It took me nine minutes to notice that the shape of the boy’s ear precisely echoes that of the ruff along the squirrel’s belly—and that Copley was making some kind of connection between the animal and the human body and the sensory capacities of each. It was 21 minutes before I registered the fact that the fingers holding the chain exactly span the diameter of the water glass beneath them. It took a good 45 minutes before I realized that the seemingly random folds and wrinkles in the background curtain are actually perfect copies of the shapes of the boy’s ear and eye, as if Copley had imagined those sensory organs distributing or imprinting themselves on the surface behind him. And so on.
Have a look at "Welcome to 82nd & Fifth" and pick a work of art to spend 3 minutes with a curator describing details you might not have known before. Is the brief introduction stimulating enough to make you want to devote an hour or more with that artwork? Or is this a USA Today-version of learning about art?