Neel Sinha
Moore. TuThur2:40
9/28/09
Analysis of At Louvre, Many Stop to Snap but Few Stay to Focus
In the article, At Louvre, Many Stop to Snap but Few Stay to Focus, Michael
Kimmelman implies that those who are looking at art should slow down, reflect, and
analyze artwork while they are viewing it rather than just skimming by. Kimmelman
makes his point by illustrating how the average art museum patron does not
appreciate individual works, but rather takes a quantity over quality approach. He
criticizes a fairly standard way of viewing art in order to change the way the readers
of the article look at art and possibly other things in their life for the better.
Kimmelman appeals to those who view art regularly as well as those who may have
stumbled on his article and are thinking about visiting a museum.
The writer of this article compares and contrasts the older and now less
common method of examining art with the newer less careful way to help him argue
his point that people should take more time when looking at art. For example
Kimmelman describes a scene in the museum dimly, “A few game tourists glanced
vainly in guidebooks or hopefully at wall labels” while he practically glows when
speaking of a refined way of viewing art “Slow looking, like slow cooking, may
become the new radical chic”. He references and blames technology for a shift from
taking ones time when analyzing art to breezing through most activities and not
taking time to soak things up. He also cites the reason for going to the museum in
the first place as for grounding reasons as well as “self improvement”, implying that
one must take his or her time to fulfill these goals. He shows how taking time for
absorption is almost looked at as inferior by talking about how he felt almost old
and pretentious when people were watching him sketch. He, however, implies that
these sketches leave him more fulfilled then the quick-glance museumgoers that
surround him.
At the beginning of the article, Kimmelman highlights two girls taking a little
bit of time to look at artwork to showcase them as the exception in a day otherwise
full of tourists wandering around never really stopping to take in what they came to
the museum in the first place for. He says how people hope to “do” the Louvre
(meaning complete the entire tour) rather than concentrating on individual pieces.
He likens how one should view a museum to how people of previous generations
used to travel across Europe in the 18th century, taking time to learn culture and
language rather than just covering ground with no time for reflection. Similarly he
uses simile to compare thoughtful analysis to slow cooking, implying that the more
time you spend with it, the more figurative taste will come from it.
The author uses a rather condescending tone towards those whom he sees as
looking at art “the wrong way” in order to help establish his argument that one
should take his or her time when analyzing art. He almost insults these people’s
intelligence when he says “Only a 17th century wood sculpture of a couple
copulating, from San Cristobal in the Solomon Islands, placed near an exit, caused
several tourists to point, smile and snap a photo, but without really breaking stride.”
By this he means that these patrons will only really even stop to ingest what they
are viewing if it is obviously eye catching and about a subject that makes them
giggle immaturely. He also says these patrons are “seeking to fulfill their lifetimes
art history requirement in a day”; clearly saying this is the wrong type of mindset to
enter a place of fine art with. He uses an example of how an analyst can spend up to
several months analyzing two paintings to show how much there can be to learn
about a single work of art. Kimmelman also talks about how there are so many
different viewpoints in art that one has limitless time to analyze a work.
Kimmelman tailors his article to fit to an audience who are looking at the
prospect of visiting a museum, or even those who like to look at art regularly. He
plans to change the reader’s perception by illustrating how one can find endless
appreciation within any given piece if taking proper time to reflect on it. In this, he
is in essence teaching those who are unfamiliar with art how they should adjust
their mindset when viewing art, and gives those art aficionados whom are already
familiar with the concept good peace of mind. Despite these direct audiences, it
seems as if he can change the opinion of anyone who reads his article, he has
accomplished his goal.
Kimmelman embarks on a mission of changing the way those with interest in
art and the general public view art by encouraging them to slow down and smell the
roses if you will. He uses his confidence in his credibility (ethos) to deliver his
message. His point is driven home by showing the differences between taking your
time and simply skimming the work you are viewing. His criticism at the same time
illustrates the positives in which one can gain from viewing art in a slower fashion.
He reaches his fairly broad audience by writing an article that can apply to a host of
audiences, his goal being to change the way they view art.
Works Cited
[1] Kimmelman, Michael. "At Louvre, Many Stop to Snap but Few Stay to
Focus." New York Times 3 Aug. 2009, Arts Abroad sec. Print.