... Viewing a piece of art that lies physically in front of you is much different than viewing it through a screen. I am an avid lover of perusing art museums. During my career as a student journalist, I particularly enjoyed writing critical reviews of art exhibits, and even won an award for my reflection of the inaugural exhibition for the Orange County Museum of Art, a museum not far from UCI, and one which also happens to include a large-scale installation by Sanford Biggers, an artist studied in this very course. 

As I touch on in my 2022 OCMA review (can be read at the link above), the emotion that arises from art is, I think, correlated with the emotions that are produced by the atmosphere of the space in which that art is held.

It is easy to analyze a space, and how it paves a way to view a specific work of art. 

• At the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, which I was able to visit during my summer studying at the New York Times, the white glow of natural light and the antiquity of the backdrops transport viewers into an alternate dimension of an elegant past. 

• At the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., I was intrigued by the auditory influences, of running water, of omnipresent bass tones, of echoing voices, which created an atmosphere where art could be openly discussed, even with and among strangers. 

• At the local Orange County Museum of Art, I was impressed by the architecture of the space, art in its own right, with its curved, undulating walls that expressed the fluidity of the exhibitions inside. 

-------------------------- ++ --------------------------

When analyzing a website, it becomes more complicated. The viewer is not immersed in the art as well as seeing it live, and there is no cohesive atmosphere. Someone could view the art in the calm of their bedroom, or in the noise of a crowded lecture hall, and have very different emotional experiences. 

keep scrolling to analyze!

keep scrolling to analyze!

There is much you can notice when an overview is provided. Like the sheer size of “Lillian Dandridge,” the piece closest to the corner, in comparison to the other works. The shocking contrast between the untouched portrait and the destroyed one. The open floor space, which allows many visitors to view the installation simultaneously, encouraging more eyes, viewership, understanding. The white walls, floor, and flighting, providing a blank canvas for the art to be strikingly apparent. 

to conclude...

As the art-viewing medium transforms from the physical space to the digital space, I believe that it is crucial for websites to maintain and preserve some elements of the in-person viewing experience. Sole close-ups do not inform the audience enough of the art piece at hand: it becomes better understood contextualized amongst others, in relation to size, progression, and common theme. For instance, the case of the "William Edward Buchanan" piece above, its close-up does not inform that in the gallery, it is positioned next to an oil canvas that is entirely intact. The juxtaposition and contrast between the broken canvas and the intact canvas is part of the viewing experience, and the analysis of the exhibit, and this is entirely lost in a mere close-up of each singular work of art. Roberts Projects does an exceptional job at providing not only context for the art, but retaining the in-person experience by showcasing the gallery overview first before moving into select closeups. One of my favorite elements of the art museum experience is also the architecture, auditory input, and conversation with others, and so in the future, it would be especially impactful if websites could also include additional elements to their digital displays of artwork.