[Conor Friedersdorf]
Vacationing in Europe this summer?
Strike the Louvre from your Parisian itinerary. Walk swiftly past its pyramidal entrance, tossing a smug wave to the suckers standing in line. A lifetime in the City of Lights would be squandered if you never explored the world’s most famous art museum, but a vacationer passing a week or ten days there is better off exploring other museums, or eating a leisurely lunch at a sidewalk café, or strolling along the Seine.
“But I’ve heard of the Louvre,” you might protest. “The Mona Lisa is there! How could I tour Paris, perhaps for the only time in my life, and return home without seeing it?”
Indeed, it is expected that you’ll visit.
“Has it changed since my honeymoon?” your coworker may ask.
“Is it really as Dan Brown describes?” your hair stylist might inquire.
Tell them that the Louvre is a labyrinth where mobs crowd famous works three people deep, particularly the Mona Lisa, entombed beneath three feet of bulletproof glass. Lesser known works mostly span artistic periods visitors know nothing about; the line alone stretches longer than it would take to visit two smaller museums.
My favorite Paris collections trace a single artist’s career, showing his works in context; its galleries aren’t crowded, the mood isn’t frenzied and you can leave after an hour, before successive rooms become a chore rather than a pleasure to ponder. Even a visitor intent on a hoard of great paintings is better off at the Musée d’Orsay, whose extensive collection is quite manageable compared to the Louvre; more importantly, most visitors will find its genres more enjoyable.
Another muddled analogy is useful: the Louvre is akin to a library of history’s best classical music; enough major symphonies, classic concertos and delightful string quartets exist there to occupy a dozen orchestras for decades. But the music people savor today is rock & roll and its offspring.
That’s why casual music fans are far more engaged exploring the moment when rock’s birth altered the course of Western music than sifting through the many centuries of musical evolution before it. Elvis Presley, The Beatles and other legends of the late 1960s came in a single epoch… sort of like the transformation that swept European painting and sculpture circa 1880: enter Manet, Cezanne, Monet, Picasso, Braque, Van Gogh and others by 1915.
Hence my litmus test: if your idea of a fun concert is a 10 day classical music festival where the best orchestras in the world perform influential but mostly unfamiliar classics, the Louvre is the art museum for you. Those who’d prefer Woodstock, however, should visit the Musee d’Orsay instead.
I am admittedly a novice in art.
As a result, I find modern art museums to be much more accessible.
While the Orsay isn't quite modern in the art museum sense, it's close. The Impressionistic movement, which dominates the Orsay, is very accessible.
You want a single artist rock star collection? Skip the d'Orsay, which is far too big, and hit the Moreau Museum - much more fun. Weird art - and entirely suitable for people who don't really know much about art but think they should see something that reminds them of Moulin Rouge.
The Louvre is one of those museums that make me wish there were a multimedia multiple choice test offered at the door - fail and you go to the right to the Mona Lisa. Pass and you get to see the real collection.
For 98% of people the Louvre is a place where they can remember about five works of art (Mona Lisa, Venus de Milo, Nike of Samothrace, Virgin of the Rocks, and take your pick for the fifth), buy some kitschy memorabilia, tell themselves that they want to learn more about art history, and then go back to Nebraska or Alabama and tell their admiring friends and return to watching KING OF QUEENS in syndication. For the other 2% of people it's one of the most amazing collections on the planet.
Go to Roland Garros. Go Roger.
I actually went to the Louvre twice when I was in Paris... once to do all the touristy stuff (like waiting FOREVER to see the god awful Mona Lisa and the much more interesting Venus de Milo), but then I went back again with some real French people and just lingered all day looking at all the different collections, even non-European stuff (the Egyptian section was awesome, but sadly their collection of small Egyptian god statues was missing the god Seth, who was being cleaned or something), and it was definitely worth the extra time and attention in my opinion. But only if you're genuinely interested in art enough to appreciate more than a handful of "significant" works like the Virgin on the Rocks.
And I just have to reiterate that the Mona Lisa is the stupidest painting I've ever seen in my life. Maybe I would feel differently if I hadn't had to fight my way through a throng of millions of people to see it.
Also, I set off an alarm at the Louvre on accident, which was cool even if it was a little embarassing.
And I'm worried now that it sounds like I don't consider The Virgin on the Rocks "significant"... I was meaning that if the only reason you want to look at it is because of its significance and not because of its merit, than it's a waste of time to go at all, really.
"Those who’d prefer Woodstock, however, should visit the Musee d’Orsay instead."
TR: It sounded interesting before this. I think I'd prefer staying at home listening to Celtic music over Woodstock. (Granted I was born in '77 so I'm a snotnosed Gen-Xer or something)
What hipster crap. 'the Orsay is the real place to be' has been spewed by crummy hipster guides since Frommer did his 'Europe cheap for a day' guide 30 years ago and it is just as dated. Want to be really cool? Recommend the new Arab Institute Museum.
Want to actually see the best art in the world? Go see the freaking Louvre! If you don't want crowds and you want hipness what the heck are you doing in Paris in summer anyway? Go to Krakow or something.
Joey 22,
I hardly think of Cezanne, Manet, Monet, Braque, Picasso, Van Gogh, Matisse, etc. as "hipster" artists.
Nor do I think those artists are more enjoyable for most people because they are "hip". Rather it is because they are modern, but not as abstract as most of the stuff at, say, the Pompidou.
The concentrated pace at which modern art circa 1880 began to change, with one movement giving way to another, also allows a patron of the Orsay to intuitively grasp the shifts as he or she walks through the galleries, which is much tougher to do at the Louvre unless you're an expert.
My own favorite Parisian museum, as it happens, is the Rodin, partly because I love Rodin, partly because on a sunny day one can lounge around the sculpture garden and partly because there are two really cool Van Gogh paintings hidden away on the second floor.
I owe all this knowledge, by the way, to the fact that students enrolled in any art history class in Paris can get into most museums free for an unlimited number of times, an awesome policy that ought to be replicated in every American city.
As someone who's done my fair share of traveling, I couldn't agree more, and would add that what you say about the Louvre applies to almost any famous museum/tourist attraction/etc. I find it both easier and more rewarding to explore a place by visiting its smaller, more obscure attractions with fewer people, hanging out at cafes and talking to locals, etc. Waiting in line for three hours to get a fleeting glimpse of a piece of art that doesn't allow a chance to take it in or truly appreciate it because your pushed out of the way by mobs of fellow tourists? That's something you can do just as well at home, and being able to say you've seen the Mona Lisa or whatever isn't sufficient reward for having paid thousands of dollars to do it on vacation.
SKip the line - if you are fast enough you are in the museum before anyone can complain and you save energy for the fight to get a look at the Mona Lisa.
Go in the middle of winter on a week day. I remember at 11 in the morning strolling through a long series of empty lines on my way through the Mona Lisa, grateful I wasn't there in summer. There were about ten people actually looking at the Mona Lisa, I enjoyed it more than I expected, but my favourite painting at the Louvre was one of an old man looking fondly at a young boy playing on his lap. Which, incidentally, I saw in one of the galleries on the way to see the Mona Lisa.
Other advice - take a notebook in which you can write down the name of paintings and artists that really catch your eye.
If you want to go somewhere a bit kistchy and neo-noir, check out the Musee Dali in or around Montmartre.
"Nor do I think those artists are more enjoyable for most people because they are "hip". Rather it is because they are modern, but not as abstract as most of the stuff at, say, the Pompidou."
Good point. It is amazing how downright hostile a lot of people who haven't studied art are to abstract, modern and postmodern art beyond the Matisse-type works that have since become used in ads and such. The best of the Louvre is indeed grand ("Winged Victory," the Venus de Milo, etc.), but a lot of it is just old and a bit gaudy at times. The collection is brought lower than it should be with a bunch of Medieval and Renaissance lesser artists just to fill space, but people who don't know art will think they are somehow meaningful because they are realistic or religious or something, even though there is nothing really to separate such an artist's work from everything their contemporaries were doing.
The Rodin is a lot of fun.
Also, the Picasso museum (forgot the formal name) is great too.
Recommend the new Arab Institute Museum.
I don't think that's much newer than the D'Orsay, actually.
The Cité de la Musique in that northern post-modern park where the slaughterhouse used to be is cool. I think it was new 10 years ago and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the technology is broken, but having the exhibits presented via headphones that activate by proximity is marvelous.