asks the question "can/will you focus for ten minutes on something that you did not choose and may not immediately tickle your neurons?". For most the answer is 'no'. The lack of choice is by design.

sandspar 2y ago
This is a form of brainwashing. Cult leader: "Will you repeat the word 'Love' 10,000 times out loud?" Why? Leader: "Asking 'Why' means you've failed and shall be liquidated." It's a way of forcing people to commit to you while simultaneously demolishing their critical capacity.
- voltaireodactyl 2y ago
  Certainly true, but boredom is also the foundation of creativity so there is some middle ground worth seeking out.
- gumby 2y ago
  Perhaps also a good way to explore why so many kids are bored in school.
- cootsnuck 2y ago
  It's a voluntary experiment on a website. It's not that serious.
photonthug 2y ago
They based the exercise on one where choice was not eliminated: > Our exercise is based on an assignment that Jennifer Roberts, an art history professor at Harvard, gives to her students. She asks them to go to a museum, pick one work of art, and look at only that for three full hours. Since what they have described as the "shape of attention" is more measuring how willing I am to endure a headache for no good reason, I would say it's a poorly designed experiment. The goal for the journalists here is to show something about the "fried attention span" of the twitter generation I'm sure, whereas the goal for the original educator was to get people to deeply engage with art that already spoke to them somewhat. Attention can and should be directed, but in general not by others, so this just doesn't measure what it claims to. And for what it's worth, I say this as someone who is more interested in art than the average person. I've not only looked at a piece of art for 10+ minutes before, but the last time was less than a week ago. Edit to add: What really is the difference between something you don't like & didn't choose vs say an advertisement? Does leaving the room during ads imply anything good or bad about the attention span of the public?
- Flop7331 2y ago
  I survived the ten minutes, but then when I clicked to read more it prompted me to subscribe. There's probably a little bit of a "get people to chase the sunk cost of their attention" thing happening here too.
Enginerrrd 2y ago
In my case, it was broken and no art appeared. Only a black screen with the text overlayed and the "I quit" button. ...Makes me wonder about the validity of their data.
- Flop7331 2y ago
  Maybe that was the art.

scotty79 2y ago

I think the point was to suffer. And then either quit of find bliss in surrendering to suffering.

Flop7331 2y ago

There wasn't enough there for ten minutes, I don't care how long Whistler took. By the time it was up I had convinced myself that the vague shapes were actually EPCOT Center. The art equivalent of semantic satiation. You can look long enough that the meaning is fully diminished.