latedaytraveler

Gretchen, thank you for commenting on those museums that I intend to visit. Very helpful. I have plenty of time to plan since I won't be going until late next spring.


Waiting to read THE GREATER JOURNEY, Americans in Paris 1830-1900 by David McCullough which was discussed on this board lately. Will also re-read Hemingway’s MOVEABLE FEAST.


Anthony, for someone who is not crazy about museums, you certainly know a great deal about them (smiley face didn't work!).What are the other sights/activities that you prefer in Paris – hope I am not being personal. What are your favorite neighborhoods? For example, I have read a great deal about the Marais and expect to poke around there.

Irishwhistler90

I went to the Louvre for the first time this May and found it fascinating! I was first drawn to it by the fact that it has been the palace of Louis the 13th, and featured in the Three Musketeers stories. Secondly, I was drawn to it by the fact that it contains vast collections of antiquities, which I didn't get around to seeing in The British Museum while I was in London! I managed to see pretty much the whole Egyptian wing ( by accident, because while trying to exit from it, I found another whole floor of it ). Why did I take pictures? Because the ceilings in the Louvre are amazing! Because there is no way I could possibly remember everything I saw. Because I love taking pictures of everything! It's like telling a story. Some travelers write a journal to tell their story, some take pictures or videos. It is mostly just a way to share our experiences with others, and preserve them for ourselves, so that in 20 years time we can look back and remember with great clarity what we did.

I did look at the Mona Lisa, by the way. Not because I am an art fanatic, just because I wanted to see it. I had, after all, been in Florence and seen the great works of the Renaissance, so why not see the remaining pieces. I agree that it is over-hyped, but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't recommend seeing it. My favourite part of the Louvre was actually the Napoleon 3 apartments! Just stunning!

azzure

I enjoy putting together photo albums (both physical and online) of my travels, and while I don't feel it's necessary to photograph every piece of art I see, I like including pictures of pieces I've particularly admired (famous or not). It's disappointing that one can no longer take pictures in the Orsay; glad I went several years ago when one still could.

AJPeabody

In preface, I have not been to the Louvre in over 10 years (the price was in francs), so things have, I am sure, changed. In those days, there were no digital cameras, but you could shoot film if you didn't use flash. I agree that taking pictures of pictures is a bit lame, at least for famous pictures, but I could not resist two shots.

In those days, Ms. Lisa was one of many pix on the wall of a giant room the size of a football field, at about the 50 yard line. The room was empty except for a knot of 50-100 tourists obscuring that area, all jammed together shooting pictures. I stood at the opposite wall and got this great shot of an empty gallery with a crowd of backs of tourists and a tiny corner of the Mona.

The other was of Ms. Venus De M. Well, actually, of her back. The background is a solid wall of tourists shooting pictures of Ms. V.from the front. I call it somewhat jocularly, "Les Papparazi de Milo."

I ought to convert those shots to digital for posting.

By the way, my favorite place in the Louvre is, or was if they changed things, at the Lion's Gate entrance. There I saw a wonderful collection of ethnographic artifacts, including masks, statues, etc. Only the best, from all over the world. Marvelous.

Aduchamp1

Here is one shot taken at the Pomplidou


https://picasaweb.google.com/1135238...34267274029746

Too many people are intimidated by art and artists. Art can be enjoyed at many levels but many do not want to appear as a philistine or worse a tourist.

Go boldly into museums and art galleries. Learn what you can and appreciate, enjoy, and go beyond what is comfortable.

Aduchamp1

I am sorry, I spelled Pompidou incorrectly.

Mimar

To you museum photographers, almost all these works of art are already visible on the Internet. So you're not preserving them for posterity.

And it's not true that the experience of the photo is the same as seeing the actual work of art. In person, you can see the brushstrokes, the impasto. I remember being blown away by Monet's Poppies at Argenteuil when I saw it in person. The photos of it were lame. In fact, Inpressionist paintings are much better when you see the real thing.

AnthonyGA

You don't have to take photos if you don't want to, but you shouldn't get in the way of others who want to take pictures.

I have yet to see anything in person that looked different from a photo. However, I don't care about brushstrokes, so maybe that's the difference. Then again, being able to get close enough to see brushstrokes isn't always possible, even in person.

@latedaytraveler, not sure if you were serious or sarcastic, but my knowledge of museums is mainly logistic and practical, since that's my role when taking people there. I'm not very interested in fine art (or at least not in painting and sculpture, which seem to represent most of the art in many museums), I just try to make sure that everyone sees what they are supposed to see on schedule. It so happens that this blends well with the attitudes of most visitors, who aren't nuts about art, either, so things work out well.

I have yet to see any painting or sculpture that blows me away, but that's just me. I like paintings and sculptures that look like real life. Older stuff seems to be mainly that way, whereas modern art is just a mess quickly thrown together to make money. Jackson Pollock is useful only as litter-box liner, for example. Thank goodness, the old stuff outnumbers the new in many European museums.

Gretchen

I can say one thing for sure, Anthony. with your dismissive attitude about a LOT of things in Paris, I would not recommend anyone to tour with you. Wow. Don't know if you are jaded or just a know it all already. No thanks, but I know that will not bother you.

kerouac

Another major Parisian place that inexplicably forbids indoor photography is Sacré Coeur.

ira

Hey AG,

>I have yet to see anything in person that looked different from a photo.<

Aw, c'mon.

"Le déjeuner sur l'herbe" is a 7x9 ft painting. No photo could reproduce the experience of viewing it in person. Ditto "Guernica".

ira

BTW,

The ethnographic exhibits at the Branly (http://www.quaibranly.fr/en/) are well worth seeing.

It took me about 30 years to visit the Pompidou. I was not impressed.

Aduchamp1

It is truly interesting how many people who do not like art visit art museums.

nz101

bookmarking for next visit

AnthonyGA

Sacré-Coeur is also unusual in that they have someone at the door checking clothing, and rejecting those who don't meet God's standards. The standards and enforcement vary with the person standing at the door.

It's surprising how many tourists visit all sorts of things that they probably aren't interested in. Somebody told them to be sure to visit this or that, so they do so. Sometimes the things they end up enjoying the most are things that nobody recommended to them. I think that many visitors who just wander around the Latin Quarter or Montmartre enjoy themselves more than those who have a list of "must-see" attractions that they have to visit before they leave.

I think the new Quai Branly museum got all the ethnic exhibits that used to be near the Lion's Gate entrance of the Louvre (plus many others), but I'm not sure.

maitaitom

"To you museum photographers, almost all these works of art are already visible on the Internet. So you're not preserving them for posterity."

So is the Eiffel Tower. So is the Golden Gate Bridge. Should we not take any photos because they are on the Internet? As for me, I take photos when it's legal to take photos and make sure not to get in anyone's way when I do. If you don't like to take photos, I could not care less. Why you care that others do like to take photos is perplexing to me.

latedaytraveler

“Le déjeuner sur l'herbe" is a 7x9 ft painting. No photo could reproduce the experience of viewing it in person. Ditto "Guernica".”

Ira, I hear you. Great art has to be seen to really appreciate.

A few years back, an exhibit at the MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS, BOSTON included "Arrangement in Grey and Black: The Artist's Mother." I must say that although “Whistler’s Mother” has become an icon, subject to satire in many quarters, seeing it “live” was an extraordinary experience. I just couldn’t stop looking at it.

Boston was thrilled to have this painting loaned by the D’Orsay for its exhibit of French painting…

Aduchamp1

I do not think anyone is stating that a photograph is a substitute for the genuine article. On the other hand by concentrating on a single or different element, it may change the perception for someone.

Some people just want a rembrance. Others are trying to create a variation on the theme.

Simply because one has a narrow vision of how something is or should be preceived, does not mean everyone has the same narrow vision.

sap

Mmm, agree, Aduchamp. The blind men and the elephant.

AnthonyGA: "Sacré-Coeur is also unusual in that they have someone at the door . . . rejecting those who don't meet God's standards." Well someone must not be doing their job as I sure saw several people there who couldn't possibly have met God's standards.

Gretchen

AGA, and others who decry no photography in the Sacre Coeur--and a dress code. It's a church, people. Have some respect.