Nowadays, online tours of exhibition centers and museums have become a common practice. You only need to have a computer or phone with Internet access to travel around the world of art without leaving your home!
Unfortunately, the online format does not allow you to see the masterpieces of world art live and feel the atmosphere of the best museums, but it has its advantages:
At home, you will probably notice things that you might not have seen if you were in the museum itself. Zoom in and out of the image, adjust the volume level of the audio guide — in short, do everything to make you feel comfortable.
You will be able to choose the time when it is convenient for you to visit the exhibition without too much fuss.
And of course, it's cheaper! You do not need to spend money on the road and in a matter of seconds you can find yourself in various corners of our vast world.
In such a difficult time, going online is the best solution to the problem. We have prepared a selection of expositions and exhibitions that you can visit online:
New York Museum of Modern Art
There are paintings and sculptures by Van Gogh, Picasso, Chagall, Pollock, Matisse, Richter and many other figures of the past and present. You can explore the collection on the museum's website or through the Google Arts and Culture project.
The Louvre Museum
If you've always wanted to see one of the most famous museums in the world, but you've never made it to Paris, then online tours of the Louvre are for you. Here you can get acquainted with the art of the Ancient East, and the early Middle Ages, and with the masterpieces of the XIX century. And you can also take a look at the apartments of Napoleon himself!
The Hermitage Museum
Take a virtual tour of the legendary museum (and palace!) it is possible in the project ” Hermitage. Taken on an iPhone.” 45 halls and 600 works of art of the State Hermitage Museum were shot in one shot in 5 hours and 19 minutes.
This is a small list of museums that are definitely worth visiting online. And there are a lot of such places now. Experience art right from home!
These are completely different things. One thing is perceived online. Offline – other. Screen distortions will prevent you from seeing common things, creating a mood, because this is our psyche. The mood will appear if we stand next to the masterpiece, we will immediately have a sense of belonging, the smell of time, although maybe the smell that we will feel is a plume of the perfume of the caretaker of the hall. Well, online we will be able to review the details that are also needed in more detail and calmly. We can zoom in and out of the image, we can view a work of art in comfortable conditions, not with our feet erased from running around the city.
As for the theater, it is impossible to “capture” the atmosphere without finding it in the hall. After all, there even the actor's pulse is transmitted to the viewer. Here you can read how people go to the theater after the pandemic and what they write afterwards. It's about the play “Caligula“, and this is about the premiere “Antigone.”
Live is better. Just because more of the object's qualities are available than in the photo. You're asking about visual arts, aren't you? The difference is the same as between live and recorded acoustic music. A photo is a flat, single-layer image consisting of pixels, and with color transfer features dictated by the properties of the monitor, and it is also exactly highlighted. Whereas the picture is (spherical in vacuum) this object is a relief, textured, multi-layered object consisting of fluid paints, the color and luminosity of which depends on the physics of various pigments. You can see for yourself that when converting the second one to the first one, there is more information loss than when compressing wav to mp3.
And painting itself, and some artists in particular, use tools that are not reproduced by photography in principle. For example, I saw one picture in the photo, and I was interested in the drawing and color spots. Then I saw it live, and what it turned out to be: the figures were covered in a thin pink glow, like the low tide of some seashells, and it was made by applying a transparent layer of paint over the main paint of the figures – that is, they turned out to be quite spaced layers – which the camera lens stupidly flattened together, turning the glow into just a shade of color. It would seem, nafiga such subtleties at nashenskoy poverty… But this glow was the whole point of the plot – a picture without it was like a novel without an ending. And besides, this glow must not have been immediately noticeable – so that the viewer would open it after some attention. That is, the artist also planned a scenario for our perception.
There are a lot of such and other “oddities” in painting. It's just made up of them, lol. Use the gloss or dullness of physical paint, the relief of the brushstroke, the size of the canvas itself, resonating with your height, and many other things that the photo can not reproduce in principle. It is important to understand that a picture and a photo are two completely different visual systems, with different language, capabilities, and, most importantly, goals.
Another thing is CG-art, originally created on a computer, or a digital photo. It looks natural on the monitor, native environment, no problem. Although… if you print a CG on paper to create an invoice, a physical address-the magic of perception begins again… but this is already fetishism, probably^^
During the pandemic, when people were deprived of the opportunity to visit museums, many began to conduct online exhibitions and excursions, so disputes escalated As to how art is better perceived by people.
Nowadays, there is no need to visit art museums. You can usually view all the exhibits on your computer from the comfort of your own home. And yet, in recent years, the number of visitors to art museums has been growing. A new study helps explain why: people like museum art more, find it more stimulating and understandable, and remember it better.
David Briber and his colleagues invited 137 psychology students to view 25 works from the Startgalerie beauty contest exhibition at the Vienna Museum – a series of paintings, photographs, and collages that explore self-esteem, sexuality, and beauty.
Some students first viewed digital reproductions of the exhibits and their dashboards on a 24-inch computer screen (“virtual exhibition”), and a week later they saw a real exhibition in the museum. Students ' scores after each experience showed that they found real art works in the museum more stimulating, positive, and interesting, and they liked them better compared to digital reproductions.
The second group did the opposite: first they went to the museum, and a week later they looked at the exhibits on the computer. Again, after visiting the museum, they rated the artwork more positively. In fact, their virtual exhibit ratings were even lower than the first group. It's as if a rewarding visit to a museum undermined the subsequent computerized experience.
The last group did not go to the museum – they both watched the virtual exhibition on the computer. Their ratings were the same both times. They were lower than the students ' scores after visiting the museum, but not as low as the virtual exhibition scores obtained from students who had already been to the museum a week earlier.
Another discovery concerned the memory of students about the exhibits. A memory test a week after the first visit to the exhibition (just before the second viewing) showed that students remembered works of art better if they had previously seen them in a museum than on a computer. It seems that the museum's improved memory is due to the fact that students used the physical layout of the exhibition as a mnemonic tool. When they have successfully recalled one exhibit, they also tend to recall other exhibits nearby.
Taken together, the results are consistent with theories of situational cognition: “by nature, intelligence exists in context,” as Lisa Barrett and her colleagues once wrote. There seems to be something about the physical space of a museum exhibit that changes the way our minds respond to what we see. This contradicts the formalist theory of art, the idea that the impact of art on us is independent of time and place.
Many museum buildings are stunning buildings that act as cathedrals for the art inside them. It remains to be seen how much the nature of building design influences the perception of art. The museum presented in this case is physically impressive-a concrete structure erected in 1916, with a glazed courtyard. But perhaps any physical space once designated as a place of art can emphasize our aesthetic appreciation.
The researchers stated, ” The improved memory and expanded artistic experience in the museum highlight the educational potential of museums.” They concluded: “This … explains, at least in part, why people are willing to spend time and resources visiting museums instead of taking inexpensive virtual tours.”
Nowadays, online tours of exhibition centers and museums have become a common practice. You only need to have a computer or phone with Internet access to travel around the world of art without leaving your home!
Unfortunately, the online format does not allow you to see the masterpieces of world art live and feel the atmosphere of the best museums, but it has its advantages:
In such a difficult time, going online is the best solution to the problem. We have prepared a selection of expositions and exhibitions that you can visit online:
New York Museum of Modern Art
There are paintings and sculptures by Van Gogh, Picasso, Chagall, Pollock, Matisse, Richter and many other figures of the past and present. You can explore the collection on the museum's website or through the Google Arts and Culture project.
The Louvre Museum
If you've always wanted to see one of the most famous museums in the world, but you've never made it to Paris, then online tours of the Louvre are for you. Here you can get acquainted with the art of the Ancient East, and the early Middle Ages, and with the masterpieces of the XIX century. And you can also take a look at the apartments of Napoleon himself!
The Hermitage Museum
Take a virtual tour of the legendary museum (and palace!) it is possible in the project ” Hermitage. Taken on an iPhone.” 45 halls and 600 works of art of the State Hermitage Museum were shot in one shot in 5 hours and 19 minutes.
This is a small list of museums that are definitely worth visiting online. And there are a lot of such places now. Experience art right from home!
These are completely different things. One thing is perceived online. Offline – other. Screen distortions will prevent you from seeing common things, creating a mood, because this is our psyche. The mood will appear if we stand next to the masterpiece, we will immediately have a sense of belonging, the smell of time, although maybe the smell that we will feel is a plume of the perfume of the caretaker of the hall. Well, online we will be able to review the details that are also needed in more detail and calmly. We can zoom in and out of the image, we can view a work of art in comfortable conditions, not with our feet erased from running around the city.
As for the theater, it is impossible to “capture” the atmosphere without finding it in the hall. After all, there even the actor's pulse is transmitted to the viewer. Here you can read how people go to the theater after the pandemic and what they write afterwards. It's about the play “Caligula“, and this is about the premiere “Antigone.”
Live is better. Just because more of the object's qualities are available than in the photo. You're asking about visual arts, aren't you? The difference is the same as between live and recorded acoustic music. A photo is a flat, single-layer image consisting of pixels, and with color transfer features dictated by the properties of the monitor, and it is also exactly highlighted. Whereas the picture is (spherical in vacuum) this object is a relief, textured, multi-layered object consisting of fluid paints, the color and luminosity of which depends on the physics of various pigments. You can see for yourself that when converting the second one to the first one, there is more information loss than when compressing wav to mp3.
And painting itself, and some artists in particular, use tools that are not reproduced by photography in principle. For example, I saw one picture in the photo, and I was interested in the drawing and color spots. Then I saw it live, and what it turned out to be: the figures were covered in a thin pink glow, like the low tide of some seashells, and it was made by applying a transparent layer of paint over the main paint of the figures – that is, they turned out to be quite spaced layers – which the camera lens stupidly flattened together, turning the glow into just a shade of color. It would seem, nafiga such subtleties at nashenskoy poverty… But this glow was the whole point of the plot – a picture without it was like a novel without an ending. And besides, this glow must not have been immediately noticeable – so that the viewer would open it after some attention. That is, the artist also planned a scenario for our perception.
There are a lot of such and other “oddities” in painting. It's just made up of them, lol. Use the gloss or dullness of physical paint, the relief of the brushstroke, the size of the canvas itself, resonating with your height, and many other things that the photo can not reproduce in principle. It is important to understand that a picture and a photo are two completely different visual systems, with different language, capabilities, and, most importantly, goals.
Another thing is CG-art, originally created on a computer, or a digital photo. It looks natural on the monitor, native environment, no problem. Although… if you print a CG on paper to create an invoice, a physical address-the magic of perception begins again… but this is already fetishism, probably^^
During the pandemic, when people were deprived of the opportunity to visit museums, many began to conduct online exhibitions and excursions, so disputes escalated As to how art is better perceived by people.
Nowadays, there is no need to visit art museums. You can usually view all the exhibits on your computer from the comfort of your own home. And yet, in recent years, the number of visitors to art museums has been growing. A new study helps explain why: people like museum art more, find it more stimulating and understandable, and remember it better.
David Briber and his colleagues invited 137 psychology students to view 25 works from the Startgalerie beauty contest exhibition at the Vienna Museum – a series of paintings, photographs, and collages that explore self-esteem, sexuality, and beauty.
Some students first viewed digital reproductions of the exhibits and their dashboards on a 24-inch computer screen (“virtual exhibition”), and a week later they saw a real exhibition in the museum. Students ' scores after each experience showed that they found real art works in the museum more stimulating, positive, and interesting, and they liked them better compared to digital reproductions.
The second group did the opposite: first they went to the museum, and a week later they looked at the exhibits on the computer. Again, after visiting the museum, they rated the artwork more positively. In fact, their virtual exhibit ratings were even lower than the first group. It's as if a rewarding visit to a museum undermined the subsequent computerized experience.
The last group did not go to the museum – they both watched the virtual exhibition on the computer. Their ratings were the same both times. They were lower than the students ' scores after visiting the museum, but not as low as the virtual exhibition scores obtained from students who had already been to the museum a week earlier.
Another discovery concerned the memory of students about the exhibits. A memory test a week after the first visit to the exhibition (just before the second viewing) showed that students remembered works of art better if they had previously seen them in a museum than on a computer. It seems that the museum's improved memory is due to the fact that students used the physical layout of the exhibition as a mnemonic tool. When they have successfully recalled one exhibit, they also tend to recall other exhibits nearby.
Taken together, the results are consistent with theories of situational cognition: “by nature, intelligence exists in context,” as Lisa Barrett and her colleagues once wrote. There seems to be something about the physical space of a museum exhibit that changes the way our minds respond to what we see. This contradicts the formalist theory of art, the idea that the impact of art on us is independent of time and place.
Many museum buildings are stunning buildings that act as cathedrals for the art inside them. It remains to be seen how much the nature of building design influences the perception of art. The museum presented in this case is physically impressive-a concrete structure erected in 1916, with a glazed courtyard. But perhaps any physical space once designated as a place of art can emphasize our aesthetic appreciation.
The researchers stated, ” The improved memory and expanded artistic experience in the museum highlight the educational potential of museums.” They concluded: “This … explains, at least in part, why people are willing to spend time and resources visiting museums instead of taking inexpensive virtual tours.”