> This means that if these prints are displayed for three months at 50 lux, they should be stored in the dark for at least a year before they are displayed again
> While these measures will not stop fading from occurring altogether, they will ensure that these world-famous prints fade so slowly that they will be seen by countless generations of visitors to the Museum in the future.
This trade-off is interesting, are we maximizing for number of people watching works? Or are we purely maximizing time? Because its not obvious to me that more people will see a work if it lasts 1000 more years but spends 80% of that time in storage, vs lasting 100 more years spending 0% of the time in storage.
Also lets say you go to the museum today and are lucky that it happens to be on display. But your friend travels to see it, it happens to be in 80% storage time, then the friend goes back home and dies without seeing it so that some future person that doesn't exist yet even can see it later without fading. Why is the future person more important than the current person, in a sense?
Storing it assumes a lot, that humanity will survive, that people will be interested in seeing it, that some fire isn't going to destroy their storage, etc. Meanwhile real life people would've seen it already. I don't have an answer, just questions though.
By limiting the hours today, it helps make sure that the people who do see it are the ones most interested in seeing it. Those are the ones who will look up the schedule, schedule their trip around it, etc... while if it's just permanently up, many of the viewers will be random passersby (and the number of viewers per hour of illumination will probably be lower)
Exactly this. When I was younger they did an exhibit of the Great Wave and Ukiyo-e next to where I lived, so I saved the date when the ticket office opened on my calendar. I then found friends interested in coming with me and grabbed some tickets before they ran out. If you just put it on display every day it will just fade away while being yet another print in a museum full of paintings. You're denying future generations the chance love this print and cherish the opportunity to see one in person. Art is not just taking a photo and passing by, it's about appreciating the fact some human made some very special thing we can now enjoy
Ok that is adding an interesting variable of perceived interest and then it's not about # of people anymore, but rather time plus # of _interested_ people. I guess that has to be the reasoning because it does make sense if that's the optimization goal.
Though I'd imagine mostly its going to be a random sample of people that happen to be there that day. I imagine there's likely under 1% of museum visitors actually chasing single works and planning trips like that. So most people that would see it are still just random "museum people" (which under the "interest" metric is still better than purely random people).
I think another aspect here is that museums don't have infinite display space. So if famous items X, Y and Z are on permanent display that's less space available for other, less famous but perhaps equally interesting, items that are stuck in storage. Rotating the famous items into storage doesn't mean the museum has blank walls for a year.
Arguably there's more educational value and more chance of a visitor serendipitously encountering something that speaks to them if the museum has a big set of prints rotated through, rather than a more static one. After all, even if you haven't ever seen an original of the Great Wave you almost certainly already know the image and it's likely already made most of the impact on you that it ever will...
The British Museum have at least two impressions. Boston have five, showing a cycle of three the last time "it" was on view. So viewings can be more frequent than the 4 year gap, or they can keep the gap and have a longer exhibition. Either way, more people get to see it.
Same here, no answers. I'd also question why we should feel entitled to see it, or have that privilege at all. The curators might, at a certain point in time, hold a great appreciation for it versus me Joe public, and then it would make sense to simply not show it anymore as the trade-off isn't worth it.
As these are prints themselves, are we gaining anything by seeing these prints vs other prints? It's not like viewing an original Monet or anything where the thing being viewed was the work created by the artist's hands. While these prints might have been made by the artist, they are still not the originals.
When visiting DC, do we really think the Constitution under all of that glass is the actual Constitution? POTUS seems to think he has the actual, so there's conflict right there. For a document as beloved as the Constitution, why would you ever risk the original?
>When visiting DC, do we really think the Constitution under all of that glass is the actual Constitution?
That's a damn good question actually, and for many other works in other places, like, say, the Magna Carta, or the Declaration of Independence. To the Wikipediamobile ADHDMan!
Scanners are also getting better. Perhaps this way it will make it all the way to the atomic cloning era. Just like we might all just make it until the “upload your consciousness” era, or the “we beat aging” era.
Such a shame that Hokusai didn't get a chance to read Sarah Renae Clark's excellent investigation [1] into lightfastness (coincidentally linked yesterday).
> This means that if these prints are displayed for three months at 50 lux, they should be stored in the dark for at least a year before they are displayed again
> While these measures will not stop fading from occurring altogether, they will ensure that these world-famous prints fade so slowly that they will be seen by countless generations of visitors to the Museum in the future.
This trade-off is interesting, are we maximizing for number of people watching works? Or are we purely maximizing time? Because its not obvious to me that more people will see a work if it lasts 1000 more years but spends 80% of that time in storage, vs lasting 100 more years spending 0% of the time in storage.
Also lets say you go to the museum today and are lucky that it happens to be on display. But your friend travels to see it, it happens to be in 80% storage time, then the friend goes back home and dies without seeing it so that some future person that doesn't exist yet even can see it later without fading. Why is the future person more important than the current person, in a sense?
Storing it assumes a lot, that humanity will survive, that people will be interested in seeing it, that some fire isn't going to destroy their storage, etc. Meanwhile real life people would've seen it already. I don't have an answer, just questions though.
By limiting the hours today, it helps make sure that the people who do see it are the ones most interested in seeing it. Those are the ones who will look up the schedule, schedule their trip around it, etc... while if it's just permanently up, many of the viewers will be random passersby (and the number of viewers per hour of illumination will probably be lower)
Exactly this. When I was younger they did an exhibit of the Great Wave and Ukiyo-e next to where I lived, so I saved the date when the ticket office opened on my calendar. I then found friends interested in coming with me and grabbed some tickets before they ran out. If you just put it on display every day it will just fade away while being yet another print in a museum full of paintings. You're denying future generations the chance love this print and cherish the opportunity to see one in person. Art is not just taking a photo and passing by, it's about appreciating the fact some human made some very special thing we can now enjoy
11 replies →
Ok that is adding an interesting variable of perceived interest and then it's not about # of people anymore, but rather time plus # of _interested_ people. I guess that has to be the reasoning because it does make sense if that's the optimization goal.
Though I'd imagine mostly its going to be a random sample of people that happen to be there that day. I imagine there's likely under 1% of museum visitors actually chasing single works and planning trips like that. So most people that would see it are still just random "museum people" (which under the "interest" metric is still better than purely random people).
> By limiting the hours today, it helps make sure that the people who do see it are the ones most interested in seeing it.
We should auction off the visitor spots, then.
4 replies →
I think another aspect here is that museums don't have infinite display space. So if famous items X, Y and Z are on permanent display that's less space available for other, less famous but perhaps equally interesting, items that are stuck in storage. Rotating the famous items into storage doesn't mean the museum has blank walls for a year.
Arguably there's more educational value and more chance of a visitor serendipitously encountering something that speaks to them if the museum has a big set of prints rotated through, rather than a more static one. After all, even if you haven't ever seen an original of the Great Wave you almost certainly already know the image and it's likely already made most of the impact on you that it ever will...
The British Museum have at least two impressions. Boston have five, showing a cycle of three the last time "it" was on view. So viewings can be more frequent than the 4 year gap, or they can keep the gap and have a longer exhibition. Either way, more people get to see it.
Same here, no answers. I'd also question why we should feel entitled to see it, or have that privilege at all. The curators might, at a certain point in time, hold a great appreciation for it versus me Joe public, and then it would make sense to simply not show it anymore as the trade-off isn't worth it.
As these are prints themselves, are we gaining anything by seeing these prints vs other prints? It's not like viewing an original Monet or anything where the thing being viewed was the work created by the artist's hands. While these prints might have been made by the artist, they are still not the originals.
When visiting DC, do we really think the Constitution under all of that glass is the actual Constitution? POTUS seems to think he has the actual, so there's conflict right there. For a document as beloved as the Constitution, why would you ever risk the original?
>When visiting DC, do we really think the Constitution under all of that glass is the actual Constitution?
That's a damn good question actually, and for many other works in other places, like, say, the Magna Carta, or the Declaration of Independence. To the Wikipediamobile ADHDMan!
2 replies →
Scanners are also getting better. Perhaps this way it will make it all the way to the atomic cloning era. Just like we might all just make it until the “upload your consciousness” era, or the “we beat aging” era.
No need for scanners in case of wood block prints -- we can always get more originals whenever we want.
1 reply →
You mean, that hypothetical friend who wants to see this particular piece of art in situ so much but didn’t bother to plan their trip accordingly?
Can we just turn off the lights, move visitors into the room, then turn on the lights for a few seconds?
Such a shame that Hokusai didn't get a chance to read Sarah Renae Clark's excellent investigation [1] into lightfastness (coincidentally linked yesterday).
[1] https://sarahrenaeclark.com/lightfast-testing-pencils/