I honestly think it's 50/50 with me. There are a whole raft of artists I cannot stand, but I do like swanning about in art galleries (the historical or modern art kind - not the commercial kind, usually). Part of that is seeing stuff by artists I like, but part of it's also the thrill of discovery. In zoos, I love elephants, and there are a wide range of other animals I like to see, and I like the serendipity of watching them doing goofy stuff or just sleeping, but there are also a lot of animals I find incredibly boring, and zoos tend to involve a lot of trying to walk through or around crowds (often in heat, cold, or flies, too), and the animals I like are usually off in the distance somewhere in a modern zoo, or visibly miserable in a small, bare enclosure in an old-fashioned zoo. Also while I no longer have the eyesight to get Impressionist paintings to *click* and become real, other than that my senses are adequate to art museums. At zoos I can't see well enough to read the information around all the people, and sometimes can't see the animals as well as I need to. But although I know less about animals than I do about art, watching animals is a more immediately approachable thing, so I don't often feel the lack of my expertise at a zoo - it's more that the animals being blurs off behind a clump of trees, or glimpses inside a sleeping enclosure, means I don't get to apply what I read on the plaques and learn their names and what they look like, and that's frustrating.
Museums, then galleries, then zoos. Used to spend a great deal of time in the first two, as a kid, as it was better'n being home. The last? I generally feel sorry for the animals being kept there, bored out of their minds.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Cheers,
pat
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
So, much the same . . .
From:
no subject