What is the place of art in a culture of inattention? Recent visitors to the Louvre report that  tourists can now spend only a minute in front of the Mona Lisa before being asked to move on. Much of that time, for some of them, is spent taking photographs not even of the painting but of themselves with the painting in the background.

        One view is that we have democratised tourism and gallery-going so much that we have made it effectively impossible to appreciate what we’ve travelled to see. In this oversubscribed society, experience becomes a commodity like any other. There are queues to climb Mt. Jolmo Lungma as well as to see famous paintings. Leisure, thus conceived, is hard labour, and returning to work becomes a well-earned break from the ordeal.

        What gets lost in this industrialised haste is the quality of looking. Consider an extreme example, the late philosopher Richard Wollheim. When he visited the Louvre he could spend as much as four hours sitting before a painting. The first hour, he claimed, was necessary for misperceptions to be eliminated. It was only then that the picture would begin to disclose itself. This seems unthinkable today, but it is still possible to organise. Even in the busiest museums there are many rooms and many pictures worth hours of contemplation which the crowds largely ignore. Sometimes the largest crowds are partly the products of bad management; the Mona Lisa is such a hurried experience today partly because the museum is being reorganised. The Uffizi in Florence, another site of cultural pilgrimage, has cut its entry queues down to seven minutes by clever management. And there are some forms of art, those designed to be spectacles as well as objects of contemplation, which can work perfectly well in the face of huge crowds.

        Olafur Eliasson’s current Tate Modern show, for instance, might seem nothing more than an entertainment, overrun as it is with kids romping (喧闹地玩耍) in fog rooms and spray mist installations. But it’s more than that: where Eliasson is at his most entertaining, he is at his most serious too, and his disorienting installations bring home the reality of the destructive effects we are having on the planet—not least what we are doing to the glaciers of Eliasson’s beloved Iceland.

        Marcel Proust, another lover of the Louvre, wrote: “It is only through art that we can escape from ourselves and know how another person sees a universe, whose landscapes would otherwise have remained as unknown as any on the moon.” If any art remains worth seeing, it must lead us to such escapes. But a minute in front of a painting in a hurried crowd won’t do that.

解析：B。根据题干中的Olafur Eliasson’s current Tate Modern show可定位至原文第四段第一句。该句提到了奥拉维尔·埃利亚松目前在泰特现代美术馆举办的展览，这个展览看起来像是一场娱乐活动，孩子们在其中嬉戏玩耍。随后在第二句接着解释道，但它想表达的含义不止于此：埃利亚松展馆最有趣的地方，也是它最严肃的地方。由此可知，这个展览是把娱乐性和严肃性结合了起来，故正确答案为B。

错项排除：原文在第四段开头提到了在展览中玩耍的孩子（kids romping），但并没有说到孩子在玩的时候能学习欣赏艺术，故A项错误。随后又在该段段末处提到了人类对地球造成的影响，但并没有说关于环境的作品最吸引小孩子，C项属于细节拼凑，故错误。D项利用第三段最后一句中出现的，some forms of art和huge crowds进行干扰，但原文以奥拉维尔·埃利亚松在泰特现代美术馆举办的展览为例，重点是为了说明该展览集娱乐性和严肃性于一体，而不在于描述该展览是怎么应对大批量游客的，故D项错误。