Art, Travel & Life in Italy & Europe

Art and Travel: the “authenticity” of seeing art in person

Probably the main reason that I write about experiencing art through travel is that being brought to museums in Europe as a child is what got me interested in art in the first place. I’ve always associated travel in Europe with exploring museums, cathedrals and other historic buildings. As a young teenager, I used my art history textbook to guide my mother and me around France, enjoying telling her about the art we’d basically gone on a pilgrimage to see.

My mom and I often have discussed the issue: “Why is it better to see art in person than in reproductions?” (Yes, dinner table discussion in my family can be pretty deep.) This is a question that has been treated by numerous theorists and I can’t say that I’ve ever fully understood it. I’m not at all theoretical; my approach to art is through experience and through historical knowledge, so using these, I’ve decided to tackle this big issue today.

The occasion for this reflection is the Italy Blogging Roundtable, a monthly series in which we write articles on a shared topic. This month, we’ve teamed up with the COSI Roundtable, and the two groups are talking about authenticity. Let’s think about what that word might mean in relation to both travel and art.

Authenticity in art and travel

Authenticity is something of a catch-word in tourism: we’re always looking for the most “authentic experience” possible, and tour operators are just too happy to help us. We try to “travel like locals,” support artisans, eat genuine food and all that good stuff.

In the art world, the word “authentic” generally refers to certified authorship, like when they discover a painting that may be by Leonardo da Vinci; an expert willing to go on the record, backed up perhaps by DNA tests or carbon dating, declares it to be authentically by that artist. That’s called “art authentication” and it’s important for paintings to be authenticated if the owner wants to either insure or sell it. Authentication, and thus placement within the canon of art and art history, is connected to economic value as well as cultural value: people flock to see the original Mona Lisa at the Louvre, but would they travel to see a reproduction of it?

Let’s think for a moment about what an “authentic art experience” looks like when we’re talking about art and travel. After much reflection, I’m defining it as in-person experience of seeing and taking in original art, in museums or in its original location. Connected with an “art experience”, you could substitute the word “authentic” with others: important, life-changing, arresting. My definition is quite precise: I think it involves original art, not reproductions; and I wrote that it involves seeing but also “taking in”, because just being in the room and looking at art does not mean we let ourselves absorb and be moved by it.

Feel the power

There are some “ooh” and “ah” moments when you see certain works of art in person. I can’t explain it, but hope it’s happened to you at some point so you’ll know what I mean. Two works that I’ve found incredibly engaging in person are the Arnolfini Wedding (at the National Gallery in London), and Giorgione’s The Tempest (Venice, Accademia). These are two works that are famous, that we regularly see in reproduction; that we might admire academically but that you just need to stand in front of and get into a dialogue with them to fully appreciate their power.

Giortione, The Tempest. Reproduction does not do it justice.

Giortione, The Tempest. Reproduction does not do it justice.

In both cases I remember being literally arrested in front of them. They sneak up on you in the gallery and you’re like… “woah.” The scale of reproductions, in wall-sized projected slides or miniaturized in books, left me unprepared for the discreet monumentality of these works in real life. If I had to describe the feeling, it would be one of being transported or transfixed. These are sensations that almost can’t be explained, though I will try.

Authentic art experiences and mental health

Florence, as you know, is the home of Stendhal Syndrome. The 19th-century writer got overwhelmed when visiting the church of Santa Croce, experiencing heart palpitations and fear of fainting. According to The Telegraph, even nowadays, “staff at Florence’s Santa Maria Nuova hospital are accustomed to dealing with tourists suffering from dizzy spells and disorientation after admiring the statue of David, the masterpieces of the Uffizi Gallery and other treasures of the Tuscan city.” While the cynic in me would attribute this to the lack of air-conditioning, we all know there’s truth in it.

Dr. Graziella Magherini, whose research comes out of that hospital, published a book on Stendhal Syndrome in 1989. She defines three ingredients: (1) the stress of travel, (2) a receptive soul, and (3) experiencing great art. Florence is where the Syndrome happens most often, according to the doctor, because “we have the greatest concentration of Renaissance art in the world. People seldom see just a single work, but overload themselves with hundreds of masterpieces in a short period.” Particularly, Renaissance, and not contemporary art, is a catalyst, explains the doctor in an interview:

“Beneath these splendid forms are extremely powerful nuclei of communication, which can cause conflicts and disturbances in the psyche of the sensitive observer. This is why Renaissance art is so striking. It is often a detail that does it, as in Botticelli’s Spring or The Birth of Venus. Have you noticed the wind, the motion of the sea? These details allow you to understand how many disturbing elements underlie this beautiful form… This is very different for modern, conceptual art. There are very few people who understand the message, because they do not know the code. Once they understand the code, a disturbance could theoretically occur and the message might be capable of striking something deep in the observer, but I have not yet seen it happen.”

Understanding the art – my “looking at and taking in” – is an essential part to Stendhal Syndrome, which interestingly affects travelers of European and Japanese origin the most, probably due to cultural affinity and study of art. Which makes me wonder a few things: if instances of this happening have gone down in recent years as the quality of arts education declines; and if instances are steady throughout the year, or are more present in tourist low season, when those lucky travelers have more quiet, reflective opportunities in which to take in art.

Botticelli Room at Uffizi | Photo Flickr user Marlo Vere

Botticelli Room at Uffizi | Photo Flickr user Marlo Vere

I also wonder what happens when we as a group fetishize the experience of seeing a work of art in person to the point that the crowd blocks you from generating a meaningful contact with it. How many people truly swoon in front of the Mona Lisa now? Or in front of the Botticelli mentioned by Dr. Magherini when you can barely see it for the sea of cameras and the green glass that blocks it.

Digital vs. Seeing art in person

Perhaps, then, it would be better to just look at a good digital reproduction. Google Art Project allows us to virtually walk through the world’s art galleries and zoom in on high-resolution photographs. Julian Raby, director of the Smithsonian’s Freer Gallery of Art in Washington says of the technology: “The giga-pixel experience brings us very close to the essence of the artist through detail that simply can’t be seen in the gallery itself… Far from eliminating the necessity of seeing artworks in person, Art Project deepens our desire to go in search of the real thing.” (source; italics mine)

Hand of Flora in Botticelli's Birth of Venus, zoomed in on Google Art Project

Hand of Flora in Botticelli’s Birth of Venus, zoomed in on Google Art Project

So, is it about the essence of the artist? Is that what we’re perceiving when we engage with a work of art in person? I asked my colleague Mary Gray how she thinks art and travel are related and she said: “both are creative experiences.” I think this is interesting: seeing art in person perhaps generates a creative link to the past.

In recently published scientific research, 302 subjects were told the story of and shown an original hand-painted work and also an exact replica painted after it. Participants found the original painting more valuable because the artist “poured his soul into it.” The soul, apparently, lacks in the replica. The hand of the artist exists only in the work of art that has been “authenticated” (see above) – a unique combination of the genius and the manual. An experiment currently underway at London’s Dulwich Gallery challenges visitors to find which painting in their museum has been replaced by a replica made in China (correct guesses ironically can win a print-on-demand reproduction).

During the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, replicas did not get such a bad rap. Rather than transmitting the genius of the artist, a concept that we can attribute to the Late Renaissance, paintings in the Early Modern period were considered “surrogates for what they represent” (says Hans Belting in his landmark book Likeness and Presence). A painted icon of the Virgin Mary works miracles because it embodies the Virgin herself.

Bernardo Daddi "Madonna and Child with Angels", Orsanmichele

Bernardo Daddi “Madonna and Child with Angels”, Orsanmichele

When a frescoed miracle-working Madonna in Orsanmichele was victim to fire in 1304, another Madonna was commissioned to replace her; stylistically outdated, a third version was commissioned to Bernardo Daddi in 1347. Every successive Madonna was just as valued by the people for it capacity to work miracles. Similarly, back in 2005, I wrote about how printed copies could carry the same power as original paintings, so that a print after an important icon could work the same miracles at a distance, in this case despite the intervening hand of an artist (see Creativity, Authenticity and the Copy in Early Print Culture).

If a copy or replica was good enough to work miracles back in the Renaissance, how did we get to where we are now, in a culture in which the original is valued above all? I’d propose a few factors, namely: the culture of individuality and genius that is prized in many modern Western cultures, especially American culture; and the need to determine at least some points of authenticity in a world of infinite technological solutions.

Concluding questions

These reflections have raised more questions than they have answered. I think we can agree that there’s an almost inexplicable draw of the original artwork that makes us want to travel to dialogue with it in person. When there is only one authentic work, there’s an exclusivity to this privilege, one that we want to experience but we also want to boast about through the way we share our experiences online (like with museum selfies).

But what is an “authentic art experience”? I think this is a definition that is in flux. First, with the rise of mass travel, the Stendhal-Syndrome-causing way of taking in art is harder and harder to come by. Maybe it will die out altogether, or it will stop happening in Florence and only be possible in say, remote Croatia. Second, thanks to digital technologies, as Alli Burness has pointed out to me, the line between digital and in-person experience is becoming ever-more blurry. As we digitally enhance so much of our lives, the way we interact with “originals” is bound to change.

Roundtable posts on Authenticity

This article is part of a monthly Italy Blogging Roundtable, in which six female bloggers share their takes on a topic. This month we’ve expanded to collaborate with members of another great roundtable called COSI in order to get even more perspectives on the matter.


Further academic reading

If my 2000 words wasn’t enough, you’ll want to dig deeper with these classics on the matter.

Subscribe to ArtTrav via Email

Enter your email address to conveniently receive new posts by email.

By: arttrav

Alexandra Korey aka ArtTrav is a Florence-based art historian and arts marketing consultant.

  • Gloria Casina Di Rosa

    Seeing art in person barely compares to seeing it in reproductions.

  • Pal

    I totally agree with your conclusion: many questions came out of this :-) Really interesting to reflect over it, for sure. I think I lean towards the word you summarised it all with as well, the sense of exclusivity. There is a special feeling in the uniqueness of an experience you have to travel across oceans and mountains to.

    As an example, we’ve recently seen Rothko in The Hague (ok, pretty far from Renaissance, and I think you’re no fan, but still), crowded, super-loud, pretty annoying, but all the greatest original works. Last year we’ve been to the Rothko Centre in Latvia, where just a handful of originals are mixed out with high quality reproductions and other fun stuff, and we had it all pretty much for ourselves. While the Latvian experience was truly fantastic, I was quite happy to leave the one here in The Hague with all the 200 originals. In this case the experience to travel to this remote corner clearly outweighed the uniqueness of the originals, likely ruined by the crowds as you also noted. But I suspect this is a rare case, the originals somehow logically speaking should win (at least as long as you KNOW it’s the original).

    By the way, the cynic in me do wonder about the Stendhal syndrome research. I do wonder if she would’ve reached the same conclusions in case she wouldn’t have known about the condition prior to starting her study. Guess i just have to look into it now :-)

    Great read!

  • arttrav

    Hi Pal, thanks for reading to the bottom of the post! You truly deserve a prize. As I wrote this post I honestly thought few would read it.
    It’s a big issue, one I’ve been thinking about all my life. And your experience in Latvia vs. the Hague (I do love Rothko actually) is exactly problematic. There are a lot of factors that make an art experience POSITIVE – i plan a post on that too actually – and perhaps they are just as “authentic”. I really don’t know!!!
    Food for thought…

  • Georgette Jupe

    Wonderful post Alexandra, you really made me think on this one… What are your thoughts about these new multimedia exhibitions like latest ‘van gogh’ one held in Florence? I think from a (very non expert) standpoint, I really enjoy the new way they are utilizing spaces like Ponte Santo Stefano and making us see famous art in different ways, even if it’s not the original painting (s). I can’t imagine ever considering skipping the actual museum experience in place of seeing the ‘google street view’ version. It’s also being there, the palpable atmosphere and overhearing conversations (which is always fun).

    I really like what the instagrammers in Rome did, organized by Erica Firpo, visiting a closed museum to let them snap away. It not only made me want to visit but made me do a few google searches on the art and architecture of the place. Nardia and I were talking about having Erica come up to Florence and organizing something similar, would be quite awesome!

    On a side note, the Stendhal syndrome made me think of my post on Paris and a similar ‘paris syndrome’ where tourists, mainly Asian, get so overwhelmed with the city they can start hallucinating, and there is even a 24 hour hotline at the Japanese embassy..

  • arttrav

    Hi G
    So, the “original art” thing was precisely a veiled shot at the Van Gogh thing – i had also extended the sentence with “not nice paintings in projected reproductions”. I have heard that the show is really good, though some critics say it’s especially ideal for people who don’t really like art. So I do have plans to go down and judge and review it for myself, though I fear I will hate it and then everyone will abuse me in the comments of my blog post :(. But maybe I’ll be surprised and impressed.

    I can imagine that a similar thing to stehdhal happens elsewhere, and think that the doctor cited may have found different results if she were based elsewhere. The whole “it only happens with renaissance art” discourse has got to be biased. I didn’t know about the Paris thing, and had no idea there was a Japanese hotline for this – proving that the Japanese are particularly sensitive to this effect, be it in Florence or Paris.

    You bring up the #emptymuseum project in relation to this article, and I’d say that would do just as well as a comment on an article about the rights and wrongs of taking photos in museums, one of my fave topics I’ve never dared write about, as you know :). I still do think that photography tempts us to go see things in person. But I also think we have to be careful not to let the device block our own human reaction to the objects. Both of us, as bloggers, tend to photograph first, look later. When I take in art alone I try to invert this practise so that I give more attention to the way the art makes me feel (art, or place – the same goes for visiting a town, etc).


  • arttrav

    Dear Jess
    How interesting that the Arnolfini did that to you, too. Same thing happened to me. It just hits you. It’s moments like this that make you realize why some works are just considered “great art”. There’s a reason it was on our textbook cover : ) !

    I love that you get chills from the pantheon floor (even in summer). I think too often I’m blasè about this stuff, I need to open up to it more.


  • Kate Bailward

    When I went to the Uffizzi one of my best experiences was earwigging on a guy talking someone else through a painting. He wasn’t a guide (I don’t think), but just an enthusiast – and that enthusiasm, along with his knowledge of all the tiny symbols to look for, really drew me in.

    I’ll confess that I’m not a routine gallery-goer, but I’ve had a few of those ‘lightbulb’ moments that you mention. The biggest was probably with the Rothkos at the Tate Gallery in London, when I was 15 or 16. I’d seen pictures of them and discussed them to death in Art Appreciation classes, but didn’t understand the big draw until I was standing in front of them, when I found myself literally gasping and having to sit down. Some things really do have to be seen in 3D to be believed. The Mona Lisa, on the other hand? I might as well have just been looking at a computer screen – I’d have seen more of it, certainly. There’s a lot to be said for the atmosphere of the gallery in which you’re viewing a given piece, I think.

  • Pingback: The Best Way to Experience the Borghese Gallery - ArtTravArtTrav()