Museum musings

[Guest]

It's strange, but I can hike for miles, and stay on the cross-trainer for 45 minutes without stopping, but I find it very difficulty to stand for more than 20 minutes at a time at museums. Are any of you like that? Also, I'm always surprised at how handsome museum-goers seem to be. I find museums to be great places to stare at gorgeous men. They're often too engrossed by the work of art to notice that I'm staring. Do you guys love staring at men as much as the works of art?

[craigville beach]

I like the fact that the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston has benches throughout the galleries for you to pause and look around. Oh, yea the art work is good to look at also

[+ Truereview]

I love museums. It is the best form of voyeurism. I like getting in early, picking out my favorite work of art, processing my reactions to it, and then sitting nearby to see how others react to it. I luv the whispers, the facial expressions, the stances, the wonder in the observers' eyes. The beauty of watching another human being interact with an artist expression is seductive & addictive. It is a form of intimacy. I could spend days watching others watch. I love museums.

[jawjateck]

Love 'em too for many reasons, except I'm no fan of busy/crowded museums, not because of the number of people, but the....ummmmm......odour of inadequately washed flesh. ......e.g. the Louvre, any Smithsonian, etc etc

[uwsman2]

Museums are superb for guy-watching, agreed. Especially when they attract young art students with their sketch-pads.

[+ glennnn]

I absolutely agree. A trip to an art museum is on my list in every city I visit. I had an Art History minor as an undergrad and I find the quiet contemplation of beautiful art a zen-like experience, calming my frantic and anxious twenty-first century mind. I also agree about the guy watching; one can stare, because everyone is there to stare. Altogether a fine experience. On the other hand, galleries make me uncomfortable, because I feel pressure to buy something or leave.

[bigvalboy]

I feel a little differently. My trips to museums are carefully calculated journeys. I am determined to create for myself a calm, quiet and enriching experience. That usually means spending the better part of a day, alone, and focused on the exhibits. It takes all available brain cells to absorb the information...so cruising men has never been on the agenda... well.... there was that one time when I was teaching art at LACMA, but that really doesn't count, I was young and cute then, so you could hardly blame him.

Edited February 2, 2016 by bigvalboy

[+ Charlie]

It's strange, but I can hike for miles, and stay on the cross-trainer for 45 minutes without stopping, but I find it very difficulty to stand for more than 20 minutes at a time at museums. Are any of you like that?

I am a frequent museum goer, but I have the same problem. I can sprint around a tennis court, or hike for an hour, but the slow walking in a museum makes my back and legs ache.

[Epigonos]

I taught Advanced Placement Art History yet I have very mixed feeling about various art museums.

 

1. Louvre – I absolutely HATE this museum. I hate the constant crowds besides 75% of the contents is pure shit. The other 25% is quite wonderful if you can get close enough to enjoy it.

2. D’Orsay - I absolutely LOVE this museum. Although I’m not a great fan of Impressionism the lay out and setting are great.

3. Uffizi – Probably my favorite art museum. 90% of its contents are wonderful. Crowds can be daunting but if one goes early or late it’s fine.

4. New York Metropolitan – Some really wonderful things but also a good amount of junk. Its special exhibitions are frequently outstanding. The price is right – donation only requested.

5. J. Paul Getty – A perfect example where the building architecture takes precedent over the contents. One spends a great deal of time going up and down and up and down. Richard Meier could have cared less about properly displaying the art works. It was all about his building. He absolutely hated Robert Irwin’s garden design and walked off the site when he could not get it changed to meet his idea of what it should be. As far as I'm concerned the best thing about this museum IS the garden.

6. The Norton Simons – Is a very nice small museum in Pasadena, CA that has a few really nice things and very small crowds.

7. British Museum – Not really an art museum but has a large numbers of very interesting things including the Elgin Marbles (now for the sake of political correctness called the Parthenon Marbles), and the Rosetta Stone.

All of the above are great places to guy watch.

 

P.S. I have always wanted to visit the Barnes Foundation in Philadelphia and the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston and they are both on my bucket list.

Edited February 3, 2016 by Epigonos

[bigvalboy]

Epigonos is spot on with #5, and the Getty in Malibu is great for lunch, but that's about it. The Norton Simon however, is a hidden gem, and a delightful surprise.

Edited February 2, 2016 by bigvalboy

[rvwnsd]

I agree with Epigonos about The Getty and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Like the architecture, love the gardens, not so crazy about the art at The Getty. The Met seems like a jumble to me.

 

I grew up visiting The Art Institute of Chicago and still count it among my favorite museums. The museum as it stands today is a series of additions to the original museum. While it can seem like a patchwork quilt of buildings, one advantage of its design is the ability to walk at a normal pace when moving from one area to another. Like The Met, the art collection has some great works and some not so great works.

[+ quoththeraven]

I love art museums, but these days I don't have the endurance I once did, so I appreciate museums that are small enough to get through everything in the course of three hours or less like the Cloisters in Manhattan, an outpost of the Metropolitan in Fort Tryon Park, probably most famous for the Unicorn tapestries, and the Newark Museum, which has an excellent collection of Asian art for a museum its size, a late Victorian townhouse with fabulous furnishings and decorative elements, and plenty of American but no European paintings. Both are museums that request donations rather than a set admission price. (When I first went, the Newark Museum was free.)

 

I also love the Met but it's overwhelming. I hesitate to make a qualitative judgment about its collection because it seems to me that there is little there of low or no quality and its useful to have the context. The last time I was there I decided that Velazquez's Juan de Pareja was the most accomplished painting ever painted, but my general overall preference is late medieval/early Renaissance painting, which the Met has lots of. Which is not to say I don't appreciate other periods and styles, especially the Impressionists, who were my mother's favorites and thus my very earliest favorites.

 

The National Gallery in DC is kinda like a mini-Met when it comes to European paintings. I saw half the European paintings (the more recent half) three years ago after viewing the Pre-Raphaelite exhibit originating with the Tate in London. I've seen most of the museum before, but that was many years ago.

 

It's been decades since I've been to the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston (or to Boston, for that matter). I also like the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum and the Frick, although both are more house museums with art than cohesive art museums.

 

As for people-watching: it can be fun, but it's not why I go. Mostly I try to guess what country the people I can tell are foreign tourists are from. That happens mainly at the Met, particularly in special exhibitions. I do not go to see, nor do I care much, about the eye-candy. I did once, however, run into a college classmate at the Met while I was there with my boyfriend during the summer. I guess when you're from New York, going to a state school, and visiting the largest art museum in NYC (or possibly the US), you should not be surprised to run into a classmate there.

[TUOT89]

I taught Advanced Placement Art History yet I have very mixed feeling about various art museums.

 

[...] 4. New York Metropolitan – Some really wonderful things but also a good amount of junk. Its special exhibitions are frequently outstanding. The price is right – donation only requested.

5. J. Paul Getty – A perfect example where the building architecture take precedent over the contents. One spends a great deal of time going up and down and up and down. Richard Meier could have cared less about properly displaying the art works. It was all about his building. He absolutely hated Robert Irwin’s garden design and walked off the site when he could not get it changed to meet his idea of what it should be. As far as I'm concerned the best thing about this museum IS the garden.

 

In your opinion, what exactly is junk? The Met collects in depth, for a particular artist and within a particular period or style. What this means is that there are going to be greater and lesser pieces, but all the pieces are still representative in some way and therefore academically important.

 

At the Getty, Meier tailored the building to the collection. The first floor was reserved for light-sensitive objects (e.g., illuminated manuscripts). The second floor for everything else, mainly the painting collection. Furthermore, the museum was divided into pavilions because that is how curators wanted to group/divide the parts of the collection. It is possible to see most of the painting collection by just moving between the pavilions on the second floor.

 

The stairs at each pavilion lobby are there to create another way of experiencing the museum and the art. Some people don't have an interest in surveying the entire painting collection, all at once or at all. The building is actually quite democratic; the stairs are not a form of torture.

 

In my opinion, the illuminated manuscripts are the best thing about the museum. The painting collection is a masterpiece collection, meaning the piece represents the peak of each artist's work. (People in LA should be proud of the collection.)

 

As to the garden, I don't like it. It is pure spectacle and entertainment. It doubles down on the play already inherent in the design of the building, but not in a good way.

 

In general, art takes patience. The work is on display for a reason, even if I have no preference for the artist, the genre, or period. Major museums don't display junk.

 

But more to the point, at LACMA recently, I rode the elevator up from the garage with a very hot guy. We smiled at each other and exchanged a few words. I noticed he had big feet. I was there to pick something up from a friend who is a curator. I had forgotten how much else there is to see. ; )

Edited February 2, 2016 by TUOT89

[bigvalboy]

In my opinion, the illuminated manuscripts are the best thing about the museum.

In general, art takes patience.

 

Yes and Yes....

The Illuminated manuscripts alone are worth the trip.

"In general, art takes patience" (well said)

Edited February 3, 2016 by bigvalboy

[Epigonos]

Just about everything about art is opinion NOT fact. Much of what hangs in major art museums in NOT great art. It is frequently what was or is currently politically correct art.

[+ sf westcoaster]

I am a "museum junkie"! I couldn't even begin to list all the museums I have visited around the world, some outstanding others just "meh" and some that probably should be closed. Do agree that in addition to the museum collection, there always seems to be visitors that require some intense viewing.

[+ bigjoey]

To the list, I would like to add the Frick in NYC. It is a jewel box: small and intimate with really great art. Usually not crowded. Soon to be enlarged with the second floor opening to the public.

[foxy]

I too am a museum junkie. Now that I'm in LA I've been hitting the major art museums. I really liked the Broad Museum and its free which is very nice. Also I'm very fond of the Brooklyn Museum which is often overlooked by tourists. On a spring day it's very nice to combine a visit with the Brooklyn Botanical Gardens which are really lovely.

[cany10011]

Other jewel boxes not mentioned include the Rubin (Nyc), Maruitshuis (The Hague), Gulbenkian (Lisbon), Borghese villa (Rome) , Nezu museum (Tokyo).

[foxy]

Also would like to mention the Noguchi Museum an easy subway ride from Manhatten.

[cany10011]

The Wyeth museum in Chadds Ford is also a wonderful gem. A short drive from Manhattan.

[foxy]

Okay and the new Whitney in NYC is great for its views and if the weather permits you can walk the High Line down from 34th Street. Makes for a good day. The Whitney has a nice restaurant also. And if you like museum dining Robert, the restaurant on the top floor of the Museum of Arts and Design on Columbus Circle in NYC is quite good and has spectacular views of Central Park.

[Kevin Slater]

I am very lucky to live within three block of The Barnes Foundation in Philadelphia. And yes I do check the guys ever time I visit the Barnes Museum. Sometimes, I go there for lunch just for the eye candy!

 

The Barnes is simply delightful. Amazing collection that any other museum would kill for, great space now that it's moved downtown, and very doable in a short period of time.

 

Kevin Slater

[Kenny]

In the '70s, the galleries for Greek vases at the Met in NYC were notorious cruising spots.

[+ WilliamM]

The Barnes is simply delightful. Amazing collection that any other museum would kill for, great space now that it's moved downtown, and very doable in a short period of time.

 

Kevin, It depends on what you mean by a short time. The Barnes is a relatively small museum, but almost every room contains several master works of art. I would say two hours-to-three hours at the very least. There is a Starbucks across the street and a cafe in the museum as well as a restaurant so there is chance to take a break and go back for another hour.