JKR

“The basic fact about art is that you, the viewer, decide how much time you’re going to give it. Other art forms give you no choice.” That’s the opening line of a fascinating piece in the Daily Mail which studied how long visitors to the Tate Britain gallery took to look at various famous and infamous artworks. It’s a really good read. But can their findings teach us anything about the art of getting noticed and chosen on the shelf of a supermarket? What can we draw from the fact that a Tracey Emin self portrait got 177 viewers who typically gave it five seconds, while Millais Ophelia pulled 562 viewers who typically gave it almost two minutes of their time?

Like, art the attention packaging gets is entirely at the discretion of the viewer (unlike say, a TV ad which we tend to sit through however impatiently). In the supermarket we wander the aisles like magpies, our eyes alighting on this and that as we distractedly natter to our partners and call back errant children – our autopilot behavior not unlike that on a typical gallery visit. There is much more to look at than we have time to properly absorb. When one divides the number of goods in the typical supermarket by the average time of a visit, it appears we have to choose from around 1,500 packs a minute.

Here’s what the Daily Mail ‘discovered’: in a nutshell the older classics won hands down. It’s worth pointing out that visitors to Tate Britain are typically less interested in conceptual art than they are in ‘nice’ paintings – I have this on good authority from a colleague who worked there.

The Mail wondered if contemporary art got less viewing time because “It might be that contemporary artists strive to make an impact rather than provide a complex emotional experience. It is shocking to see a dead sheep in an art gallery, but it’s not something to go on looking at for half an hour.”

To this I would add that manifest skill could be scrutinised and appreciated for longer than, say, an arty photograph. So, in galleries it’s depth, storytelling and quality of craftsmanship that win out over simpler, more attention grabbing works. But of course packaging isn’t art. Few of us want to linger in the supermarket, so it is work that can be quickly processed that will be more effective. There is a lot of theory around ‘emotional branding’ and suchlike, but at the moment of choice it tends to be a bit more ‘wham bam thank you mam’. So while on an art trip we might enjoy lingering and developing connections, it’s the ‘one second world’ of contemporary art that is closer to how we interact with packaging design.

So in this context, which of the pieces of modern art the Daily Mail studied got the most (and least) attention? Damien Hirst’s dots got a scant 5 seconds from those who stopped to even look. For most it might have been wallpaper (or as one viewer commented ‘nice wrapping paper’). So much for it being ‘iconic’ then. I wonder if Joe Public is equally cool under the collar about brands that are praised to the heavens for their ‘iconic’ packaging in the marketing press? But his pickled lamb did fare better at an average 38 seconds viewing. From this, might one un-scientifically conclude that one gets more attention by doing something original that structurally and visually interrupts our journey? The classic ‘zig as the world zags’? Or is the sheep just more interesting to look at as it changes scale from different angles. And is a bit odd?

Here’s a thought – to get a pack off the shelf, perhaps go for the bravura and impact of contempory art. But then the pack (unless it is a household staple) is turned around and given a quick scan in the hand. Here’s the moment, ever so simply, to try and drive some of the emotional connection and resonance that Millais and his like made back in the day. Because while his Ophelia reveals plenty over a thirty minute gaze, it can also be appreciated as wonderful at first glance.