A recent Polish study suggests that explanatory notes in art galleries have minimal impact on how the general public perceives artworks.Photo: AFP
Descriptions are often the first thing visitors look for when they see a work of art in a museum. Among other things, these labels give the title of the artwork, the identity of its creator and the materials used.
They are therefore of major importance in providing access to works of art. However, according to a Polish study, these explanatory notices have very little influence on the way works of art are perceived by the general public.
The authors of this research, published in the journal Empirical Studies Of The Arts, came to this conclusion after conducting two experiments on artwork descriptions. First, they asked 107 people to give their opinion on paintings by four artists exhibited at the Satyrykon art gallery in Legnica, Poland.
To do this, the volunteers were given booklets containing three types of description for each work (simplified, natural and "bullsh***y," which was more abstract and vague). On the basis of these documents and their own opinions, they were asked to assess the depth and aesthetic appeal of each painting, giving it a score from 1 to 10.
It appeared that visitors were relatively little influenced by the tone used in the explanatory texts about the various paintings.
"We found the expressive language of descriptions had a negligible effect on the perceived quality and monetary value of art," the researchers note in their paper.
Surprisingly, members of the public placed importance on whether the painting was titled or not, when they had to make an aesthetic or monetary judgment about it, explains Psypost magazine, reporting on the study.
To support these preliminary findings, the research team recruited 60 first-year psychology students from the Karkonosze University of Applied Sciences. They were tasked with analysing the vocabulary used in the texts of the first experiment, assessing their level of abstraction, floweriness and "bullsh**," as the academics put it.
It turns out that the most bullsh**-filled work descriptions left the greatest linguistic impression on the students, in contrast to those with simpler vocabulary. However, these texts did not significantly influence the perceived quality or value of the paintings they described, which contrasts slightly with the results of the first experiment.
Generally speaking, this study questions the relevance of certain explanatory panels found in museums or art galleries.
If a description is well written, it can give visitors the tools they need to draw their own conclusions about the painting, sketch, sculpture or installation they're viewing. But it does not have the power to make them like the artwork in question. Indeed, as the researchers remind us, "the art speaks for itself." - AFP
