And one thing I should have added, with the decline of interest in the arts, I think the strategy is to make art accessible to the public. It's the strategy that many places have adopted. Museums have short tours, as I mentioned. The NY Philharmonic offers one-hour rush-hour concerts.

You are much more likely to win converts when you tell people that, yes, you can see great art in the Prado in 45 minutes than to tell them no, don't bother.

You are much more likely to win converts when you tell people that, yes, you can see great art in the Prado in 45 minutes than to tell them no, don't bother.
__________________________________________________ _______
To me, this is just another step in the dumbing down of the world and making it acceptable.

There was a recent survey that 96% of Americans are inspired by art but only 27% think artists, themselves, are valuable to the society. That same disconnect applies here. Art is valuable but the time you invest in it is not.

And if someone wanted to learn about classic music, I would ask questions to see what they know and don't know and what they like and don't like. But using your analogy, they should be satisfied with one 45 symphony and understand music.

I am not sure what 45 minutes accomplishes. It is not even the length of one reality show.

"Neo-would you recommend that someone see only the first half of a play?"

if he loved works by that playwright and had to catch a plane so it was a matter of seeing only the first act or not seeing any of it? Absolutely!

The question here (as I posed it) wasn't about spending 45 minutes instead of 3 or 4 hours. It was about spending 45 minutes at the Prado or perhaps never seeing any of it.

This to me is also like those "should I go to Paris for a day while I'm in London?" questions. If there is a good chance you're going back soon, then probably not. But if it is likely to be your ONLY chance to ever see Paris, then again I say 1 day in Paris is way better than NO days in Paris.

I am part of group that is trying to elevate many aspects of our art coop, including how to improve the experience of attending a show. No one has suggested a short tour. The consensus is that most artists are very bad at selling their own art, but enthusiastic for some colleagues.

Crazy us, we think educating our guests will be helpful. Let them ask questions, so we do not underestimate or overestimate their interest, knowledge, or passion.

Last summer, we had the pleasure of escorting two teenage daughters of a friend to MoMA. When we pointed out certain features about the work and the artists, they became enthralled. I believe we are at the museum for much longer than 45 minutes, maybe even 46.

This is the new version of I will in Europe for 2 weeks and want to visit seven countries. It can be done, but what is the point.

It is just collecting cities, or in this case museums, to say one has been there.

"But using your analogy, they should be satisfied with one 45 symphony and understand music.

I am not sure what 45 minutes accomplishes. It is not even the length of one reality show."

No, this is not what I said.

And in any case, 45 minutes is certainly on the long side for classical symphonies. You can throw in a Chopin Ballade with it, but personally I'll opt for the Barcarolle. :)

Here's a list of great symphonies that play for under 45 minutes. Enjoy!

Mozart 40 in Gminor
Mozart 41 / Jupiter
Beethoven 5
Beethoven 7
Beethoven 8
Schubert 8 (unfinished)

Thanks, I have seen or own all of them.

And have never been compelled to use the memorable line from Amadeus, ""And there are simply too many notes, that's all."

Maybe if we eliminate some notes they may be palatable to more people?

Regarding the comment on one half of the play, I'm now thinking that let's not bother with Schubert's "Unfinished" Symphony.

Why? Because it's unfinished! It only has two movements and most symphonies have four. I don't want to listen to half a symphony.

And when at the Uffizi, please rush past the Uccello "Battle of San Romano." It's not worth seeing.

Why? Because it's just one third of a series, with the two paintings in the Louvre and London's National Gallery. I can never see 1/3 of a series.

:)

Aduchamp, I have the perfect piece of music for you.

Johh Cage's 4:33. I think you'd love this piece. :)

I think you meant "John", unless you were using two "h"'s to indicate that the "n" is silent.

Yes, it's a typo. And I guess 4'33''. 4:33 sounds unbearable. :)

I have to go to bed. Maybe I can start with my own 4'33''.

"sounds unbearable"

Goodnight, and listen well! :D

Johh Cage's 4:33

I thought you were citing some atonal Biblical verse.

Well, you know, Cage's point is to listen to the sounds. :)

There's actually an orchestral version. I didn't know this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUJagb7hL0E

But as usual it's just fun reading the comments. I skimmed the first few and this one had me laughing:

"People in New York city would dress up in tuxedos and bow ties to pay to see a guy shit in a cup on stage becuase it was deemed 'revolutionary performance art'.

This, on the other hand, is intersting. I wonder how much the orchestra gets paid to do nothing. "

Anyway, the art comment is a bit far-fetched, as I don't think that I know of a piece that's like this (except for what Piero Manzoni has done).

But I think of Vito Acconci's "Seedbed." It'd have been interesting to see Carolee Scheemann perform too.

People in New York city would dress up in tuxedos and bow ties to pay to see a guy shit in a cup on stage becuase it was deemed 'revolutionary performance art'.

No one wears tuxedos in NYC any more to see someone shit in a cup. Maybe flip-flops.

Aduchamp,
Regarding Las Meninas, IMHO 'the simplest explanation is true'. The king and queen stands outside the picture space, at the spectator's point of view; Velázquez is capturing details of the models before continuing his work; the infanta attends a painting session and looks at her parents while the aristocratic meninas take care of her; the triangle Velázquez-lower corner of the huge canvas-infanta, points out an unlikely distribution of space to paint a portrait of the infanta; the entering/exiting man at the door is José de Nieto, an 'aposentador' --chamberlain-- and the mirror in the background reflects the posing monarchs.
According to official inventories this masterpiece was called 'El Cuadro de la Familia' in 1666 and 'La Familia de Felipe IV' in 1794 but it was not until 1843, though, where it appeared by the first time with its current name in the Prado catalogue.
But, what is Velázquez painting on the front of the canvas? Maybe a portrait lost in the old Alcázar's fire (1734)?
A suggestive theory says: in Las Meninas Velázquez depicts himself painting… Las Meninas! This appealing idea spoils my proposal for 'the simplest explanation is true' but it's an interesting Baroque concept similar to that Cervantes imagined Don Quixote in Barcelona visiting a printer's whilst the novel itself is on print just in that moment!

Perhaps it's been answered, but Dukey is not wrong at all about his Rijksmuseum visit. I've been "upstairs" in the Rijksmuseum twice since Summer 2008. The museum was under renovation during both of our visits and I'll be sure to tell the family the our sheer delight in seeing "De Nachtwacht" (twice!) was a no-no because the ENTIRE museum collection was not on display. :)

Odd but interesting thread. 111op, hopefully you are not in a hurry in every aspect of your life. Sometimes it pays to be patient. And understanding. And patient. :)

Well, you know, Cage's point is to listen to the sounds. >>

can anyone whose mobile goes off during the "playing" of this work expect to be told off by the conductor for ruining the performance?