Eiffel Tower most disappointing
 

According to an article in the Telegraph the Eiffel tower is the world's most disappointing tourist spot. The Mona Lisa/Louvre is second.

You can read the full list here: http://tinyurl.com/33fgop

Don't shoot me - I'm only the messenger :)

For me the Eiffel Tower is more about people watching than about the actual structure. So, no, it was certainly not a disappointment for me.

Neither was Mona. Again, I take great pleasure in seeing how people react to many of the icons on the Grand Tour.

Looks like "1000+" British tourists just made a list of names that they could remember.

I think many of the problems are to do with the ambience of the place - for example Mona Lisa is hard to see because of crowds, Brandenberg Gate has a Starbucks right by it, Statue of Liberty because of the repeated security checks, Lands End because it has been changed into a tacky version of Blackpool

What does "disappointing" mean? I guess it depends on what you were expecting. I was in Paris a few weeks ago for the first time. I had rather low expectations for the "thrill level" of the Eiffel Tower - I knew there would be crowds and we didn't plan to wait to go up. I wasn't dissapointed - it is what it is - big, interesting, historical. I was slightly dismayed by the crowds at the Louvre, but again, the Mona Lisa is what it is. I would suggest you go back out in the hallway and spend some time looking at The Virgin of the Rocks and some of the other beautiful art.
For me, Paris wasn't an "amusement park", more like a nice glass of wine to be sipped and savoured.....

I thought the Eiffel Tower was considerably MORE impressive than I expected. I expected a big tall thing. I didn't expect it to be so beautiful, or to be in such a lovely site. EvaBryan is right, too; the people-watching was fantastic. So was the ice-cream.

My first view of the Grand Canyon was EXTREMELY disappointing. I was relieved to find that it's much better in the daytime.

I think people has expectations that simply are not true. So they see reality and get disappointed. Maybe they should inform better themselves before visiting.
I really like Italian Renaissance art..I cannot see how I can be dissapointed seeing Mona Lisa...but then I know it is quite a little portrait inside a glass to protect it..and with a big crowd of people trying to look at it. So probably, if I cannot go to the Louvre at a less crowded time...I prefer not to go.

Fortunately, people's expectations can actually change; unfortunately what the Eiffel Tower and the Mona Lisa actually are probably won't.

Which of the above deserve to be worked on?

Oh my! The Eiffel Tower is spectacular! I've been there several times and the first glimpse when I see it, I literally get goose bumps. I'll be there again in mid September and that's always a priority. A trip to the top during the day as well as at night. Depending on when you go, the lines can vary, but you can't go to Paris and not go the Eiffel Tower~

<<My first view of the Grand Canyon was EXTREMELY disappointing. I was relieved to find that it's much better in the daytime.
>>
You truly gave me a loud laugh on a hot Friday!

I would venture to say that 99% of the people who "visit" the Eiffel Tower don't think of its place in history (by far the tallest structure of its time, and for many years later), the controversy it created, the role it played in war, etc. Not to mention its role in film!

Unfortunately, most people are never taught to see anything - that is, see beyond the surface, or a glance, or their own narrow perspective. We can be taught this, but it rarely happens.

As far as Mona ... I've never gone to look at her. I would love a private audience, but seeing her in the mob would be too much like hearing Ella sing from the back row at Radio City - that is, less edifying than a photo or recording. Meanwhile, there's a sculpture gallery in the Louvre where you can be 9" away from two glorious Michelangelos. (And for Leonardo, see the rough, unfinished St. Jerome in the Vatican Pinotecca, also from 9" away, while the crowds pass by those galleries completely.)

As with meeting people, seeing a play, reading a book ... one's level of disappointment will sometimes be in proportion to one's ability to appreciate it in the first place, or personal history, or even physical state. Since the physical state created by dealing with a crowd is rarely elevated, the chances are good for some disappointment!

I wonder what people could be expecting other than riding to the top of a tall structure and seeing a panoramic of Paris? And did they expect the Mona Lisa to begin singing or something?

I love the Eiffel Tower! I'll never forget the first time I saw it sparkling at night...magical!

Tracy

To be fair, I can understand why someone would be disappointed to see a small painting in a glass box from a mile away through the heads of a thousand other people. Not the painting's fault, of course.

But then, the fetishization of ANY single work of art, out of context and out of understanding, is guaranteed to be a disappointment. If you don't know what you're looking at, you will never really be able to see it. Most people associate Leonardo with "genius" in the celebrity sense, and have no interest in learning what the painting is really like or where it fits in the canon. You have to look at a lot of paintings to do that.

My first view of the Eiffel Tower was mesmerizing, I just couldn't get enough! I think I was in total awe as to the sheer size, especially when standing underneath and looking upward. Even after 6+ trips to Paris, I love it, doesn't matter what time of day or night. What a marvel.

For those wondering what was the first building taller than the Eiffel Tower, it was the Chrysler building in New York. So the Eiffel Tower was the tallest structure in the world from 1889 to 1930.

What really remains a mistery for me..is why people goes to see things just because "they are a must-see". There's no such a thing if you are not truly interested in it.

I love the Eiffle Tower. Everytime I'm in Paris I at least have to stand under it. I don't feel the need to go up it again. I saw the Mona Lisa just because it's the Mona Lisa. It's just an ugly little painting as far as I'm concerned but the most expensive painting in the world I think. Why? I didn't linger long for sure.

Re Grand Canyon, i've got to admit I was somewhat underwhelmed - mainly because the tour company had "forgot" to tell us we were staying in Flagstaff and so wouldn't be around for sunset / sunrise.

Yosemite Valley however - WOW

<<the fetishization of ANY single work of art, out of context and out of understanding, is guaranteed to be a disappointment.>>

That's on the money, fnarf. And judging a small painting from across the room (and standing behind 30-50 other people) is like taking a ride in the trunk of a BMW: not what the experience was meant to be. It's safe to say Leonardo meant the painting to be viewed by one or two people at a time, from the distance of an intimate conversation. It never left his posession in his lifetime ...

<<And did they expect the Mona Lisa to begin singing or something?>>

Sandi, I think you're on to something. Arrivederci, Roma is probably the tune people have in mind. Or perhaps people would like a computer generated image of Nat King Cole and Leonardo singing "Mona Lisa" together.

When I was in college I went to a political event and found myself alone for a moment with Richard Nixon. He was the first "international celebrity" I ever met, and I was surprised - not only that I was permitted to speak to him with no one else within 30 yards - but that he was so average: height, weight, persona. I think I expected a little halo or some other kind of aura.

Of course, some celebs do think they have a halo, aura, and a heavenly choir announcing their every move! I think that must be the function of the entourage.

<<the Eiffel Tower was the tallest structure in the world from 1889 to 1930.>>

Thanks for that, Kerouac. Impressive, huh? And still one of the taller structures in Europe. (While there are taller broadcast towers in Europe, and the Millau Viaduct in France is also taller, I BELIEVE there is no building in Europe taller than the Tour Eiffel.)

Most of us know that the tower antennae have been used for radio and TV for decades. I didn't know this (courtesy wikipedia):
"The military used it to dispatch Parisian taxis to the front line during the First Battle of the Marne, and it therefore became a victory statue of that battle."

In fact, the whole wiki article on the Tour Eiffel is interesting. Especially the part about it being the MOST VISITED paid monument in the world, with over 6.7million in 2006 alone. No wonder it's the one with the "most" disappointed visitors! Since nothing pleases everyone, the odds are the the most visited would also have the most naysayers!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower

I do go on.

Most visitors find the Eiffel Tower at least as interesting as they expected it to be, often more so. However, quite a few are unimpressed by the Mona Lisa and wonder why it is so famous (it's famous because … it's famous).

Come on, Anthony! Paris Hilton is famous because she's famous. The ML has a STORY! (And not incidentally is the creation of Leonardo da Vinci, not a publicist!) ;)

<i>Of course, some celebs do think they have a halo, aura, and a heavenly choir announcing their every move! I think that must be the function of the entourage. </i>

Hilarious! Thanks for giving me a much needed laugh Tom!

I've just read the whole list, and I had to check the byline to make sure my dad didn't write the article, calling Stonehenge &quot;a load of old rocks.&quot;

I think Brandenberg Gate is a more disappointing sight than the Leaning Tower of Pisa, even if it is surrounded by large shopping kiosks. I didn't think much of the Eiffel Tower until I got to Paris, and then I was awed and enamored. ((L))

Sure it's crowded, but it's not as expensive as the London Eye. You can at least spend as long as you wish at the Eiffel Tower once you're in the tower (and we apparently stayed longer than we thought).

Brandenberg Gate was just disappointing to me. I can't actually put my finger on why. Then again, I was there during the World Cup. I should go again and give it a second chance.

As for disappointing sights in the UK, I would have rearranged that list, with #1 being the Princess Diana Memorial Fountain, tied with the London Eye. And I *love* fountains and heights!

&gt;Brandenberg Gate was just disappointing to me. I can't actually put my finger on why.
Never considered the BrandenBurg gate an interesting tourist spot. How did it ever get on the &quot;list&quot; in the first place??? :)

Regarding the Eiffel Tower, I think there are two different issues -- seeing it or standing near or under it and riding to the top of it.

I still feel a sense of awe when I'm below it. The thing is HUGE and magnificent. But riding to the top? Big deal. You can see more from flying in on a plane, or going up the Montparnasse Tower.


Regarding the Mona Lisa, I still remember quite an argument here a couple years ago when someone suggested it could be a great copy and there's no way anyone would know. But one poster went on and on how she can tell. By looking at it (even through the glass) she can FEEL the power of the artist and actually see his talent in the brushstrokes and no one could ever copy that. It was one of the funniest bits of BS I've ever read here.

I rate Mona #1. The first time I saw her was here in Boston on tour. She was so small, behind glass, behind barracades and she looked like a guy in drag!

The Eiffel Tower was better than I expected, the Mona Lisa, Times Square, the Statue of Liberty were pretty much what I expected. Two things that bothered me about Stonehenge were that we could not get closer to the rocks, and the presence of the nearby motorway hurt the ambience of the place. However these all pale in comparison to what I consider the biggest disappointment of all -- Plymouth Rock.

LOl, I remember my father taking me to see the rock. a frog is the only one comfortable landing on it :)

Not a disappointment:

Stepping out of Union Station in Washington DC and seeing the Capitol dome in front of you.

Also in DC, the Vietnam War Veterans Memorial. If possible try to exerience it when there are fewer people around, but either way, authentic. And the Jefferson Memorial has a power something like the Pantheon in it's perfect form (not accidentally, of course). The Lincoln Memorial, also effective. My first time to DC I saw all of these after dark, and we were able to enter freely and read, and take it in.

Paintings that exceeded expectations: my first time in a MAJOR museum was the Art Institute of Chicago, for a REmbrandt tricentennial many years ago. The Rembrandts brought from all over were superb, naturally - and we had very close access. But the most memorable paintings to me were the many Monets - I had never paid much notice to impressionists (too pretty) but these were astonishing, and I know it's because they seemed like something I would never think to paint.

That trip was my first time turning a corner in a museum and &quot;running into an old friend&quot; - Grant Wood's &quot;American Gothic&quot;, the Rembrandts, Seurat's giant Afternoon on La Grande Jatte ... we all know that feeling. The next time I remember it happening was my first visit to NYC. I had been to Radio City Music Hall, just for a movie, but I wanted to see it. It was 40 Carats, which was set in NYC. Half an hour after the film I turned a corner and saw a bookstore that had been a setting in the film - suddenly I was in a movie myself.

The most disappointing thing when traveling is dealing with disappointed travelers.

I think sometimes familiarity, or seeing too many photos of something, will bring disappointment when you see it in real life (for example, Mt. St. Michel wasn't that amazing for me since I already knew what it looked like).

From looking at a poster of the Mona Lisa, it's hard to tell what its real size is, so maybe people were expecting a huge painting. I was struck by details of the painting that I had never noticed before, and the fact that I was actually standing in front of the original work was pretty awe-inspiring for me.

Likewise, I found the Statue of Liberty to be very cool as the boat got closer and closer. The Eiffel Tower less so, maybe because I had already seen it at a distant so much in my week in Paris and only went up to it on the last day.

I found the Grand Canyon quite impressive as well.

As for the White House... you can't get anywhere close to it, of course it's disappointing.

&lt;&lt;And did they expect the Mona Lisa to begin singing or something?&gt;&gt;

Sandi - this made me smile. Last year I got to visit the Louvre for the first time in 9 years and got to see the Mona Lisa (and many other works) again.

Shortly after returning home I got my hair cut. The young woman who cuts my hair is very good at it...but seems to have, shall we say, a limited range of cultural literacy (not that I'm all that sophisticated either!).

I talked about my trip and mentioned how nice it was seeing the Mona Lisa again. She asked, &quot;So...is it a musical?&quot;

I had to bite my lip to keep from laughing since she had scissors in her hand. :-)

LeeParis

I love the Eiffel Tower, esp. from the Trocadero viewpoint. And of course, seeing it in person means I'm in Paris and I REALLY love that.

The only time I went up to the top was with a friend in October 2001, just a few weeks after the WTC bombing. Tourism had plummeted, we went up at sunset with absolutely no line at all, and watched Paris at night gradually sparkle into life. It was a great experience.

But to get a good view of Paris in peak season, I went over to the Parc Andre Citroen and took the hot air balloon up. The basket can hold about 30 people, but there were only about eight of us plus the &quot;pilot&quot;, so it was peaceful and serene.

As for the ML, I'm glad I saw the painting in person because it is such a famous painting. But I've got no particular desire to see her again.

I can understand the Brits being disappointed with the Eiffel Tower...after all, it can't be uprooted and sold to the US.
And as a ride, when you get to the top it doesn't even go around.

Oh, BTike, we wanted to do that tethered balloon at Citreon parc, but when we got there there roughly 12,000 little kids from school or &quot;day camps&quot; lined up for their turns. We figured it would be several hours, and the scream level was deafening.

It's funny how different we all are. Someone mentioned that getting to a place you've seen in pictures for years is disappointing. Funny, but those are the places that usually amaze me most. I grew up with an antique book called All Aboard for Europe, printed in the late 1800s. As a child I would spend hours looking at those pictures (detailed drawings, not photographs) and dream about them. When I was finally able to go, I'm still transported back to that book and my childhood dreams every time we visit one of those places. Mont St. Michel is one of those places, and when I first got there I was awed to be standing in this magical place. Years of seeing Neuschweinstein Castle is another of those things. I just had to go. Many say they were disappointed with it. Not me. How could I be -- I was suddenly THERE in that magical place I had seen in pictures so many times.

I think that some places are impressive in themselves, whether you've read about them or not; and other places are impressive mainly because you've read and heard about them so much in your lifetime. The Eiffel Tower is a bit of both, the Mona Lisa is mainly just the latter.

I do tell potential visitors, though, that there's a difference between seeing a pretty picture of the Eiffel Tower in a book and actually putting your hand on it. Likewise, having a Mona Lisa magnet on your refrigerator isn't quite the same as having the painting itself in front of you at the same distance.

What I find sobering is when you visit Van Gogh or Picasso paintings and you realize that the painting a foot in front of you is worth $32 million or so. Oddly enough, only the Mona Lisa is behind bulletproof glass; most other paintings of similar value or artistic merit are just hanging on walls. Proof of the fact that the vast majority of people are well behaved.

&lt;&lt;I grew up with an antique book called All Aboard for Europe, printed in the late 1800s. As a child I would spend hours looking at those pictures (detailed drawings, not photographs) and dream about them.&gt;&gt;

Patrick, reading that gives me a sort of Proustian moment - I didn't have your book, but we did have the encyclopedia, and I used to read it like it was a huge magazine (The World Book was heavily illustrated). Now I have a modest collection of books about places - some I've never been to, but more often my books are extensions of travels I've made. So I have a great bunch of Paris books, including &quot;Paris In a Nutshell&quot; (from between the wars, and with charming ink drawings), &quot;Things Seen in Paris&quot; (1926, with photos) and &quot;So You're Going to Paris!&quot; (1927, an American book illustrated with repros of artworks - it's a tour of Paris that never forgets history.)

Your story of a childhood book sums up the difference between going with curiosity, imagination and excitement for discovery - informed by a little learning, and going with a bag of misconceptions and a sandwich of &quot;oh yeah?&quot;

&lt;&lt;Oddly enough, only the Mona Lisa is behind bulletproof glass; most other paintings of similar value or artistic merit are just hanging on walls.&gt;&gt;

Anthony, you're so right about the difference between the &quot;twice removed&quot; experience of a place or thing through pictures and the reality of sharing space with it. Never mind the debasement of a work of art that comes from &quot;turning it into&quot; somthing like a refrigerator magnet. I'd like to hold a trial of all the museum directors who have made umbrellas out of Monets, neckties of Van Goghs and mugs plastered with Vermeers. Like pasta sauce commercials to the accompaniment of Puccini, these &quot;things&quot; are an insult to the creators of the original works - dealt (in the case of art trinkets) by the very people who are the custodians of our culture!

The Mona Lisa is such a prevalent icon, even the least art-educated probably has seen many reproductions and parodies. She's in New Yorker cartoons (and Warner Brothers cartoons), and has been satirized, lampooned and paid tribute by artists of every moment in the modern canon. Many books have been written about her. Naturally, after all that, she would remain a mystery!

Reading Gandhi's autobiography, I found an interesting section on Eiffel Tower. Consider reading this link:

http://tinyurl.com/yuxo3s

I have never seen it (I might next summer) so I have no opinions but I still found the writing interesting.

Anthony, I got off track there and forgot to mention that ML had LONG been behind glass, as there were vandalizm issues going back at least to the early 20th century. I found this item (pbs website http://www.pbs.org/treasuresofthewor...n_monafrm.html ), about the man who stole the Mona Lisa in 1911:

&lt;&lt; Vincenzo Perugia had once worked at the Louvre. At the time, Louvre officials were more worried about vandalism than about theft. Crazed patrons had attacked famous works with razor blades and acid, so several of the museum's more prominent paintings, including the Mona Lisa, were selected to have special glass-covered viewing boxes made for them. (In fact, it was Perugia who had built the box for the Mona Lisa, the same box found discarded in the stairwell with his left thumbprint.) &gt;&gt;

The article says elsewhere that when a young painter arrived in the morning to work on a copy he was making, and found the painting gone, he told a guard, who assumed it was being photographed and did nothing. (The photographing of works of art was fairly new, and the Louvre had recently built a studio for the purpose.) Finally the irritate artist bribed the guard to find out where the painting was. It took that long for the word to get out!

So much of ML's fame is due to her history - such as this theft, when she didn't resurface for TWO YEARS and had been thought possibly destroyed and lost forever - that it's easy to forget what she represents in ART history: possibly the most &quot;lifelike&quot; portrait of all time when she was created, and employing so many of Leonardo's favored techniques and so much of his intelligence. She was indeed revolutionary.

The article at the link reports that his happened when the thief &quot;returned&quot; her to officials in Italy:
&quot;For the next two months, the Mona Lisa enjoyed a triumphant tour through the major cities of her homeland, including Rome and Milan, where sixty thousand Italians crowded into the Brera museum for a last good-bye. &quot;

So, along with the Pieta (attacked by a hammer) and other works seemingly randomly chosen for attack, Mona lives under glass. And I never mind when a great gallery (such as the Borghese in Rome) asks all bags to be checked before entry. When I stand inches from &quot;Paolina Borghese&quot; or &quot;Apollo and Daphne&quot;, I, like you Anthony, am filled with wonder that a hand could reach out and change them forever - and filled occasionally with fear that I could do it myself! (of course, I HAVE been asked by guards to get my nose further away from a painting or two in my day ...) Anyway, it would indeed by a frightening thing to be present when one of those (thankfully infrequent) attacks takes place.

I agree with tomasscrocante..and also think that the harm produced on a painting like Mona Lisa will be much harder to heal (if it possible at all) than one made on a painting of the 20th century (like a Picasso). Sure both are important...but a 16 th century (which has been attacked previously) is much more delicate and difficult to restore.

Comfy, THANK YOU for the Gandhi link! A charming recollection of Paris from a great man. Certainly part of the fame of the Eiffel Tower is that it has not only been photographed but written about by so many in the 120 or so years of its life.

&quot;It was the toy of the Exhibition. So long as we are children we are attracted by toys, and the Tower was a good demonstration of the fact that we are all children attracted by trinkets. That may be claimed to be the purpose served by the Eiffel Tower. &quot; Gandhi

In the piece about the Mona Lisa theft, by the way, there is a comment that the satirists of the day were saying, &quot;What next? The Eiffel Tower?&quot; The tower was to have been temporary, and dismantled in 1909 - two years before the Louvre crime. But obviously, by then it had been embraced as a symbol and beloved &quot;toy&quot; of Paris.

incidentally, the form of the tower is the result of Eiffel's engineering calculations to build to high and yet be safe from collapse due to wind, weight etc. The fact that it is also graceful is not purely incidental, but is secondary.

This is SO not to negate the Tower (I am sure it has great views, if nothing else) but part of the charm in travels is being able to relate with others about the common landmarks all of us visit (one could term it as the brag factor :) ) or even we visit repeatedly. Surely there are many such examples.

And something to be said about beauty being in the eyes of the beholder. I, for one, have never understood much of contemporary art :) In that, both I and my six year old boy are very much alike. May be proving at least part of the Gandhi theory (that it is not a trinket and a &quot;kid&quot; of my age doesn't get it)?:)