Tell them that the Louvre is a labyrinth where mobs crowd famous works three people deep, particularly the Mona Lisa, entombed beneath three feet of bulletproof glass. Lesser known works mostly span artistic periods visitors know nothing about; the line alone stretches longer than it would take to visit two smaller museums.
The way they handle crowd control around the Mona Lisa is abominable. I have a medium level of knowledge about visual art, which expands considerably when the periods in question are Gothic or Northern Italian Late Renaissance/Mannerist/Baroque, and was pushed by a line of people past Caravagggios, etc, that I would rather have dwelt upon (though, as my friend Camille once remarked, the correct amount of time to appreciate a given work of art in a room with other people who wish to view the same painting is 60 seconds. Circle back around, if you like, but don't dominate). But I had the room with Supper at Emmaus to myself, and there was perhaps one other person in the room of Titians. So I suppose it all depends on what you're going to look at.
Also, the note of disapproval here seems wrong:
Another muddled analogy is useful: the Louvre is akin to a library of history’s best classical music; enough major symphonies, classic concertos and delightful string quartets exist there to occupy a dozen orchestras for decades. But the music people savor today is rock & roll and its offspring.
I think trying to be a repository for as much as possible is perfectly defensible, and perhaps superior. For any smaller museum, or one focused on a single artist, the only people who will come are devotees of that artist, or people who are unusually risk-acceptant. If the point is to expand people's horizons just a little bit, the spread is justifiable.
No comments:
Post a Comment