Why Create Art (by the numbers)

Old Chair 1
Photo by SB

Z at Any Fucking Day recently wrote about the need to create art and the ego it takes to create it. I made a small comment, but after spending more time thinking on it I want to post on it as well.

I was at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art(SF MOMA) a few weeks ago. I noticed something interesting and encourage you to observe it for yourself. Find a comfortable bench in an art museum and watch how people look at art. These numbers are estimates, not exact figures. 99% spend less than 20 seconds looking at any individual piece. They glance, read the info and move on. 99% do find a piece though that stops them and then spend many minutes absorbing it and relating to it. I also noticed that 20% or less of the collection got 99% of the deep viewing. I expect over 99% of my viewers choose to move on and not notice my photo.

I used to be a middle school math teacher, so let me do the math on this. I had an exhibit at a local gallery a few years ago. According to the gallery counter, around 600 people (some may have been repeat viewers) visited the gallery between the show opening party and the closing. I had 30 prints on display.

• If 20% of them got the most viewing, that would account for 6 of my photos being popular. I would hope all of them had merit, but I need to look at this objectively.
• Out of the the 600 who looked, 99% moved on. That could mean 6 people found something in the photo exhibit that made them really look at it and think about it (1% X 600=6).
• It could also mean that 6 people found each print important for a total maximum of 180 people(1%X600X30).
• It could also mean that just less than 6 people (I guess that would be 5 people) found 20% of my prints worthy of a deep look.

Statistics are very interesting. I can spin results so many different ways. The problems are the variables. How do I know that four or five people did not visit the gallery multiple times or that the same person looked at each photo in depth? Thinking about those little variables keeps my mathematically geeky mind reeling for days. I know I could apply some deep statistical analysis, but art is subjective and it is really hard to account for taste numerically. I did sell four original prints, traded one with an artist for a photo of hers, and sold 14 un-matted cheap prints. I also got a heads-up on a great, used enlarger.

So, if a minimum of 6 people were moved (positively or negatively) by my art, was it worth it? For me, yes. I knew after that experience which prints performed better and for the next show I was able to exhibit them more prominently. When I exhibit in a new geographic location, there is little overlap of viewers. If I get a few "fans" at each one, and they buy or recommend me to friends, I am building a group that are getting something from my art. My fame may not grow as fast as Britney Spears, but the growth is healthier and the "fan" has a deeper connection to my art.

I use Google Analytics to monitor who visits this blog. I am often interested in seeing how many people visit and stay at it for over a minute. I interpret that as people who are actually reading it. I then look at how many repeat readers I have. Like my art, most visitors take a quick look and move on. A few stay and read and a very few become regular consumers. I am fine with that. My blog and my photos are not for mass consumption. I am not Anne Geddes.

So, why create art that will be unseen, unheard, and not consumed? I don't create photos for my eyes only. I create them for others. I expect and appreciate criticism and try to improve my art, but I want people to see it, to react to it, and feel something about it. It is what makes me an artist/exhibitionist who wants people to be voyeurs into my world, my thoughts, my soul, and my life.