• No results found

Is it possible to look at a work of art and refrain from asking the question Do I like it? with its consequent emotive response of attraction or repulsion, Yes or No? Indeed, our raw response to anything in life may be the most primal response, but need not remain static. It is human to be either attracted or repelled from any experience, and viewing art is no different. In the context of the research, the question Do I like it? was possibly muted in some ways. It took on different guises from participants, like Would I hang it on my wall? or Would I pay money for it? or even Would it go in my house?

Many people, in viewing art, never move beyond this primary response. I like it or I don‟t like it becomes the dominant motif of response. This limits the potential for the viewer to respond to the invitation to engage with the work at a level that might inform their experience, and from which they may draw meaning.

The research attempted to address this potential limitation by asking the question, What is your immediate reaction to the work? and then move the viewers to the second question, How does this change when you sit with the work for a while?

Interestingly, most viewers in the actual process of recording a response to the first question were already grappling with some construction of meaning. And interpretation. Considering John‟s work , some people would respond with Old, Rustic, Ancient, probably as a way of finding descriptive ways to make sense of what was before them. Other people, however, would allow the moment to capture them, either in confusion, I don‟t know how to react! or clarity, with words like Amused, Surprised, Delighted. Similarly, as people recorded their first reactions to Ben, Libby or Debbie‟s work, they would either allow the raw response to unfold with Wow! surprised, peaceful, dark, brooding, uncomfortable, or begin to interpret with lines like A body lying on its side or Light impacting Desolation.

Let us consider one viewer‟s response as it offers some insight into the deepening process, from immediacy of response to insight and wonder. In this case, the questions took the viewer on that journey from primary reaction to exploration and reflection. Looking at John‟s Reliquary, this viewer responded to question 1 with Amused – it looks like a funny little church in mid-air. Asked question 2, she responded with I notice the detail, the beauty of the collars and the sparkling roof, and the intricate cross, and the curved fleur de lis. She went on to describe what she saw, and then was stimulated to name the questions that had emerged for her. Why the animal feet? Am I inside looking out, or outside looking in? She moved on in a journey of reflecting on her own experience of church and her current experience of faith, and finally recalled the childhood finger poem, Here is the church, here is the steeple, open the door and here are the people. At this point she began to reflect upon the experience of tension between the nature of faith and the death of Christendom. Whether she liked the work or not became irrelevant. She had formed a connection with the work that had enlarged her experience and extended her understanding. The process of question had taken her on that journey.

This illustration offers one example of the critical ingredient of time and intention within the process of reflection. Whilst there are moments of spontaneous response, time creates the opportunity for the deepening of insight. Similarly, engaging with art as an

intentional process is critical in extending beyond a glance to seeing. James Elkins wonders about the use of terms to describe these ways of looking. He considers the term glance almost as an expression of blindness, claiming “intense interest and intense disinterest both result in quick looks that see relatively little.”197 He

contrasts this with the word glimpse, “because in a glance we see only for a second, and in a glimpse the object shows itself only for a second.”198 The notion is that when we glance at something, our

eyes may fix only for a moment before we are distracted. Similarly, staring is a form of malfunction of looking. “Perhaps staring is a sign that an artwork has malfunctioned: it has arrested my thinking,

197

James Elkins, The Object Stares Back (San Diego: Harvest, 1997) 206

198

slowed me down, paralysed me so I can barely move.”199

He offers an alternative, the invitation to gaze, claiming “a gaze challenges, it inquires, it takes pleasure, and it asks for a response.”200

Attention is captured, so that the process of reflective engagement can unfold.

However we understand the language around seeing and looking, this discussion suggests the value of time and intention within the process of seeing, offering the opportunity for reflection and meaningful engagement. It affirms the anecdotal understanding that artists have but a few seconds to capture the attention of the passing viewer, and slowing down that process has the potential of deepening the possibility of encountering the art in a meaningful way.

199

James Elkins, The Object Stares Back 209

200