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>