Louvre in 2 hours- it can be done!
 

I'm serious. It can be done, you'll miss lots but it can be done. This is how: read up about the works in the Louvre and pick which ones you want to see. Find a map of the museum (online p'raps) and mark out the 'landmarks'. Once there, wear comfortable shoes and....SPRINT! <BR> <BR>I saw the Mona Lisa, Michelangelo's Slaves, Venus de Milo and the Nike of Samothrace in the little time I was there, and more. So don't despair if you only have a little time in Paris!

Yes, and if you go on a skateboard you can do it even faster than sprinting. By the way, it is also possible to say you've been to 10 countries in Europe in 10 days if you play it right. One day each in Oslo, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Brussels (not time for Brugge, it will destroy the schedule), Luxembourg, Frankfort (it's closer than going to Munich or Berlin, never mind that there's really nothing there), Salzburg, Zurich, Turin (most closer than going all the way to Rome or Venice), then Paris for a night before flying home. After all just like the Louvre it's not about enjoying what you see or experiencing the art or atmosphere, it's really all about being able to tell people how much you've seen or done.

You make me EXHAUSTED just reading this suggestion. When I did a 3-day Paris jaunt in '99, I knew I couldn't do it all --- choices had to be made. I thought about trying to do a version of what 'mona' has just described and thought WHY? After all this IS supposed to be a vacation --- not a race to see how much/how many --- there's not a merit badge given out for seeing "all the right things". <BR> <BR>I knew I couldn't do ALL the Louvre and really wasn't interested in doing a mad dash; did realize that I did want to see 'the Lady'. Went there early, entered using one of the lesser used doors (per Fodorites suggestion), viewed the Mona Lisa and left! <BR> <BR>I did spend a more leisurely time going thru the Musee d'Orsay and the Rodin Museum. And I know that one day I will return to Paris and will be able to give a full day (or EVEN 2 ???) to enjoy the Louvre.

I do agree with one thing that "monabanana" said: read up about the works in the Louvre and pick which ones you want to see. It's simply *not* possible to be really comprehensive in seeing the Louvre in a day, or even two days or three--the place is just so massive that multiple return visits are necessary to really get any comprehensive acquaintance with the place. Picking out what you really want to spend time on--Italian Renaissance painting, Greek sculpture, northern German and Flemish art, whatever--can help break the Louvre's enormous collections down into a more manageable agenda. <BR> <BR>But I truly don't see the point of "sprinting" around the Louvre in two hours. Why? As others have said, yes, it can be done, but you won't get much out of it other than a checklist. "Mona, saw it, next. Venus de Milo, saw it, next." That's the sort of approach that has turned travel into "if it's Tuesday this must be Belgium" rather than a real attempt to experience and learn about a place, a culture, a history. If you're not particularly interested in art, no need to go to the Louvre just because people tell you you should. If you *are* interested in art, then give places like the Louvre (and the Accademia, and the Uffizi, and the Borghese Galleries, and the Vatican Museums, and the Prado) the time they deserve. <BR> <BR>I expected to be totally underwhelmed by the Mona Lisa, having heard how small it really is, how huge the crowds are, and so forth. When I actually stood in front of her, I was awestruck, and needed about 20 minutes to contemplate just that one painting. Frankly, I wanted more. We spent nearly a full day at the Louvre and I wanted more time with everything--Gericault's Raft of the Medusa, Holbein's Anne of Cleves (a favorite of mine, because of my interest in Tudor history), Da Vinci's Madonna and St. Anne, the Venus de Milo, and so on. <BR> <BR>If you "sprint" through a museum, yes, you can say you "saw" the Mona Lisa, but you won't understand why the real thing is inexpressibly more beautiful than any of the zillions of reproductions out there. Same for most great works of art.

You have hardly "toured" the Louvre! What you've done is glance at a half dozen or so items in its collection. Compare those half dozen with the more than 90,000 items in the Louvre's Drawing and Print Collection alone and your saying you've done the Louvre makes about as much sense as one saying that because he had eyed a passerby at a sidewalk cafe, he knew all there was to know about the French population at large.

OUCH! <BR>I think Mona Banana is merely giving hope to all the people who want to get a taste of the Louvre. Two hours may be all the time she/he had at that visit. <BR> <BR>I agree with your sentiments that one cannot "do the Louvre" in a couple of hours. Good for this person that they went at all. <BR> <BR>By the way, I am a passionate art lover and have been to the Louvre, and most of the major Art museums in the world, many, many times. <BR> <BR>I would never ridicule someone who only spent a few hours at one. <BR> <BR>

Gigi, I understand your point, and I know that some people have very limited time on their schedules to see certain things. But I can't agree that the approach to a limited amount of time in any museum--particularly one as rich and complex as the Louvre--is "SPRINT!" <BR> <BR>If 2 hours is really all you have for the Louvre, don't race through it like it's an obstacle course. Pick a *very* limited number of things you're interested in seeing (as I said earlier, I do agree with mona's "read up in advance" approach, which I would recommend for most major museums anyway) and actually take the time to *see* them. In two hours, you can either spend a good amount of time with a very limited number of paintings or sculptures that truly appeal to you; or you can tear through a museum at breakneck speed marking off your checklist, which sounds like the approach mona was advocating. In neither case will you have "seen" the vastness that is the Louvre, but in the former, you'll have gotten a delicious taste of a small amount of what's there, to whet your appetite for a return visit. In the latter, you'll have gotten...a blur.

If monabanana only wants to spend 2 hours in the Louvre sprinting from place to place who are we to disagree? Eveyrone has her or his own way of "seeing" new places. I personally prefer taking my time in museums, but for the monabanana's among us who just want a glimpse or know they might not return to Europe anytime this decade and are trying to cover a lot of ground--so be it! Why is everyone so interested in convincing others that their way is "the" way? Who cares? We all love to travel and all have very different ways of doing it.

Hey! mona banana spent two hours and saw 4 items and others in passing. <BR>Is one half hour per item okay with all you pompous asses?

This "pompous ass" doesn't think that one needs to "sprint" to see 4 items and "others in passing," particularly the four Mona mentioned, three of which are very near each other. If you have a small amount of time and choose a small chunk to focus on in that time, you can do it without tearing around at breakneck speed. <BR> <BR>Yes, anybody can approach a museum or any other part of their travels any way they darned well feel like. But Fodor's is about travel opinions. Mona's welcome to her opinion that sprinting is a viable way to see the Louvre. You're welcome to your opinion that Tina, Wes, and I are pompous asses. And I stand by *my* opinion that *racing* through any museum is just pointless.

Well, I wouldn't advise people to sprint, but you can visit a museum in very little time and just take in what appeals most to you. In about 3 hours in the Louvre once, I spent about 15 minutes getting oriented and the rest eating a quick lunch and seeing the jewels, old Louvre, and all but one of the major wings. I saved the other for later. I never sprinted and spent a pretty good amount of time at dozens of works. I kind of had an idea of which I wanted most to see after pouring over several books on the museum's collection before leaving home. <BR> <BR>Technically, once I was in five countries in a little over one day. Bus from Madison, Wisconsin to Chicago, flight from Chicago to Brussels, seven hour layover in Brussels (toured quite a bit and had lunch), flight to Basel-Mulhouse-Freiburg airport (located on French territory), bus into Basel (Switzerland) and spent a few hours there, train to Freiburg (Germany- where I spent several days). Exhausting, you bet, but I kind of enjoyed it.

Hey, what's wrong with Sprinting? And, isn't it a compliment to be called a "Pompous Ass"?

I think it's silly to say that rushing through a museum is "pointless." Even with a well-used year's student pass to the Louvre, I didn't see everything there - almost all visitors to the Louvre have to prioritize, and deep contemplation is not the only goal that intelligent people can have. <BR> <BR>Personally, I am very moved by seeing a famous work of art or relic in person even if it is only a short view. <BR> <BR>The two things I had waited the longest to see at the Louvre were the Mona Lisa and the stele with the Code of Hammurabi. <BR> <BR>I was equally moved by both items, and if I'd had only 45 minutes in the Louvre, I would have picked those two, and even knowing now what wonderful things I would have missed, think that would have been the best use of my time. For me, although "pointless" is too strong a word, I would have thought it a shame if I'd only had one quick trip to the Louvre and had missed one of those two things. <BR> <BR>I think that given only 2 hours, seeing 5 things quickly or seeing 2 things with more time to reflect is PURELY a matter of personal preference, not a matter of idiotic touring vs. intelligent touring. <BR> <BR>The above poster thinks her life is richer because she spent 20 minutes truly contemplating and being awestruck by the Mona Lisa. Fabulous. I believe my life is richer because in the same amount of time I would have SPRINTED down the halls in order to see the Code of Hammurabi. Just SEEING it in person meant a lot to me - the sprint-and-glance would have been a better use of my time than spending another few minutes contemplating another piece.

You should read Art Buchwald's "The Six Minute Louvre." Now that's the way to do it.

My own opinion is that a lot of people visit things (museums in particular) simply to have their ticket punched like it is a treasure hunt or something. If one isn't interested in art, why even go to a museum? I don't like baseball, so wouldn't it be strange for me to go to a baseball game for 10 minutes just to say I had been? <BR> <BR>If people want to "sprint" through museums, fine. But they ought to know that others might find this somewhat superficial and might not respond well to it. Perhaps it would be better to find something they would really enjoy and go enjoy it?

Andrea, can I ask you a bit more about your response? I'm not trying to be rude or critical of your approach, honestly. When you say "sprint-and-glance" was enriching for you, do you really mean quite literally dashing by things you liked/wanted to see and looking at them for less than half a minute? That's what "glancing" implies to me (though maybe I'm misreading what you meant). <BR> <BR>What do you feel you get out of "glancing" at something that means a lot to you, as opposed to taking the time to really look at it? Again, please understand I'm not trying to be snide, rude, pompous, critical, or anything else. I'm genuinely curious. If I've flown a few thousand miles to Paris or London or Rome, and there's something I really want to see, I'd feel cheated if I just "glanced" at it and moved on. It just feels like a checklist approach to me..."saw X, next." If something's really compelling, compelling enough that you want to visit it on what's probably an all-too-short journey to another country, don't you want to take at least a few minutes and really look at it, try to understand what makes it special and why it in particular is of interest to you? <BR> <BR>If not...why not? Again, this is an honest question, not an attempt to insult someone else's way of seeing art (or anything else). I've loved the Pieta since I was a little girl, have looked at pictures of it and yearned over it. When I finally saw it in St. Peter's, you couldn't have dragged me away for at least half an hour. And I kept going back. Yes, I know that's one person's opinion/approach/reaction. But Andrea, and anyone else who finds the "sprint-and-glance" approach enriching, could you explain to me why it isn't *frustrating* to take a brief look and then rush on past something you've admired, studied, wanted to see?

No, you can't "do" the Louvre in 2 hours, but nor can you "do" the Louvre in 2 days, 2 weeks or, perhaps, 2 years. Get over it: I would suspect that no one on this board has spent the mythical time needed to "do" the Louvre. I've forgotten the statistics, but the number of exhibits, etc., is massive, requiring more time than anyone other than a curator or student could devote to this museum. Although Mona's post was provocative, probably intended to draw out the so-called pompous ass club members, there is a point: You can enjoy the Louvre without spending days there and if you don't have 3 hours to devote to each painting, exhibit, etc., than maybe, just maybe, you should pick out some high points. Should you sprint? No. But must we all pretend that we are so much deeper than someone else simply because they do not spend more than a couple hours at the Louvre at a time. Frankly, given the law of diminishing returns, Mona probably takes more quality memories away per hour than someone who spends all day there. And, another thing, just because the Louvre is a famous museum does not mean each exhibit is of equal status. That may be sacrilege on this board, but it is true. And, depending on a person's taste, some exhibits may not be worth any time.

I find this thread amusing if nothing else. I would certainly not take issue with people who do not want to spend a lot of time in the Louvre or any other museum for that matter. And a couple of hours of staring at art may even be an overload for the average person. When friends of mine joined me for a week in Paris, they were almost relieved that it was the week of the museum strike, everything was closed, and they didn't HAVE to spend time going to the museums. They aren't into art and don't pretend to be. But what strikes me as amusing is the idea that the reason one feels compelled to go to the Louvre at all is to see the four or five most famous things. It strikes me as just being able to say "I've seen the Mona Lisa and Venus". I was really amused last summer in the Prado as I watched a number of people go from gallery to gallery, march right up to each painting and check the artist's name on the little sign. They obviously didn't care what they were looking at, they were only looking to see how many Goyas or whatever they could spot. Often when they found one, they moved on without even stopping to even look at the painting itself, as if they were keeping count of the number of "masterpieces" they had seen. Now I'm sure this will further qualify me for the pompous ass club, but it's just the way I see it. And anyone who thinks the idea of putting on special shoes and sprinting through a museum to catch the highlights either has to be amused or else has no sense of humor.

Patrick, you make a good point about "looking for the labels." There are usually very good reasons that masterpieces are considered masterpieces, and great artists are famous, but I think we can get too hung up on "what I'm supposed to see at Museum X" and walk right by works of art that are truly wonderful, just not as famous. Sometimes it's just O.D.-ing on all that *stuff*--lord, where to look first, somebody help me out and tell me what to pay attention to! I'm as guilty of this as anyone else. <BR> <BR>One thing that helped me pick out interesting works that I might not otherwise have noticed in Rome is a wonderful little book called "City Secrets: Rome." It's got all kinds of comments on every famous sight and many not-so-famous, from artists, art historians, archaeologists, writers, and other experts/students of the many cultural attractions in Rome. Thanks to one of their comments, I discovered a truly remarkable painting in the Palazzo Barberini, the Madonna and Child with young St. John by Domenico Beccafumi, which really enchanted me.

Gee, I always look at the labels. Aren't they to look at, and learn from? <BR> <BR>Learning art - - like wine, or a language or stamp collecting - - or you name it - - involves learning a bunch of isolated facts (or at least, this is one approach) - - like who painted ballerinas, or water lilies, or mothers and children - - but then moving on into relationships - - which artists studied from whom - - who rejected what previously held notions, who took concepts and pursued them further. <BR> <BR>To me, a museum, is just a big book that has walls for its pages. If I just wanted sheer beauty, I would just look at nature, or Venice, or Juliette Binoche. <BR> <BR>

You will waste a good portion of your two hours in the Louvre just trying to locate what you went to see. With only two hours, I would suggest just wandering around. I spent nearly two hours, well almost, looking for a couple of paintings I wanted to see (not La Jaconde, which I never did locate and don't really care). The first day I went there, that particular wing was closed. The next day that wing was open but another was closed. <BR>The herds of tour groups with their video cameras were a bizarre sight. The Louvre is too overwhelmingly huge to easily navigate. And I thought the Met was exhausting! If you keep your mind and expectations open, you will find something breathtaking that you didn't go to see.

That might be Rex. But I challenge you to find a woman in nature that looks like a Picasso.

Hmmmn, I'm not sure that an appreciation of creativity and setting some objectives for a museum visit are incompatible. <BR> <BR>Take Sister Wendy. Why has that series been so successful? Because she points out specific paintings that are significant to her, and then explains why. She does not attempt to cover any particular period in depth, but rather tries to explain what distinguished one period from another, or one style from another. <BR> <BR>So, when I go to a museum, I try to bear these things in mind; how to get the best possible sample that time and my limited ability to absorb allows. This requires that I have some kind of plan, rather than just wander.

Dan - - I think you and I agree on this point - - not disagree. What I said was that if I wanted JUST beauty, there are other and better places than in art/in museums. Art in museums offers MORE than just beauty. It offers story-telling and a whole lot more - - besides incredible beauty (some of the time). <BR>

Gina (et all) – no, I really didn’t mean "glancing." Bad choice of words. Personally, I have never been in the situation where I only had 45 minutes in a museum and had several things that I wanted to see (specifically because I DO want to allow myself as much time as I need to reflect upon what I’m seeing), but my point was that if I were in that situation, it would be more important to me to see 2 works (relatively) quickly than 1 at length. <BR> <BR>Again, “glance” was not the right word, but I strongly disagree with the idea that a person with 2 hours in the Louvre who chooses to spend their time quickly scouting out 5 or so “important” pieces that they’ve always wanted to see (instead of spending 40 minutes contemplating one or two works) is a blithering idiot who doesn’t deserve to go to museums in the first place (not Gina’s comment, just a general vibe on this thread). <BR> <BR>I do indeed feel a sense of awe when I am in front of a famous work of art that I have studied and read about and am finally able to see in person. <BR> <BR>Just from seeing it. Even if, for some odd reason, it had to be quickly. Better to have loved and lost type of thing, I guess. <BR> <BR>I DO get enjoyment just from actually looking at the real painting and seeing it come alive in a way that a print or reproduction can never capture. I remember like it was yesterday the first Monet I ever saw, my awe at seeing Liberty Leading the People, being able to actually SEE the texture of the paint in Van Gogh’s works, and seeing the Last Supper in the vast, quiet hall. <BR> <BR>For me, the ability to see these wonderful, amazing works of art in person makes me feel extremely lucky and blessed to have had the opportunity to do so. Visiting the Hermitage, I read up in advance to see which items I would make a point of visiting (a checklist, if you will!). The Hermitage has 2 of the only 10-12 known Da Vinci’s in existence. I wanted to see them, even if it would have meant spending a little less time fully enjoying and taking my time to explore their collection of Rembrandts. (I did actually plan for enough time to do both, but my point is that I would have thought it very much worth my while to see both the Rembrandts and the Da Vinci’s than to spend more time on one and have to miss the other completely). <BR> <BR>I am proudly in the group that will research which items in a museum’s collection are the most famous. I believe that these works are part of our global cultural heritage, and since I am not an art expert, I rely on the opinions of experts to help make my decision of which works of art I will have time to see in a given museum. The Mona Lisa may not be as aesthetically pleasing as a lesser-known painting in the adjoining room that I might have missed, but for me, it IS a wonderful experience just to have the chance to see this very famous work of art for myself.

I should be more specific. The Louvre can be 'done' in 2hrs, but only if utterly necessary! Of course this differs from person to person. If you are a big art fan, then even a week mightn't be enough. But for the 'layperson', then I think 2hrs, at bare minimum, could be sufficient. I never claimed that this means that in doing the museum in 2hrs you have truly experienced and understood it- far from it- but at least you've seen the things you came to see. I think it'll take me many years and LOTS more reading to even begin to understand art properly. <BR> <BR>My point, really, is to have reasonable goals for the amount of time you have. And you choose these goals by reading up beforehand. <BR> <BR>Gina said: "In two hours, you can either spend a good amount of time with a very limited number of paintings or sculptures that truly appeal to you; or you can tear through a museum at breakneck speed marking off your checklist, which sounds like the approach mona was advocating." I think they're practically the same thing. A very limited number of paintings or sculptures that truly appear to you = a fancier way of saying checklist. On a somewhat unrelated note-- you saw the Pieta!! Lucky!! It wasn't available when I was there :( <BR> <BR>The 'sprint' remark was a joke. But the point remains valid. If you know what you want to see, then get there fast (instead of stopping at every work). I agree that 'just wandering' is a fantastic, my preferred way of seeing museums- it took me 2 days to just see the war museum in Canberra -but incredibly time consuming. <BR> <BR>The bottom line: 2hrs at the Louvre, or any museum is just enough to whet your appetite until you have more time to return and look properly!! <BR> <BR>PS. To be honest, I didn't think La Jaconde was that great. I liked Leo's sketches better. But it was worth braving the crowds to see for myself what all the fuss is about! :)

Mona, thanks for the clarification...that makes more sense. I guess by saying "checklist" I meant more Patrick's notion of "what you think you're supposed to see" rather than a limited list of what appeals to *you*. IOW, the "checklist" concept is the "Been there, seen that," approach--"I'm *supposed* to want to see the Mona Lisa, or the Pieta, or the Venus de Milo, so I'm going to race by to say I can see it." Seeing a small list of items that you care about because you care about them, not so you can say you saw them, is different, I think...and it sounds like I misunderstood your approach to be the former rather than the latter. Sorry 'bout that. <BR> <BR>Hey, what was up with the Pieta when you were in Rome? I'm sorry you couldn't see it...it truly is beyond breathtaking. I literally almost cried looking at it, and this was with it behind glass (as it's been since the early 70s when some nut tried to vandalize it). Hope you get a chance to get back and see it someday. <BR> <BR>(The "doing something just to say you've done/seen it" idea reminds me of a conversation my mom and my aunt once had. My aunt said, "You know, I'd really like to be able to say I've been to New York." "You can. Just say it," my mom replied. With a sly grin, my aunt ventured, "I've been to New York!")

Being a New Yorker and an art lover, I go to museums a lot. I must say that after 2 hours of concentrated mental activity, I reach my appreciation limit--and I suspect I'm not the only one. So 2 hours in the Louvre strikes me as just fine! Furthermore, especially assuming one has limited time, what's wrong with "sprinting" to see four of the greatest works of art in the western world? Many folks do flock to see these works just because of the label and then are deeply moved by them. What's wrong with that?

The best suggestion I can offer for the Louvre is to get there when the doors open. <BR> <BR>There is no way to see this magnificant palace in two hours, but if you plan ahead and read up before you go, you can outline your "must sees" and head to those galleries first. <BR> <BR>Have a wonderful time. <BR> <BR>Carol <BR> <BR>

Hey,it's HER vacation. How much time she wants to spend in the Louvre, how much time she wants to look at each painting, indeed, which paintings she wants to see or not see, is up to her. She was just passing on to others that if all you want to see is a few things in the Louvre, it CAN be done. Maybe it isn't the way you would do it, but that doesn't make it wrong. (Personally, I've been to the Louvre, seen Mona--and can't for the life of me see why anybody would spend more than 5 minutes looking at her. But that's me! I'm not wrong, and you're not wrong if you want to spend 4 hours or more. We're just different, and that's what makes the world go 'round. Isn't that why we're world travelers to begin with, to see the differences?)

Gina- s'alright, I think my message wasn't very clear. <BR> <BR>As for the Pieta-- we were told "the Pope has visitors"!! Turned out, this meant that there was a papal audience thingy in front of the church and we weren't allowed in. So, instead of the Pieta, we got to see the Pope! :)

But why?

Just back from Paris and ran across this thread. Well, my husband and I were only at the Louvre 2 1/2 hours, and saw just a few highlights.. But later, we took a boat cruise on the Seine and as we passed the Louvre, the announcer reported that studies show that it would take three full months, night and day, to completely see the Louvre! Whew!

I take the intent of the original poster differently than most of the follow ups. Assuming that someone (the majority of people I presume) is not a big art lover,BUT, is someone who is aware of the Mona Lisa, Venus...etc. That person can enjoy seeing those limited items in less than 2 hours and be very satisfied with the experience. It is not the same thing as being able to say you were in 10 countries (in 10 days). That person, could spend 25 more hours in the Louvre and, not being appreciative of these other works, would probably not get anything in return for his time.

<BR>Well...it seems very similar to me. Rephrasing your post :<BR><BR>"Assuming that someone (the majority of people I presume) is not a big travel lover,BUT, is someone who is aware of the Coliseum, Eiffel tower...etc. That person can enjoy seeing those limited monuments in less than 10 days and be very satisfied with the experience".<BR><BR>Is there any difference???<BR><BR>Actually, I somewhat wonder why someone who isn't appreciative of art would enter in the Louvre at the first place, except to be able to say : "I was there". Well...curiosity probably plays a part too....<BR><BR>Also, you could as well say that the Louvre can be done in 15 minutes (the time needed to find the Mona Lisa, look at it and exit from the museum). Frankly, it seems to me not to make any difference with the OP statement. The list is only shorter and it falls down to what you consider as a must-see. The original post makes no sense to me.<BR><BR>Anyway I would tend to advice to choose something in the museum which really interests you (say the XIX° century furnitures, the medieval jewels, or whatever else) instead of reluctantly pay a mandatory visit to the "official" highlights. Or to pick another museum which has more appeal to you or even to altogether forget the museums and go for any other activity you would truly appreciate.<BR><BR>

ttt

I did the Louvre in less than 10 minutes, just so I could tell my friends and neighbors - &quot;The Louvre-Oh yes, been there done that!!!!&quot;

of course you can see the louvre in 2 hours.. you could walk inside and leave 5 mins later if you wanted to. if you only have 3 hours in paris i would just stay in the airport and save the louvre for another trip. it's a insult to come and go in 2 hours.. and certainly not something to brag about. sorry to be rude..<BR>but traveling is not about a checklist...it's about BEING THERE.<BR><BR>and for those who say it's too expensive, can only stay one day or whatever.. i would say maybe consider not staying in a four-star hotel, as i amazed that so many people who post here do.. get yourself to a hole-in-the wall hotel and really live the life.

I think people treat pieces of famous art like Hollywood celebreties, being very excited about personal &quot;sitings&quot;! However, I have a hard time being critical of this because the well known art works are so great that maybe one will pull a list-maker out of his or her dash for a real personal encounter of art, )something that could never happen by seeing Winona Rider at a bar!)<BR>Art is wonderful because of its ability to touch us, and we all instinctively seek its depth, beauty and revelation, some just haven't been lucky enough to be educated yet on how to approach it. However, when they are touched by a work it may be completely personal, without chapters of others scholarly opinions and disections of the work.

Speaking of education, sorry for the spelling errors, I'm sleepy!!