We are constantly changing, let beauty change us: An introduction to the art of looking at art

‘’Personally, I experience the greatest degree of pleasure in having contact with works of art. They furnish me with happy feelings of an intensity that I cannot derive from other sources’’ – Albert Einstein

This quotation needs no explanation, but to elaborate on it by paraphrasing it, one who is not involved in the world of art is deprived of the happiness that Einstein describes, as well as all the other extraordinary benefits of enjoying the fruit of the imagination, talent, and views of the most reliable masters of beauty, who are of course artists.

In other words, depriving oneself of the experience of encounters with art is not just giving up some peripheral, unnecessary part of life, but from the opportunity to change, overcome one’s limitations, and discover one’s best potential, in an extraordinarily inspired way.

But still, we hear from many people, “I don’t follow art much, I don’t have time, I don’t understand it enough.”

And considering what we all spend time on, the reason doesn’t seem to be too busy. Rather, it’s the prejudice that to enjoy art you need some special competence, knowledge, and information, something most of us don’t have.

But is that the condition to enjoy art? The short answer is: not at all. In this text, we will try to explain.

Are there rules for assessing the value of a work of art?

We will start with one of the most controversial points in the context, namely contemporary art.

Many of us have found ourselves in situations where we have not seen art in works that art critics have lauded as genius. After several such experiences, the conclusion often follows that we don’t understand contemporary art and prejudices begin to harden, refusing us to visit galleries and museums.

It seems as if everything would be different if critics or some other art experts could tell us precise and clear rules that would guide us when we evaluate works of art. But the truth is that they don’t know about such rules either, because there aren’t any. The value of a work of art cannot be measured, as in geometry, for example, the area or perimeter of a geometric figure is calculated by a formula.

Here we will remember how catastrophically wrong the art historians themselves have been in the history of taste for art and beauty in general: today’s undisputed classic Vincent van Gogh, they did not recognize until his death!

The Church at Auvers / Self-Portrait (Vincent van Gogh)

An important prejudice to get rid of when evaluating works of art is that the craftsmanship part is key here, i.e. how skillfully they are drawn, painted, and sculpted. We immediately think of Pablo Picasso’s famous “Bull’s Head,” for which he used a minor manual, artisanal labor: simply taking a saddle from a bicycle and placing it on the handlebars (of the same bicycle). The value here is clearly in the fervor of Picasso’s imagination, his ability to perceive an extraordinary bull’s head in an imaginary combination of two simple objects. The message is clear: the creation of a work of art is not to be confused with the skill of the craftsman, even if it is the best technically the best draughtsman, painter, or sculptor.

Appropriately, we will end this section with a quote from Picasso that will announce the continuation of the text: ‘’Why do you try to understand art? Do you try to understand the song of a bird?’’

Bull’s Head (Pablo Picasso)

Is there a layman for art?

We encounter art and opportunities to express our taste every day, entirely outside of galleries, museums, and other specialist venues. It happens to us when we notice a beautiful building, car, cell phone, magazine cover, billboard… because artists are behind the design of it all. And those who enthusiastically enjoy good design, that is, art that is put in the service of practical ends, have everything they need to move on to art that is an end in itself, to painting, printmaking, sculpture…

H. W. Janson, in the introduction to his celebrated History of Art, says: “The layman is defined not by the fact that he is really a complete layman, but that he believes himself to be one. Realistically there is no sharp line or difference between him and the art historian. The difference is in the experience. The path to becoming knowledgeable invites anyone with an open mind and the ability to have new experiences.”

Because there are as many paths that art takes as there are viewers. And they all lead where they need to. There is no single correct interpretation of a work of art, even when it comes from the artist (which is why many artists, rather than explaining their art, let it speak for itself).

It is undeniable that the art historian has more information than we do about the artist’s biography, the intention he had in creating the artwork, and the technique he used. But there is no more information when it comes to the beauty of the artwork. Sure, it’s worth hearing the opinions of more experienced people, but in the end, we must always seek our own truth. Because we are all ready to accept beauty, and it is up to our willingness to grow to its extent. In this case, the “technical” information is easy to learn: as a fan of a football club, one effortlessly learns all the players, including those of rivals, and navigates through the various generations of the club’s history without a problem.

But where to start with art, with painting, graphic art, sculpture, and mosaic? Here we recall the fact that the main purpose of art is to be seen. And how we see it depends on whether it succeeds in providing us with that transformative experience. Because the same is impossible without our participation, our collaboration. The question is to what extent we desire it, that is, to what extent we are open to this experience, which is what Einstein, quoted above, is talking about.

One piece of advice for this, from a technical point of view, would be not to fall into the trap of a limiting, intellectual approach when looking at works of art. The mind, of course, will have its say, but first, we need to open up and surrender to an innocent, childlike, emotional experience, the pure experience of the artwork. This approach increases the possibility that art will energize rather than frustrate and demoralize.

‘’I learned more from my mother than from all the art historians and curators who have informed me about technical aspects of art history and art appreciation over the years.’’, said David Rockefeller.

So the basic condition for a cordial acquaintance with art is to be enthusiastic, emotionally involved, to be committed to the art of seeing. If we start like that, our horizons will continually expand, and the information and knowledge will come to build on itself.

And soon, instead of a few bought paintings to complement the interiors of our homes, our walls will be adorned with artworks that we really enjoy, that show we know what we like; and which, it is not impossible, will soon expand into collections, as definite barometers of the level of our cultural sophistication.

We began with Einstein, and we will return to science at the end.

A recent UK study found that people who attend cultural and arts events are significantly more satisfied with their lives than those who do not. Furthermore, according to a medical study published in the British Medical Journal, among people who participate in cultural and artistic activities more frequently (at least once every few months or more), the risk of early death is reduced by 31%, independent of demographic, socioeconomic and other factors.

The studies cited are part of a wave of research linking arts consumption to health benefits. Similar studies conducted in Denmark and the UK have shown that having artwork in hospitals means more satisfied patients, i.e. more positive health outcomes. The Montreal Museum of Art has even started an initiative where doctors prescribe visits to museums for better health, through the Canadian healthcare system, which means free admission (to museums) for patients and their caregivers.