On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 12:47:35 GMT, Rita <rknydel...@myrealbox.com>
wrote:

[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.

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.

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.

In article <rhepo0tp9es3heof8ln4j0i929folvt...@4ax.com>,
    Rita  <rknydel...@myrealbox.com> wrote:

You obviously have excellent taste. The Museum Ludwig knocked my socks off
on my first visit in 1981, and the only time it failed to do so was on a
visit a few years ago when most of the 20th Century stuff was closed off
for some renovation or somesuch.  

--
---
"Wake up, everybody."--McFadden/Whitehead/Carstarphen

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 12:09:44 GMT, Rita <rknydel...@myrealbox.com>
wrote:

[snip]

This is where I say "Whoa!" The Met also has plenty of mediocre
paintings. The Met is a great museum and the closest we have to a
museum on the level of the Louvre, but no way is it better. The
Louvre's Egyptian collection, for example, is magnificent and
beautifully documented! Also, what French Romantic paintings does the
Met have that rival the monumental works of David and Gericault in the
Louvre? And does the Met have a Leonardo to rival the Mona Lisa? You
also might want to take into account the fact that the Louvre is a
gorgeous palace and that natural light is used much more there than in
the Met and most other American museums.

It's true that the Louvre has so much work that they spun off much of
their Barbizon school and Impressionist (etc.) work to the Orsay, a
quite sizable museum in its own right that has a bunch of great
paintings and some mediocre ones in it. Is that a bad thing?

(For more information about the provenance of the Orsay's collection,
look here:

http://www.musee-orsay.fr/ORSAY/orsaygb/html.nsf/By+Filename/mosimple...)

[snip]

Wow! They're deliberately pricing out New Yorkers, it would seem.

One further question: Have you been to LACMA? They have great stuff of
all sorts, but their East Asian collections are magnificent. Have a
look here:

http://www.lacma.org/

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.

No, I have not spent time in LA in all my travels about the
country.  One visit for a couple of days and stayed in Santa
Monica and missed the art museum.  Other than that I've just
driven through.  But should I be within a reasonable distance
in the future, I'll keep this in mind.

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 14:18:09 GMT, Rita <rknydel...@myrealbox.com>
wrote:

You won't regret it.

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.

I have to agree on how clean Chicago seems to be or least it was just
a few weeks back.

Michael

Next time I'm there, you can both join me for a visit. Last time I
visited the museum, they accepted my local membership.

What I liked most at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art was the
building housing the Asian collection. It's a very tricky design that
I caught on to about half way through it. I retraced my steps to
figure out what had been done. Very subtle, and clever.

____________________________________________________________
              Southern California's Four Seasons:
           Earthquake, Mudslide, Brushfire, and Riot
http://geocities.com/dancefest/  http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103   IClast at SFbay Net

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 03:35:35 -0800, Icono Clast <ICl...@jps.net>
wrote:

[snip]

How's that? What's a local membership? MOCA?

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.

Don't they have a free day? Seems like every art museum I've ever heard of
has a free day once a week (okay, so that's an stupid statement, but The
Prado, the Art Institute of Chicago, the High in Atlanta, etc. have free
days)

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 18:16:07 GMT, "Sarah Banick" <sban...@NOSPAMmindspring.com>
wrote:

I believe they had free entry on Friday evenings for 3 or 4
hours -- I haven't heard if this will hold true for the refurbished
museum.

I like the system used by the Met and other museums that receive some
support from the city -- a reasonable set entry fee, senior and student
discounts but overall a pay what you wish policy.  Most, I do believe,
pay the requested amount.

The card says "Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco". It's been honored
at many museums in several countries. Of course there has to be a
reciprocal agreement.

Sarah Banick referenced:

A total waste of time. Well, almost. There's a statue named "Lot's
Wife" who's wearing a veil. First time I've ever seen a veil in marble.
_____________________________________________________________
        A San Franciscan in 47.335 mile² San Francisco
http://geocities.com/dancefest/   http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103    IClast at SFbay Net

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:35:46 GMT, Rita <rknydel...@myrealbox.com>
wrote:

It must be because of the hawk-eyed person who is handing out the
little lapel pins and counting how much money you "donate".

I prefer the system at the British Museum, which is truly voluntary.

--
Barbara Vaughan

My email address is my first initial followed by my last name at libero dot it.

I have never noticed that, Barbara.  My contribution is always
accepted with a smile.

Well, yes, that is very nice indeed, but the Met attracts so many tourists
and I see no problem with those who can well afford to pay the suggested
admission fee, which is not unreasonable, to do so.  Bottom line is that
museums need financial support to carry out their mission, to acquire new
works, sponsor special exhibits and to now and then renovate their facilities
to better serve the public.  Our government never has supported the arts in
the way they are supported in some other countries.  Nor would shortfalls in
funding due to lower or no admission force our Congress to make up the
difference.  

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:56:45 GMT, Rita <rknydel...@myrealbox.com>
wrote:

I don't object to paying the full price, but it does irritate that
they call it a donation.  When I'm in London, I usually stay near the
British museum and go there several times during my stay. I make a
donation each time I go, but I make an especially large one to cover
all my visits once during the trip. I don't mind popping in for half
an hour, and when I do, I make a small contribution.
--
Barbara Vaughan

My email address is my first initial followed by my last name at libero dot it.

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 18:16:07 GMT, "Sarah Banick"

[snip]

Yeah, Thursday evenings or something, but with the crush of visitors
on that day, it's not worth it. I think it'll be a really long time
before I go back to the Modern. If I'm spending that much money, I'm
going to the opera!

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.