UKC

I have just read this https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2025/jan/28/we-wont-come-again-dazed-vi... and the picture of the people worshiping the Mona Lisa via their smart phones intrigues.

About a year ago I was wandering the Prado, and come across a Mona Lisa, no one was looking at it, which seemed odd https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa_(Prado), 

And then I wondered why people visit art galleries, is it to appreciate the art or to take a photo and tell their friends they have ticked this box.

I may have pondered this previously.

In reply to Godwin:

I like to see art in the "flesh" as it were and to be inspired. There are somethings about reality a screen can't quite capture.

In reply to Godwin:

For a long time even in outdoorsy trips I made a habit of always going to an art gallery when I visited a major city. They were invariably in beautiful buildings. They normally had a great cafe and toilet ( a novelty in London) and you got to do some people watching. The art normally told you something about where you were visiting and I just found it a great chilled out experience. For the same reasons I often went to the tates and nationals when I lived in London. One of the few I haven't been to was actually the lourve due to the ridiculous queues, there were none for the fab musee d'orsay next door. 

In reply to Godwin:

To look at art? To understand a bit of the history of the time the art was produced? To admire the architecture of the art gallery itself? To have a nice coffee? To buy useless notebooks?

In reply to Godwin:

Some will visit just to see a superstar painting - just as a walkers and non-walkers will want to "climb Mt Snowdon".

For the Mona Lisa, they should ban phones/cameras and insist on silence in the room. I found it a bizarre scrum like experience compared to the rest of the Louvre.

Can I recommend the Hepworth gallery's surrealism show. Really good art, and a relaxed and tranquil experience. The standout piece was a Salvador Dali - which was just so much better than the rest - showing why superstar artists and paintings get their reputations. 

In reply to Godwin:

In my case because I want to learn, and to evaluate an artist in my own way. Sometimes I am surprised, and like something which I had not expected to (that happened recently with a modernist/pop art painter, who had an exhibition at the Royal Academy of Arts, and who had aped some well known pictures which I appreciated, and noted the references). 

I go to enjoy myself, and often go to the same exhibition several times (I'm a member of The Tate, The National Gallery, and the RA) as it does not cost to go into the gallery as a member. It costs me the railfare from Peterborough to London, although I go to London a lot for other reasons, such as to see a friend or my daughter, or lectures at the RSM or the proms; so I can combine the two sometimes.

Do you not go and see a painting, which is really impressive and sends a shiver down your spine?

In reply to Godwin:

I read the same article maybe 30 minutes ago, reminded me to that although I lived in Paris for some 20 years, I've only visited the Louvre once. I found it both confusing (its very large) & overcrowded & never went back.

But I do visit art galleries & museums & for a variety of reasons. Mostly to see the art or exhibitions but in the past have been a visitor to study the collections in natural history museums (work). I've also been to many meetings which have been held in museums (again work) and for many years my office was in the French natural history museum/botanic garden.

They also frequently have good cafés

In reply to Godwin:

Have you pondered that it could, in fact, be both?

In reply to Dan Arkle:

I liked that too. A few pictures were not surrealist. I went on a Sunday when there were Christmas markets outside, which made parking a pain. It's the only reason to visit Wakefield, unless you're into Rugby, or want to visit the cathedral.

I would say that I enjoyed some of the other art works, than just the Dali.

I also looked around the rest of the gallery at the Hepworth mock ups of pieces before she produced the final piece. That was interesting.

I also love the Kelvingrove museum in Glasgow. I used to go there as a student, just to destress, and look at favourite pictures. This calmed me down. It's an underrated gallery. Plus you can go and see the other museum pieces, or attend an organ recital. Of course, one of the key pictures is Dali's Christ of St John, on the cross. It's Dali's best work in my opinion.

In reply to Dan Arkle:

Do you mean the same Hepworth with the sign outside the entrance which says something to the effect of "Unless you post your visit on Instagram, can you really say you've been to the Hepworth?"

In reply to Godwin:

Stuff like the Mona Lisa is arguably over rated, to me as someone with zero art education and even less art talent. But many other pictures and objects within the same buildings as classics are amazing. A portrait is just a portrait, but other works you can see they needed a different level of imagination/ drugs to conceive. The Scream being a classic example. Showing my ignorance I never realised how big the last supper was until I saw it. A lot of effort has gone into preserving art, which is why we should at least consider it. Some of Da Vincis drawings are frankly ridiculous, you'd think he must have been an alien or time traveller. 

In reply to veteye:

I also, when I was an intern in Philadelphia, used to walk to the art gallery, and again destress on a Sunday, with the most liked works.

Ditto when I worked in Boston for a summer as a student. The Fine Arts museum had some great exhibitions, and the American galleries had lots of exhibitions of the impressionists at that time. That's when I first came to see Pisarro's works, and have loved them ever since.

As others have said, it's about engaging with things which you have not seen before, and re-engaging with ones which you love, whilst enjoying the architecture of the building, and seeing what that city is like.

Another vote for the Musee D'Orsay in Paris.

In reply to veteye:

I always thought Pollock House and it's surroundings were good. That's the thing with Glasgow, subtly under rated as most think Edinburgh must be best for everything because it has a few obvious big ticket attractions. 

In reply to ExiledScot:

Go and see the current Raphael, Leonardo, Michelangelo exhibition. It's great. On at the RA in London.

In reply to Godwin:

It's different seeing a painting (or a sculpture) in real life. A reproduction in a book or as a print doesn't tell the whole story.

This can even be in as simple a way as the scale of the work - some paintings might be much larger than you imagined (or vice versa!) and the impact can be surprising. You can view the texture of the brush strokes, you can view it from different angles or see how distance changes the way an image comes across (close up you might think, "This doesn't work" but then further away the image falls into place, as it were).

I'm no expert on fine art but I am interested in it and I like visiting galleries for those reasons, the first ones off the top of my head that I could think of.

In reply to ExiledScot:

Yes I need to go back and see the revamped Burrell collection again. I only got part-way through it.

I also like visiting the Atholl gallery in Dunkeld. The best place to stop when on the A9, as there is great food there too, with restaurants, deli's and cafe's. Then you can also climb nearby, just up the road, less than a mile.

In reply to Dan Arkle:

Photos are infact banned in the Prado

I shall visit the Hepworth, it is not a million miles from Lancashire. Really it is strange I have no visited.

A friend of mine recently visited Gallipoli in Turkey, for the military history, and we commented how odd it was that he had not visited the nearby to him, excellent Fusiliers museum in Bury. 

In reply to philipivan:

I've been to the Louvre a couple of times. First time, I don't remember queueing, but that was easily 35 years ago.

The last time, we had a 6mo in a pram, and they waved us straight in, to avoid us having to queue in the July sun. So next time, go in Summer and take a baby

In reply to veteye:

Thanks for the tip. We do need a long trip for other stuff with kids, before the busy seasons gets going there. 

In reply to ExiledScot:

Yes, the Mona Lisa underwhelms me, if you want to see crazy, try Boschs Garden of Earthly delights, I am amazed they did not consider burning him as a witch.

A great place to appreciate Da Vinci is the Clos de Luc, and also a visit to IIRC a visit to the Martini family tomb in Milan is interesting 

In reply to mostlyrambling:

I remember seeing a room of paintings by Rothko & being amazed at how they were much more interesting than I'd imagined from seeing them on TV or reproductions in books. Same with paintings by Zao Wou-Ki who I first discovered by accident (I escaped from the rain into a gallery where there was an exhibition of some of his paintings) & has become one of my favourite artists 
 

In reply to Godwin:

For anyone who wants to enjoy the Mona Lisa in more leisurely fashion I recommend going in the evening on one of the days the Louvre is open till 9 pm. My school used to run a regular Sixth Form trip to Paris. I've stood in front of it with just one student chatting for a good few minutes and we had it entirely to ourselves.

On a similar note, my favourite Renaissance master is Tintoretto. The streets of Venice can be so packed you can only shuffle along, yet his magnum opus, the Scuola di San Rocco will only have a handful of people in it. For me, it's the equal of the Sistine Chapel. Which incidentally we managed to share with only one praying nun, by queueing to be first in then going straight to it, ignoring everything en route and doing it all in reverse. That was years ago though, so it may well be impossible now.

I visit galleries for all the reasons so far mentioned, plus I hope to occasionally completely lose myself in a painting and experience a spiritual moment.

To the OP: you haven't told us why you were in the Prado. When you reflected on your own reasons for going, what did you find?

In reply to Godwin:

Clean, quiet toilets.

I much prefer to enjoy art out and about where it’s hung as part of a broader space than in a gallery.

In reply to Godwin:

Cultural tourism is one of the big growth areas.

The thing is it is all about timing, best seeing the outstanding pieces outside peak hours.

Last couple of months been to see David Hockneys show at the Factory in Manchester which was superb, the Barbie exhibition at the Design Museum ( weirdly fascinating) .Plus a few visits to the National Portrait Gallery, which fascinates me.

Art can be breathtaking at times.

In reply to neilh:

News to me, a bit gutted I'd have liked to have gone.

In reply to Godwin:

Most people visit art galleries to look at the art. The Mona Lisa in the Louvre is a tourist destination in its own right, the Louvre less so. So I'm not sure this is a representative example.

(And the picture in that article is a stock photo. I'm sure its not staged, but also that its not always like that.)

In reply to veteye:

If you want to see a mediaeval and Georgian town centre turned into a post apocalyptic film set by planners and property speculators, you can't do better than Wakefield. 

If you're into Rugby League you'll need a time machine to take you back to the sixties. Great days...

In reply to Pete Pozman:

The Hepworth itself being a good example.

In reply to Godwin:

My top tip for Paris is to sack off the Louvre and its crowds and visit the Orangerie nearby. Far less crowds, it’s a beautiful and serene experience with impressionist works by Money, Cezanne, Modigliani etc. 

Much more to my taste than the Louvre, yes you don’t get to tick the “I’ve seen The Mona Lisa” box, but I’m yet to meet anyone who wasn’t entirely underwhelmed in seeing it!

In reply to While E. Coyote:

Try The Cartright in Lister Park, Bradford. They have a lot of good stuff, including Hockney as part of the City of Culture. Combine with a visit to Salts Mill, also lots of Hockney.

In reply to Godwin:

Why do people go to any museum type place?  Because they want to look at the stuff on display because they find it interesting, and potentially more impressive in person than on a screen.

In reply to Godwin:

We go to be entertained, to be surprised, to be gobsmacked, to learn, to be shocked which was the case with a Cindy Sherman exhibition. All things to all etc...

In reply to Godwin:

My conclusion after my last visit to the National Gallery was that for all that some of it may be venerated by those who know about such things, religious art and me don't get on to the point where I get quite cross about it.

I also think Caravaggio is significantly overrated, van Gogh just isn't very good and lots of modern art is best viewed from a distance, preferably with a wall or two between you and it.

That said, I do enjoy a visit to an art gallery.  The Walker gallery in Liverpool was a particular favourite when I lived up north.

T.

In reply to Doug:

 

I couldn’t agree more with Doug here. Seeing the Rothkos at the RA’s big abstract expressionism a few years ago was an absolutely transcendental experience, just incredible. It would be very hard to really grasp why Rothko is a genius without that direct experience. 

I think there has been some unjustified gripping about the Louvre on here. Yes, the Mona Lisa is crowded and miserable. But the rest is great, just pick a bit and spend some time there. 

In reply to Dan Arkle:

Why do you say the Dali was standout?

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Definitely, and more so for some works than others. The most blown away I've been at the physical reality of a work of art (compared with over-familiar images of it) was, hands down, the Bayeux Tapestry.

In reply to Anotherclimber:

His technical skill in handling the light and reflections was mesmerising. I kept having to look up close to see the brushstrokes to see how he had achieved it. There were a couple of other paintings in the room that seemed cartoonish in comparison. 

In reply to kmsands:

For me the cave paintings of hands in Northern Spain from god knows how many years ago. Breathtaking.Makes you gasp.

Why go to art galleries? Because it's raining outside.

A. Philistine 

In reply to Sean Kelly:

I think you mean, I, or do assume you speak for everyone?

It's a great question,  why?, that any people struggle with, it is often good to ask ones self why one is doing something 🤔 . Some people have a very strong negative reaction, I suspect because they are doing something and realize suddenly they do not know, why?

In reply to Godwin:

Have you come up with an answer as far as your own gallery visiting is concerned - or is it that you suddenly realised you weren't sure why you were there?

In reply to Dan Arkle:

Thanks for the cogent explanation. Dali was indeed technically gifted but for me that is of secondary importance and only half the battle. Just because something appears cartoonish doesn't mean it lacks substance. During my years of Fine Art study my tutors often put forward the argument that the Dali output was nothing more than fatuous showmanship. They may perhaps simply have enjoyed being provocative. Glad you enjoyed the show though.

In reply to Godwin:

My usual reason for being in an art gallery is because I'm on a date. 🙂

More seriously, I do go to see art in the flesh and it is most definitely worth it. I don't know anything about art so I'm purely after the visceral experience, but I'm rarely disappointed.

In reply to Andy Clarke:

Me, I like busy pictures like Bosch, or Canelleto which give a peek into another time, and it never ceases to amaze I can get with in touching distance of something painted  hundreds of  years ago. Also when I look at the delicacy of some of the work, and think of the world these people lived in. A connection over time I would say.

Oh and I do like the judgement of Cambosys in Bruge, it exactly how I would reform both houses of parliament, most councils, corporations, the BMC, the list goes on, a great way to focus minds

In reply to Godwin:

It wakes up a part of myself that is too often dormant. Until I was eighteen I was constantly drawing - even when I didn't have a pen in my hand, I'd be tracing a shape on the table or looking at different things in the room and mixing the colours in my mind. But then university and life got in the way and I stopped doing something I never thought I'd ever stop. Going back to art galleries rouses that old impulse a little. 

How people who don't do art themselves (or never have) engage with art, I don't know. I suppose I still enjoy listening to music, but I don't identify with it as a craftsman, so I guess an an element is lost (years of airbowing as a back desk second definitely don't count!). That said, I think we tend to focus on the technical skill with art a bit more than we do with music - art is somehow more aloof from the common experience. I assume in centuries past that wasn't the case (or now it's just photography that has taken over). 

In reply to Anotherclimber:

Dali is ideas more than execution though, right? I'd argue the most obvious example of both is Picasso - I remember seeing a picture of a portrait he drew at the age of fifteen, before he started on his decades of trying to relearn how to draw like a child (and probably when I was about fifteen), and thinking - FFS, *and* you could do that...! 

In reply to Queen of the Traverse:

You know, I am frightened of drawing, in my backpack, I have a pad and pencil, but somehow never use it. I met a woman in a hostel who encouraged me to be brave, but still, it's unused.

I think people who can do art like Duncan are super beings

In reply to Tony Buckley:

I would agree with some of that - a lot of the art we revere is quite boring... But some not (the use of colour in Van Gogh and the impressionists, and light in Vermeer, IS really good - we've just seen it to death on too many tea towels!).

Personally I'm not sure that I get so much swept away by art in the flesh (though it does force you focus on it alone, when you're in a place dedicated to it). It's more than most reproductions (including in gallery gift shops) are really quite awful. 

In reply to Queen of the Traverse:

But did that drawing tell you anything other than Picasso was a brilliant draughtsman?

In reply to Godwin

I get you. I'm too scared to draw now as I'm not used to being so rubbish at it. But here's to hoping maybe you could even just do a little doodle...? 

I'm trying to remind myself that even doodles count, or silly little cartoons, or one minute timed draw whatever. 

Good luck.  

In reply to Godwin:

I don’t go to art galleries very often but when I do, I always leave feeling uplifted and with a sense of calm.  Not sure whether that comes from looking at the exhibits or whether it’s from being in a calm, quiet space.  Probably both.

In reply to Godwin:

I like art galleries that present challenging pictures. Yes, I can be impressed by the craftsmanship of a grand master, but way more than that my eyes prick up (!) when I see something unexpected but genuinely creative or novel. Ideas rather than execution, but ideally both would be present. I suppose Escher's eternal staircase would probably be a good early example but the choice of subject, medium, scale or presentation in much modern art is teeming with great original ideas - in amongst an awful lot of meh. In that respect it's a bit like music, where we fondly remember great stand-out tracks of a particular era, while barely aware of having forgotten the huge amount of dross that also was popular at the time!

In reply to veteye:

The Kelvingrove is fantastic, I've spent many happy hours in there, appreciating the art, looking at fossils etc.. And at one point in the 80's a GF and I did something very naughty there 😉

There's loads of great stuff but the Dali is without a doubt the best thing there. It's not just Dali's best work, it's a bona fide 100% masterpiece.  

In reply to john arran:

Interesting, I wonder what the equivalent "should" be? We say "eyes light up" but that usually has a connotation of happiness/bliss, which needn't be the case in your context. Maybe "lock on", but that's not a phrase we use. Maybe ignore the eyes aspect and say "I get stopped in my tracks" or "pinned to the spot", but then that doesn't exclusively denote a visual.....

In reply to Godwin:

Because they are there

In reply to Tom Valentine:

That is absolutely absurd! However, in today's social media-hyped,  be there to be seen lifestyle, then it is considered the norm to do a selfie in front of said painting, sculpture, or whatever the piece / attraction may be. It is slightly different when viewing photographs in a gallery; people actually rush to get a print and get it signed. 

In reply to halo:

It's also quite possibly not true. Certainly not something I've noticed when I've been there - which has been reasonably often. Last time being last week, as it happens. 

In reply to David Roberts:

I haven't been for a couple of years but it was definitely there on my last visit, outside on the left of the entrance door, as I recall. 

Actually it might have been more than two years because entry was free.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Fair do. Think they started charging when it reopened after Covid - so probably about five years since it was free? Who knows where the time goes, etc. 

In reply to David Roberts:

May 2021 apparently.

In reply to Godwin:

Always nice to discover someone new that you haven't encountered before, such as Warringtons Eric Tucker.

In reply to Sean Kelly:

Live in Warrington.... he is now almost as well known as Luke the Nuke......unreal.

In reply to Godwin:

I strenuously encourage you to try. You don't have to show it to anyone, you don't even have to judge it for yourself. Just start looking at things and making marks.

Any concept of whether it's 'good' or not is entirely irrelevant.

In reply to Godwin:

I go to galleries because I like art.  A lot of stuff doesn't work for me , so I move on and find something that does.  I'd rather see stuff in a gallery as often scale and situation matters. 

I wouldn't get too fussed if the Mona Lisa excited you or not.  There's stuff that people have listed in this thread that I find completely unexciting, and that's just fine. Maybe try L'Orangerie just down the road?  The basement these is the opposite of the Louvre

I am very sure the big Hockney exhibition will be that dogs B's.

I also go to auction preshows as very often that was the only chance you'd get to see something in a long time

In reply to Godwin:

Different people, different motives.

The craft of the artist is why I go. But it is helped along by the gallery, the conservation and the manner of display. 
Take for example the Rijksmuseum...and I accept this is not universally possible, but one alcove, one wall dedicated to one painting, beautifully conserved, as if it were painted yesterday.
Great art should be on public display for all to see