![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
moominmollyOne of the interesting things that ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
veek and I did this weekend was museum-hop. Now, historically, I have found myself to have a pathetically low museum saturation point. No matter how interested I was in the art I was looking at, I would find myself restless and itchy after a little while. This might be 45 minutes or it might be two hours, but it always happened.
Through absolutely zero deception, veek convinced me to get one of those little audioguides that you wear. It's a box that you sling around your neck with a number pad and headphones attached. When you see a painting with a number on the accompanying placard, you punch the number into your guide and it babbles about something vaguely relevant.
Usually, the guide seemed to just give some background information on the painting's subject; it would talk about the myth that it was depicting, or the location it was painted in, or the painter's blood type, whatever. It was almost always the case that whatever had caught my eye about the painting was left untouched. For example, I might wonder about the incredible use of light, or the tortured look in someone's eye, and the audioguide would tell me about how the painter was eating only zucchini during the time he was painting this work. I mean, it was interesting, perhaps, sometimes, but irrelevant.
It surprised me, then, to realize that with the aid of this useless little thing, I managed to remain below my museum saturation point! I think that listening to it did a few things:
* Caused me to focus only on the painting I was looking at, rather than get distracted by the scope of the collection;
* Tuned out the noises of the other museum patrons; and
* Gave me a different source of information to process.
As a result, we stayed a few hours until closing time and saw only a pathetically small fraction of the collection. That was a neat feeling!
veek and I did this weekend was museum-hop. Now, historically, I have found myself to have a pathetically low museum saturation point. No matter how interested I was in the art I was looking at, I would find myself restless and itchy after a little while. This might be 45 minutes or it might be two hours, but it always happened.Through absolutely zero deception, veek convinced me to get one of those little audioguides that you wear. It's a box that you sling around your neck with a number pad and headphones attached. When you see a painting with a number on the accompanying placard, you punch the number into your guide and it babbles about something vaguely relevant.
Usually, the guide seemed to just give some background information on the painting's subject; it would talk about the myth that it was depicting, or the location it was painted in, or the painter's blood type, whatever. It was almost always the case that whatever had caught my eye about the painting was left untouched. For example, I might wonder about the incredible use of light, or the tortured look in someone's eye, and the audioguide would tell me about how the painter was eating only zucchini during the time he was painting this work. I mean, it was interesting, perhaps, sometimes, but irrelevant.
It surprised me, then, to realize that with the aid of this useless little thing, I managed to remain below my museum saturation point! I think that listening to it did a few things:
* Caused me to focus only on the painting I was looking at, rather than get distracted by the scope of the collection;
* Tuned out the noises of the other museum patrons; and
* Gave me a different source of information to process.
As a result, we stayed a few hours until closing time and saw only a pathetically small fraction of the collection. That was a neat feeling!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
Saturation Point
Date: 2002-07-03 08:27 am (UTC)Anyway, trivia is cool - I value that kind of information even more than the more serious information about people and events. (Did you know that when Giger and his gf visited Salvatore Dali, that Dali wanted to witness a "mating" between them first hand? Giger declined though (I wonder why - his pictures are explicit enough)). And I guess museum folks assume that you already know something about whatever it is you're looking at, so they don't want to bore you with the trivial bits.
Re: Saturation Point
Date: 2002-07-03 09:40 am (UTC)...
Re: Saturation Point
Date: 2002-07-03 09:55 am (UTC)Re: Saturation Point
Date: 2002-07-03 09:58 am (UTC)Re: Saturation Point
Date: 2002-07-03 11:05 am (UTC)oof
Date: 2002-07-03 11:07 am (UTC)Re: oof
Date: 2002-07-03 11:25 am (UTC)The thought of swimming among centuries-old bodies probably makes competitors go faster.
Oh, yes, I can second that opinion. At times I get panic-attacks when swimming (in pools!), imagining a shark is following me. Watch me jump 2m straight out of the water, and run for the edge of the pool.
I hate swimming in ponds or the ocean for exactly this reason. You never know what lurks down there. And the thought of nudging some unknown and unseen terror is scary.
Re: oof
Date: 2002-07-03 11:39 am (UTC)I swear!
Anyway, it turned out to be "bog snorkeling". I am fascinated. I think this is my new sport.
Oh right, if anyone is wondering what they look like
Date: 2002-07-03 11:40 am (UTC)Strange how well known moorleichen are in germany/worked their way into the german consciousness, but there are almost no photos to be found on the net.
no subject
Date: 2002-07-03 09:21 am (UTC)and it makes me think that replacing those info bits could be an entertaining artwork in itself. :)
or, of course, writing them, with an eye towards the layout of the whole museum. it could impose a separate layer of structure on the display, in addition to the physical layout...
um, yeah.
i thought your museum saturation point was higher than mine, though. maybe we look at different things? they *were* pretty close, last i remember.
no subject
Date: 2002-07-03 09:42 am (UTC)Well, there was some of that type of structure. A lot of the entries had bits at the end that said something like "For more information on the other still lifes in this room, press "14". For information on Painter-Dude's time in Paris, press "30".
I think my saturation point is higher than yours, but only just. :)
no subject
Date: 2002-07-03 11:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-07-03 11:43 am (UTC)