2 ms·
Man I was in the Louve in 2001 and people were snapping tons of photos with their ~200x128 pixel phones instead of just looking at the painting. There were repr
by grogenaut 10y ago
Man I was in the Louve in 2001 and people were snapping tons of photos with their ~200x128 pixel phones instead of just looking at the painting. There were repros for sale reasonably right next to the real photo. Also that painting is impossible to see well due to the protection glass and there are so many better paintings just to the left or right of it, which I sadly couldn't get a good look at because everyone getting their 8 seconds in front of the Mona Lisa.
Totally unrelated but I feel the louve is a massive misuse of space in a lot of cases. The room right before the lisa on one side is a massive long gallery with around a hundred gigantic (8'x12' or bigger) religious passion paintings that no one really looks at with a few gems sprinkled throughout. The other side is a very high gallery with some great paintings 20'+ up in the air. It's like the louve has so many paintings they feel it just all has to be out on display without thought about how people will look at it (or at least that section is). I found the impressionist museum much better but this is 16 years ago.
- sotojuan 10y agoThe Louvre is one of those important institutions of mankind completely ruined by tourists. Unlike the Met or the Frick in New York, going in super early on a weekday doesn't even help. It's almost always packed. At least it's better than Versailles...