Nicole Junkermann on Looking Twice at the Same Thing
The second visit is the one that sees. The first was mostly navigation, and the end of the month is a good time to admit it.
A first encounter is largely spent arriving. The looking tends to begin on the second visit, when there is nothing left to be surprised by.
Novelty is a poor guide and an excellent distraction, which is why Nicole Junkermann keeps returning to work already seen rather than hunting for work not seen yet. The second meeting has none of the energy of the first and almost all of the information.
What a first visit is actually for
A first visit is mostly orientation. The room is read, the route is found, the scale is registered, and a verdict forms far too quickly out of whatever arrived first. That verdict is rarely wrong, but it is thin. It was assembled under the mild pressure of everything being unfamiliar at once, and it tends to describe the encounter rather than the work.
The part that changes
On a second visit the navigating has already been done, so the attention has nowhere else to go. The work has not altered. The viewer has, slightly, by having thought about it in between, and that small difference is enough to move what is noticed. It is the same mechanism that makes conservation a form of attention rather than a form of repair.
What a second look tends to find
The findings are unremarkable individually and cumulative in effect.
- The decisions underneath the subject, which the first look passed straight over.
- The places where something was changed, covered or left deliberately unfinished.
- A different distance that suits it better than the one taken the first time.
- How much of the first impression came from the room rather than the work.
- Whether it holds up at all, which is the only verdict worth having.
Closing the month
The last day of October is as good an occasion as any for a return rather than a discovery, with the month at its most directional and the rooms not yet full. Anything written down the first time becomes useful now, which is most of the argument for keeping short notes at all. A short introduction sits here for readers arriving at this journal for the first time, and the second visit, as ever, can wait until it is wanted.
The work has not altered. The viewer has, slightly, and that is enough to move what is noticed.
Frequently asked questions
Why is a second visit better than a first?
Because the orientation has already been done. Nothing is being navigated, so the attention stays on the work instead of on the room, the route and the novelty of all of it.
Is there any point in returning to something already disliked?
Often more than in returning to something liked. A first dislike is usually a reaction to the encounter, and a second look either confirms it with reasons or quietly replaces it.
How long should pass between the two?
Long enough to have thought about it and short enough to remember it. The gap matters less than the fact that something happened in between, which is what changes the viewer.
