Actually, honestly, I'm perplexed -- what does the distinction between modern and contemporary art have to do with whether the Pompidou or its art is worth seeing?

I'm eagerly waiting to be enlightened.

For a "neutral" opinion, my Eyewitness Top 10 Paris guide lists the Centre Georges Pompidou in its' top 10.

After reading this thread, I will put it on my to do list!

Sigh, 111op, you are persistent. My point, obviously missed, was that most people on this particular thread seem to be tossing the term "modern art" around, willy-nilly, confusing artists such as Picasso (dead, dead, dead, i.e., modern, not contemporary), with contemporary artists who are, ahem, living. The Pompidou celebrates both, and by doing so engages, provokes and makes most people think. Obviously, by that definition, not for everybody on this forum (Toto, we aren't in Kansas anymore).

But art historians such as subcom can give you better explanations than I can. I just find it funny that people who read up on Paris can't decide if they should go to a contemporary art museum or not, albeit one of the best in the world.

The Pompidou, building and art, always seems to encourage venomous replies.

The building is no longer unique. The Lloyd Building in London uses the same devices in its construction. The site gives a good summary of why both buildings are the way they are.

http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildi..._Building.html



As for the art, Fodors has this to say: "the center's top two stories: one devoted to modern art -- including major works by Matisse, the Surrealists, Modigliani, Duchamp, and Picasso -- the other to contemporary art since the '60s, including video installations." (I'd add Calder to the modern art list).

Those most adamant in their denigration of the art seem never to have gotten to the 4th floor.

From The Story of Art by E. H. Gombrich:
-----------
A respected critic wrote (of the Impressionists)in 1876: "The le Peletier is a road of disasters. After the fire at the Opera, there is now yet another disaster there. An exhibition has just been opened at Durand-Ruel which allegedly contains paintings. I enter and my horrified eyes behold something terrible. Five or six lunatics, among them a woman, have joined together and exhibited their works. I have seen people rock with laughter in front of these pictures, but my heart bled when I saw them.----It is a delusion of the same kind as if the inmates of Bedlam picked up stones from the wayside and imagined they had found diamonds."
------------
Sound familiar?

Well, Santa, was that so hard now? :-) But yes, of course, I agree when you view art historically and in context, it makes more sense, as I also wrote earlier.

But anyway I find this sort of definition of modern vs. contemporary a bit arbitrary. Now MoMA (Museum of Modern Art) obviously holds contemporary art as well (for example, Rauschenbergs). Wouldn't this be contradictory? What's contemporary art doing in a museum that purports to hold modern art?

In other words, I find that people will often use modern interchangeably with contemporary -- and I don't think that that's a great sin, honestly.

Well, jsmith, actually, as is well known, Manet's "Olympia" (one of the crowning pieces of the d'Orsay) was so shocking when it came out -- I guess people thought that it twisted the ideals of the Old Masters (Titian, for example).

Interesting how now a hundered years later, everyone flocks to d'Orsay. :-)
Perhaps the Pompidou will need to wait another hundred years to win its adherents.

11op, that rusting hunk of junk will not last a hundred years. People can endure an ugly mess for only so long.

Well Cafe, I'm betting that it will last longer than you will. It will last longer than I will.

I too am interesting in everyone's opinions and have read them all. Thanks everyone, even those that see to have offended others.

For GEORGE, do I need reservations or can I do a pop in?

Right now, I think I will bury this museum on the bottom of my list. I've decided to take a few day trips outside the city and based on many replies here that would diminish the time spent here.

It is one butt-ugly building, but worth seeing for just that reason. And it doesn frequently have wonderful exhibits.

Not as horrible as that god-awful pyramid at the Louvre.

Well Rufus, if I remember correctly, prior to the pyramid, there really was no convenient entrance to the three wings of the Louvre (the Richelieu, the Denon, and hm..., I forget). Personally I find it a really innovative solution of the problem. When you get in, you're equidistant from the three wings.

Not surprisingly, IM Pei won the Pritzker Prize as well.

The scene at George is cool. We wished we'd gone earlier to spend at least an hour going through the museum. As for reservations, it's probably a good idea. 01.44.78.47.99

111--They really didn't need the pyramid to accomplish the objective. The Pritzker Prize committee should be required to stand under the pyramid on a hot August day. The main pyramid destroys the balance of the courtyard. Of course, the French also built the subject Pompidoodoo Center.