3 ms·

I disagree. Tourists in museums are generally bored by the classical/baroque/renaissance art section and entertained by the weird stuff in the contemporary sect

by rdouble 13y ago

I disagree. Tourists in museums are generally bored by the classical/baroque/renaissance art section and entertained by the weird stuff in the contemporary section. If their jaws are agape it's because they are falling asleep, or because they weren't expecting the Mona Lisa to be so small.

bane 13y ago
And yet the classical/baroque/renaissance art museums are packed to the gills full of tourists who just sqeaked in after a 3 hour wait in line, while the modern art museums, while not empty, are certainly not trying to fend off the crowds. Nothing can prepare you for the press of people even in the off-season clamoring to get into the Uffizi -- who's main claims to fame are: 1) being the main museum in Florence 2) a forgettable Michelangelo 3) one stiff da Vinci and one musky da Vinci, both forgettable. but while there you might turn a corner and see something like this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Piero_di_Cosimo_-_Liberazione_di_Andromeda_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Piero_di_... which would be just at home in a surrealist installation at the MoMA as in the Uffizi. But I do have to agree, the never ending pictures of punctured saints with long faces, Madonna and Child's and Crucifixes does get tiresome. At least there's always Caravaggio to make things interesting for the modern audience.
- intended 13y ago
  A lot of people get photo realistic art. Its obviously difficult to achieve the colors and simulacrums with the technology of the time. On the other hand, understanding the entire sequence of western art - of Grecian art, its loss and the elevation of stark, religiously themed art during the dark ages, followed by the renaissance and onwards, makes western history and an important chunk of many modern unspoken assumptions make sense. In other words, starting with Middle-ages art but moving onwards is an effective and memorably way to hack the meta discussion humanity has been having about itself through the ages.
- scholia 13y ago
  The Uffizi also has The Birth of Venus and Primavera, the Allegory of Spring, both of which are immortal masterpieces. And quite a few other things....
- bgruber 13y ago
  allegorical counterexample, but here in New York my impression is that the biggest crush of tourists trying to get into a museum is the one at MoMA. This may have something to do with size; the other most popular museum is clearly the Met, which is so huge that it's rare, even in NY, to have it be truly jam packed. Someone else already said it, but I do believe that that the biggest reason for the difference in quality between old art and new art is that old art has had the benefit of the filter of history; for the most part, the bad stuff got thrown out and good stuff survived. In geek's terms, you might say that the old stuff that remains is sturgeon's 10%, but that 90% of the new stuff is, in fact, crud.

by rdouble 13y ago

bane 13y ago

And yet the classical/baroque/renaissance art museums are packed to the gills full of tourists who just sqeaked in after a 3 hour wait in line, while the modern art museums, while not empty, are certainly not trying to fend off the crowds. Nothing can prepare you for the press of people even in the off-season clamoring to get into the Uffizi -- who's main claims to fame are: 1) being the main museum in Florence 2) a forgettable Michelangelo 3) one stiff da Vinci and one musky da Vinci, both forgettable. but while there you might turn a corner and see something like this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Piero_di_Cosimo_-_Liberazione_di_Andromeda_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Piero_di_... which would be just at home in a surrealist installation at the MoMA as in the Uffizi. But I do have to agree, the never ending pictures of punctured saints with long faces, Madonna and Child's and Crucifixes does get tiresome. At least there's always Caravaggio to make things interesting for the modern audience.

intended 13y ago
A lot of people get photo realistic art. Its obviously difficult to achieve the colors and simulacrums with the technology of the time. On the other hand, understanding the entire sequence of western art - of Grecian art, its loss and the elevation of stark, religiously themed art during the dark ages, followed by the renaissance and onwards, makes western history and an important chunk of many modern unspoken assumptions make sense. In other words, starting with Middle-ages art but moving onwards is an effective and memorably way to hack the meta discussion humanity has been having about itself through the ages.
scholia 13y ago
The Uffizi also has The Birth of Venus and Primavera, the Allegory of Spring, both of which are immortal masterpieces. And quite a few other things....
bgruber 13y ago
allegorical counterexample, but here in New York my impression is that the biggest crush of tourists trying to get into a museum is the one at MoMA. This may have something to do with size; the other most popular museum is clearly the Met, which is so huge that it's rare, even in NY, to have it be truly jam packed. Someone else already said it, but I do believe that that the biggest reason for the difference in quality between old art and new art is that old art has had the benefit of the filter of history; for the most part, the bad stuff got thrown out and good stuff survived. In geek's terms, you might say that the old stuff that remains is sturgeon's 10%, but that 90% of the new stuff is, in fact, crud.