On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 09:26:31 GMT, Pan wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 12:47:35 GMT, Rita
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 06:30:31 GMT, Pan wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 07:37:30 GMT, Brian K
>>>wrote:
>>>[snip]
>>>>San Francisco also has it's charms with it's cable cars, Beaux Arts
>>>>Pavilion, and art museums with a prodigious collection rivaling the
>>>>Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City.
>>>
>>>What art museum in SF has a collection rivalling that of the Met?
>>>Really?
>>
>>
>>There is no art museum in the U.S.
>>that begins to rival the Met's
>>collection. D.C. has a number of good art museums, but the Met
>>is inclusive and can't be beat as a single destination that has
>>it all.
>[snip]
>
>I think the National Gallery and LACMA are comparable, though. I take
>it you disagree. Feel free to compare them in more detail, and I might
>be persuaded that they aren't.
>
Perhaps it is because I am so familiar with the Met. Living in
NYC, it is a place I drop into often, and do a tiny portion of the
whole. I've visited the National Gallery several times, but never
got the same feeling about it as the Met.
In the Met, I find some new nook or
cranny to surprise me every time I visit.
For a first time visitor, the place is overwhelming. While the Met
offers enough to explore over and over again, it may be wiser for
a first time visitor to limit the experience to one or two areas.
However, a walk through the entire building is recommended.
In my summary of the Met's wonders, I forgot Greek and Roman art, an
area which is being transformed due to moving the cafeteria to the
basement. There are such lovely halls in some parts, flooded with
light streaming in from Central Park. There are spots to sit down and
just contemplate the total effect. I suggest every visitor take the
elevator up to the roof garden to view Central Park from above.
I have visited most major art museums in Europe. But I never have
found one that overall compares to the Met in its depth and breadth
of diverse collections. The Louvre, of course, is magnificent but
contains a lot of rather mediocre French painting. Too much, in
my view.
I am a fan of contemporary art. The Met's collection is relatively tiny in
comparison to the whole, but I read they plan to add to it.
The Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) is reopening, but I almost dropped
in a faint when I learned the admission fee has been boosted to
$20. At the Met, one pays what one wishes, although of course there
is a suggested admission fee -- $12 for non-seniors, non-students.
The Met has an Impressionist collection that put the old MOMA to
shame. MOMA did not have enough space to display much of its
collection and it became tired and worn. I guess I'll have to put
out the bucks at least once to see what the renovation brings. And
MOMA has never done much at all with contemporary art.
I did not mean to be an exclusionist of other art musems in the U.S.
I love them all. My first exposure to "art" was the Chicago Art
Institute at age 15. I came in from small town Wisconsin, saw some
Picassos and Grant Woods "American Gothic" and became hooked. I
cultivated a girl friend met at a fishing resort because she lived in
Evanston and wangled an invite to her home over holidays so I could
take the El and wander the streets of the Chicago loop and visit the
Art Institute.
Much of my joy in European travel has been built around visiting the
great art museums. I found the Ludwig in Cologne a marvel for
contemporary art. We all have our tastes and preferences but there is
little I would rule out. I am still capable of looking afresh and
discovering new favorites. |