Should I go to the MOMA or the Guggenheim?
 

I have planned vacations around art museums, but I don't think I've ever been to a museum of Modern Art. I might be heading to NYC in a few weeks, and thought I'd finally visit an art museum not named Metropolitan or Frick.

Which one would you recommend? I am not a fan of modern art (understatement) - my art appreciation starts in prehistoric times and goes up to the Impressionists. After that, eh.

I do like Bonnard and after seeing some Miro's at the Barnes, I wouldnt' mind seeing more of his whimsical works.

I am leaning toward the MOMA for the Monets and Starry Night. But the Guggenheim has a colorful Bonnard.

Help me decide.

The Guggenheim is an amazing building, but the permanent collection is very small. Most of the magnificent space is taken up by special exhibitions. Therefore, it is important to check online before visiting to see if the current exhibitions are in any way interesting to you.

While MOMA has special exhibitions, the majority of the space is dedicated to its permanent collection of modern masters. A visit there will give you a magnificent overview of modern art. Plus it's not just painting and sculpture. The collection also includes architecture, furniture, household objects, photography, cinema . . . and there is a great museum shop.

You will find more Bonnard at the Met. You can never be sure if the Bonnard will be on display at the Guggenheim.

MOMA. No contest. Walk past the Guggenheim and even peek inside the atrium, but this is not exactly a must-see museum unless the special exhibit really interests you.

I agree with MOMA for the reasons above. In fact I just told a friend going to NYC soon that Guggenheim is more about the building, not the collection. It's a lot of empty space inside. That's not to say that some of their collection and exhibitions aren't worthwhile, just that you get more bang for your buck at MOMA.

Agree with the above--the Guggenheim is a cool building, inside and out, but there is not a lot of artwork in proportion to the size of the space. MOMA is a cool building also, a piece of art in itself. It also has some iconic paintings that are part of pop culture. I went for the first time in February. My tip would be to go to the top floor and work your way down--this is NOT what we did, but I wish we had.

I agree with MOMA as well.

Agree with all of the above, MOMA hands down. The Hopper to O'Keeffe exhibit alone is worth the trip. Also the Walker Evans photographs. Overall I think the Guggenheim is overrated.

MoMA is by far the better choice if you have to choose. However, you can take a quick run through the Guggenheim in an hour or so and at least see the architecture.

MoMA

MOMA (or the Met!)

Thanks, all! The MoMA it will be!

Slightly (or a lot) off-topic, but whenever the Guggenheim comes up, I think of George on "Seinfeld" (during one of his many times pretending to be an architect) telling Jerry's girlfriend that he designed the new addition to it and "it really didn't take very long." Here's a montage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPENOIMYkZ0