When I visited the Louvre it was absolutely wild to me how many people were just there for the Mona Lisa. I took a look at it in person because of course I did, but I don't think it was anywhere close to the most interesting piece the museum has on display (I preferred the classical sculptures), nor even the best painting. It seems like such a waste for people to fawn over that one painting and pretty much ignore all the other masterpieces you can see there.
> it was absolutely wild to me how many people were just there for the Mona Lisa
> It seems like such a waste for people to fawn over that one painting and pretty much ignore all the other masterpieces you can see there
I think you're making the rather large assumption that everyone is into art in the first place, and thus find it surprising that they would fail to appreciate everything other than the Mona Lisa.
In reality, I suspect a lot of folks just weren't going to go to the museum at all otherwise. They only go to see the Mona Lisa, not because they think it's a particularly magnificent piece of art, but simply because:
(a) they don't want to look silly saying they visited Paris but didn't see the most famous painting in the world there, and/or
(b) the whole world talks about it, and they naturally want to experience whatever it is, to maybe see what all the fuss is about.
Such reasons are pretty natural, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the intrinsic merits of -- or appreciation of -- the Mona Lisa relative to whatever else is there. It could've just been a hole in the wall, and if it had been the most famous thing in the world, it would've prompted a similar reaction.
The Louvre was a royal palace, the rooms and halls are all quite stunning. It was originally built in the 12th century and expanded through the 17 century, so as historical artifacts go, it's definitely a thing on its own. It is worth visiting even if there were no art at all inside it. YMMV.
I think it would also be more interesting if you could really approach it and have the time to look at it like other pieces.
My memories of the Mona Lisa is of a rather small paint behind dirty glasses with a large group of japanese tourists grouped in front of it and I simply didn't have the patience to wait and I just really glanced at it while passing by.
Also like most paints of its age, it is seriously damaged, colors aren't the original one and paint is cracked. I wish there was a way to actually enjoy in person those paints as they were when they were delivered to their customers.
My memories of the few times I've been to the Louvre are exactly the same as yours.
Musee d'Orsay down the river is a much better museum in my opinion and the one I never skip when I'm in Paris, the Louvre I'll only go to if someone I'm with has never been and really wants to.
It's a bit of a paradox because in a way d'Orsay is much more “pop” than Louvre. I think people would generally enjoy d'Orsay more than historic focused Louvre.
The funny thing about the Mona Lisa is that the public only became enamoured with it after it was stolen from the Louvre and subsequently recovered, it went from "notable but not particularly famous" to "famous for being stolen" to "famous for being famous".
Well it was painted by Leonardo da Vinci, not exactly a nobody. That alone is enough for it to be famous. He's probably more famous than the Mona Lisa.
basically the story for any popular tourist destination - people go so that they can tell their friends they went, not for the actual experience. and so the most important part of the experience is doing exactly the same thing your friends did, so you can say "i did it too".
Yeah, this can lead to awkward small talk between people who like doing the big name tourist stuff and people who like doing things off the beaten path when they discover they both visited the same place and have surprisingly little experience in common.
I work part-time at an art gallery (not a museum) with 300 pieces from 300 artists, on two floors. The typical visitor walks through, looking but not stopping, often not bothering with upstairs. It's rare for anyone to take more than 20 minutes.
I will say, the quality of exhibition in even the biggest most popular art museums is pretty poor.
The number of times a glare on the glass obscured the work, or I've walked through a room completely befuddled about what I'm looking at until finally on my way out discovering that I entered from the "wrong" direction and they intended that I take one very specific weird meandering path through the halls, and I get no info until the end of an exhibit otherwise, is ridiculous. On top of that, I feel like I get some history and analysis per artist or per period when what I really want is per work, explaining how they painted it, what they were thinking about or referring to (since art is almost always part of a conversation), and what's notable about that specific work. I'd also probably like fewer pieces from a given artist in a row and just have more a collection of contemporaries that drew inspiration from each other in a sequence so I can see how techniques and vocabularies developed, rather than "Here's the artist room. He was very famous and used a lot of color. We have access to these for a month, so take a good look."
It's weird just how much better science museums are at exhibit building. Please, art museums, crib their notes!
Problem is most museums are visited by tourists which by the time they reach the museum already have sore feets from strolling around the city and can't stand comfortably more than a couple seconds. There are a few museums that put benches which allows to actually take the time to enjoy watching a piece but there is always someone who decides to stand in front of you.
I also which a normal entry fee would allows you to comeback several times in a period. I don't have the stamina to contemplate 300 art pieces in a row. Can I watch 300 movies in the same day or can I even listen to 300 music records while giving them my full attention in a day? Nope.
