Art museums are even worse.
"Portrait of Duke von Duke (London, 1841). Oils."
replyWho is this guy in the painting?! How did he merit a painting? What's unique about the style/composition/whatever?
Conversely, I went to an exhibit of Napoleonic Art and they had a whole breakdown of the symbolism. For example, Napolean liked bees as a symbol of hard work and order, apparently, and they were snuck into most depictions of him as little Easter Eggs.
Then there are the “artist statement” ladies on some exhibits where artist get to describe their work on self-aggrandizing terms that only make sense to people with a graduate degree in the field
replyMost likely, there is no special backstory and the painting was simply commissioned. And most likely, there no super special composition in that portrait and the style is exactly the same as the style of surrounding paintings.
replyMost paintings dont have a cool backstories. They are just paintings. Art student can see technical details of how they were done, but those are not really interesting if you are not trying to learn to paint.
But even that basic context is useful and interesting: "in this era it was common for wealthy people to commission portraits." Etc
replyI have a hobby of photographing scientifically incorrect explanations on placards at science museums. Usually found in smaller towns.
replyMy favorite example of this is an exhibit that I saw at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh many years ago. There was a diorama of several forest animals, and an interface that shined lights on animals with different features. The "lays eggs" light shined on an assortment of animals including a Rabbit. Rabbits don't lay eggs, they only deliver them to good boys and girls.
replyWe pointed this out to a worker that day. Several years later, we went back to see that the exhibit had not changed. I'm not sure if it's still there today.
Been to the Ark Encounter in Kentucky yet?
replyI want to see these!
reply