Both good. Look at the websites and decide which collection and current exhibits interest you. Can't go wrong either way.

Unless you only have an hour's break and don't want to go out of the neighborhood you're already in, don't let the distance make the decision for you. ("Make the trip to 88th st"??)

Having said that, and assuming that the Met is not one of your choices (or you've already decided yes on the Met) I'd generally suggest MoMA. Because it is much larger than the Guggenheim, there is more likely to be something you'd want to see, the permanent collection at MoMA is filled with iconic paintings (Van Gogh's Starry Night, Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, Rousseau's Sleeping Gypsy )and there are always multiple special exhibits.
The Guggenheim permanent collection has some fine pieces, of course, but nothing quite a famous as what's at MoMA. ALso, when they have a special exhibit at the Guggenheim, if it's something you love, great,. If not, it takes up so much of the museum's space that you might be disappointed. Of cours the architecture of the Guggenheim is impressive, but if you're going for the art, generally MoMA would win out.

IMHO MoMA has way more to see- at this point the Guggenheim is more about the building - but agree this is assuming that you have already done the Met (which IMHO is the greatest cultural institution in the western hemisphere).

And there are a lot of other places I would do before the Guggenheim, including the Frick and a bunch of specialty museums.

And 88th St is hardly the Museum - it;s actually in the center of Museum Mile - Fifth Ave from 100th and south - there are host of different museums and galleries.

I agree with the suggestion about the Frick. It is a great collection housed in one of the few mansions remaining on Fifth Avenue--a great two-for-one.

Pop in when you walk down Fifth Avenue from The Met to MOMA.

HTtY

MoMA is the finest modern art museum in the world. I have never been enthralled with the permanent collection at the Guggenheim.

One of the best things about the Guggenheim is the building itself. None of these suggestions would be a waste of time to visit though.

Right now, I'd skip MOMA. While I love the museum, Munch's "The Scream" just went on exhibit, and I think the museum will be absolutely mobbed with extra attendees. It's already too crowded around the most popular paintings, and it will probably be worse for the next 6 months.

The Guggenheim, however, which is not at all one of my top 25 museums in NYC, has a couple of interesting exhibits on Picasso and Kandinsky.

So if you have been to MOMA before and are looking for something different, the Guggenheim is a viable option right now. But the Frick is a much much better experience. As is the Neue Galerie.

Have they completed the renovations at The Guggenheim? When we were there in late May, much of the building and therefore the exhibits were inaccessible. We were disappointed, although the building is very cool.

I don't think they were renovating in May, they were probably between exhibits which happens a lot at the Guggenheim.

If you are going to do MOMA, invest in a membership for you or perhaps someone you are visiting in the City. Doug is right. Moma is going to be crazy for a while.

http://thestarryeye.typepad.com/explorenyc/2012/01/moma-membership-math.html

I guess unless you really really want to see "The Scream" and then it might be worth braving the crowds. I'm sure people will come to NYC just to see it. A membership is kind of expensive ($85 for an individual), so it's ust out of reach for some, particularly if they wouldn't visit again in a year.

I don't know whether adriang177 had been to NYC before or whether he/she plans a return trip soon,. But if you didn't go places you are interested in because they're busy, you'd never go anywhere. I live here so I can avoid especially busy times/places--like Central Park during the NYC marathon, Rockefeller Center at Xmas time. But if I didn't live here, or I was coming specifically to see the busy event/location, well I'd just plan for the extra time it takes. I wouldn't go to Paris and skip the Mona Lisa (or the Louvre in general) because it's popular and busy, so why do that in NYC? If you're interested in art, you can't easily substitute like saying go to Top of the Rock for a view instead of the Empire State Building. If you want to see "The Scream " or "Starry night" you just do it!

When 4 people are visiting MOMA - member plus 3 guests equals the entry fee for all 4. Then there's the discount shopping, the movies, the early hours, the way in to special events etc

Braving the crowds to view The Scream will of course 'be worth it' for some. Really, really, really:

http://www.ny1.com/content/ny1_living/arts/171271/-the-scream--goes-on-display-at-museum-of-modern-art

Actually, it'll cost $100 for four people to enter MOMA if one buys a membership. Details: $85 for the membership and $5 each for the three guests. Thus, it's $20 more than if each paid the $20 non-member charge.
However, if you encounter a long line at the entrance (which is very possible), you'll save a lot of time if one becomes a member at that time.

On can become a member at the gift shop. And yes 5 is a better break even point. Borrow another visitor and give them a discount.

HOWARD - The entry fee is NOW 25 and not 20. When they raised the membership they raised the entry fee. I was right in the first place.

Even with the crowds, I'd go with MOMA.

Love the Frick.

MoMA. No contest.

My apologies, Sue. I didn't know they raised the price. Now, I'm even happier that I'm a member!