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!!