6 ms·

By limiting the hours today, it helps make sure that the people who do see it are the ones most interested in seeing it. Those are the ones who will look up the

by qq66 1y ago

By limiting the hours today, it helps make sure that the people who do see it are the ones most interested in seeing it. Those are the ones who will look up the schedule, schedule their trip around it, etc... while if it's just permanently up, many of the viewers will be random passersby (and the number of viewers per hour of illumination will probably be lower)

vasco 1y ago
Ok that is adding an interesting variable of perceived interest and then it's not about # of people anymore, but rather time plus # of _interested_ people. I guess that has to be the reasoning because it does make sense if that's the optimization goal. Though I'd imagine mostly its going to be a random sample of people that happen to be there that day. I imagine there's likely under 1% of museum visitors actually chasing single works and planning trips like that. So most people that would see it are still just random "museum people" (which under the "interest" metric is still better than purely random people).
qalmakka 1y ago
Exactly this. When I was younger they did an exhibit of the Great Wave and Ukiyo-e next to where I lived, so I saved the date when the ticket office opened on my calendar. I then found friends interested in coming with me and grabbed some tickets before they ran out. If you just put it on display every day it will just fade away while being yet another print in a museum full of paintings. You're denying future generations the chance love this print and cherish the opportunity to see one in person. Art is not just taking a photo and passing by, it's about appreciating the fact some human made some very special thing we can now enjoy
- MangoToupe 1y ago
  > You're denying future generations the chance love this print and cherish the opportunity to see one in person. Art is not just taking a photo and passing by, it's about appreciating the fact some human made some very special thing we can now enjoy I personally don't get this attitude, but I also don't understand a lot of what draws people to museums when we have photographs of works of art. Which is not to say that I don't get why people view works i n person. I just don't understand neurotically trying to preserve a physical work when the author likely didn't even care that much or consider a more preservable medium to begin with.
  - Angostura 1y ago
    For many works, even the best photographs don't entirely capture the physical object - particularly those where texture, including brush strokes is important. Many pigments can't be duplicated via the standard printing gamut. This particular work is a woodblock print, so perhaps photography is adequate - I don't know. I'm not clear that the original artist's materials, with respect to longevity is really relevant, assuming the artist didn't explicitly intend it to be ephemeral.
    - refactor_master 1y ago
      Tangentially I saw this exhibition in Tokyo on modern ukiyo-e https://www.tnm.jp/modules/r_free_page/index.php?id=2693&lang=en https://www.tnm.jp/modules/r_free_page/index.php?id=2693&lan... and I was blown away by the incredible level of detail the artists were able to pack into woodblock print. From a distance it looks almost like print, but up close you can really see the textures, and interestingly also the physical limitations compared to real print (the colors being layered by individually carved woodblocks). With that being said, I’m sure they could make a replica that would be almost impossible to tell apart from the real. After all, this technique was specifically invented for mass production.
    - MangoToupe 1y ago
      > assuming the artist didn't explicitly intend it to be ephemeral. Is there another option? Even sculpture hewn from rock is ephemeral.
  - nkrisc 1y ago
    Paintings are not simple two-dimensional images. You can't view a painting from different angles from a photo. You can't see the light reflecting off the texture of the paint from different viewing angles. You can't get close and observe the brush strokes. A photo of a painting is superficially similar to the painting, but there's much that it lacks.
    - GolDDranks 1y ago
      However, in this case, we are not talking about a painting, but a woodblock print. (Not disagreeing with your point in general, though.)
eru 1y ago
> By limiting the hours today, it helps make sure that the people who do see it are the ones most interested in seeing it. We should auction off the visitor spots, then.
- msephton 1y ago
  You joke, but visitor slots are limited. I missed it at the British Museum because I turned up without a reservation. Also, BM have two impressions and rotates them meaning that people can see "it" (actually one or the other) for longer. Some institutions like Boston have a handful of impressions so can show "it" more frequently: the last time they cycled three.
  - pimlottc 1y ago
    Similar to this, the Munch Museum in Oslo has three variations of "The Scream" on rotation, with only one of them shown each day [0]. So you're always guaranteed to be able to see it in some form, but you'll have go to multiple days if you want to see them all. 0: https://www.munch.no/en/The-Scream/where-can-i-see-the-scream/ https://www.munch.no/en/The-Scream/where-can-i-see-the-screa...
- prmoustache 1y ago
  Money is not a direct factor of who is interested the most so it is not necessary fair. An example: my partner is working in a relatively expensive "wellness" service. Some people reserve and never show up even though they have reserved for a whole family and lose more than a thousand euros. I am pretty sure a lot of people that cannot afford this service at this price on a regular basis would if it was less expensive for them. I know I do as I only profit from it because I have a 50% discount and my partner doesn't have to pay so we pay a quarter of the price everytime we go together. So making it an auction and you would still see a mix of interested people and vain but wealthy people for which paying for this would still be pocket change and would just take an "I've been there" selfie and move on without really being interested in the artwork itself. So more money for the museum but not necessarily representative of the interest of the visitors.

by qq66 1y ago

vasco 1y ago

Ok that is adding an interesting variable of perceived interest and then it's not about # of people anymore, but rather time plus # of _interested_ people. I guess that has to be the reasoning because it does make sense if that's the optimization goal. Though I'd imagine mostly its going to be a random sample of people that happen to be there that day. I imagine there's likely under 1% of museum visitors actually chasing single works and planning trips like that. So most people that would see it are still just random "museum people" (which under the "interest" metric is still better than purely random people).

qalmakka 1y ago

Exactly this. When I was younger they did an exhibit of the Great Wave and Ukiyo-e next to where I lived, so I saved the date when the ticket office opened on my calendar. I then found friends interested in coming with me and grabbed some tickets before they ran out. If you just put it on display every day it will just fade away while being yet another print in a museum full of paintings. You're denying future generations the chance love this print and cherish the opportunity to see one in person. Art is not just taking a photo and passing by, it's about appreciating the fact some human made some very special thing we can now enjoy

MangoToupe 1y ago
> You're denying future generations the chance love this print and cherish the opportunity to see one in person. Art is not just taking a photo and passing by, it's about appreciating the fact some human made some very special thing we can now enjoy I personally don't get this attitude, but I also don't understand a lot of what draws people to museums when we have photographs of works of art. Which is not to say that I don't get why people view works i n person. I just don't understand neurotically trying to preserve a physical work when the author likely didn't even care that much or consider a more preservable medium to begin with.
- Angostura 1y ago
  For many works, even the best photographs don't entirely capture the physical object - particularly those where texture, including brush strokes is important. Many pigments can't be duplicated via the standard printing gamut. This particular work is a woodblock print, so perhaps photography is adequate - I don't know. I'm not clear that the original artist's materials, with respect to longevity is really relevant, assuming the artist didn't explicitly intend it to be ephemeral.
  - refactor_master 1y ago
    Tangentially I saw this exhibition in Tokyo on modern ukiyo-e https://www.tnm.jp/modules/r_free_page/index.php?id=2693&lang=en https://www.tnm.jp/modules/r_free_page/index.php?id=2693&lan... and I was blown away by the incredible level of detail the artists were able to pack into woodblock print. From a distance it looks almost like print, but up close you can really see the textures, and interestingly also the physical limitations compared to real print (the colors being layered by individually carved woodblocks). With that being said, I’m sure they could make a replica that would be almost impossible to tell apart from the real. After all, this technique was specifically invented for mass production.
  - MangoToupe 1y ago
    > assuming the artist didn't explicitly intend it to be ephemeral. Is there another option? Even sculpture hewn from rock is ephemeral.
- nkrisc 1y ago
  Paintings are not simple two-dimensional images. You can't view a painting from different angles from a photo. You can't see the light reflecting off the texture of the paint from different viewing angles. You can't get close and observe the brush strokes. A photo of a painting is superficially similar to the painting, but there's much that it lacks.
  - GolDDranks 1y ago
    However, in this case, we are not talking about a painting, but a woodblock print. (Not disagreeing with your point in general, though.)

eru 1y ago

> By limiting the hours today, it helps make sure that the people who do see it are the ones most interested in seeing it. We should auction off the visitor spots, then.

msephton 1y ago
You joke, but visitor slots are limited. I missed it at the British Museum because I turned up without a reservation. Also, BM have two impressions and rotates them meaning that people can see "it" (actually one or the other) for longer. Some institutions like Boston have a handful of impressions so can show "it" more frequently: the last time they cycled three.
- pimlottc 1y ago
  Similar to this, the Munch Museum in Oslo has three variations of "The Scream" on rotation, with only one of them shown each day [0]. So you're always guaranteed to be able to see it in some form, but you'll have go to multiple days if you want to see them all. 0: https://www.munch.no/en/The-Scream/where-can-i-see-the-scream/ https://www.munch.no/en/The-Scream/where-can-i-see-the-screa...
prmoustache 1y ago
Money is not a direct factor of who is interested the most so it is not necessary fair. An example: my partner is working in a relatively expensive "wellness" service. Some people reserve and never show up even though they have reserved for a whole family and lose more than a thousand euros. I am pretty sure a lot of people that cannot afford this service at this price on a regular basis would if it was less expensive for them. I know I do as I only profit from it because I have a 50% discount and my partner doesn't have to pay so we pay a quarter of the price everytime we go together. So making it an auction and you would still see a mix of interested people and vain but wealthy people for which paying for this would still be pocket change and would just take an "I've been there" selfie and move on without really being interested in the artwork itself. So more money for the museum but not necessarily representative of the interest of the visitors.