I am glad I did it, too, and one has to check out some of the top stuff, which retains impressive elements. But what made the biggest impression on me was the neighborhood we stayed in, and the general attempt to get a sense of the Parisians. I could have used more time for that, of course. As the pain fades, and the pictures are developed, my attitude has gotten more favorable, but it is an awful lot of trouble and expense for ambiguous payoffs.
In the case of the Louvre, I have seen this problem before. at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC. They both have a tendency to put up as many Old Master paintings as they can, but the National Gallery is more selective, and there is a greater sense of focus, especially in Dutch paintings, where the National Gallery has one of the best collections in the world. It is hard to tell how the Louvre and the Met match up with the National in terms of numbers of top paintings, but in terms of dilution, of percentages, they are inferior. The National has a collection of Rembrandts which is as good or better than the Louvre, they are about even on Vermeers, the Louvre is somewhat superior in quality of holdings of Van Dyke and Reubens, by only marginally. The National is better on Franz Hals, and has a better overall collection of 15th century Flemish painting. But the main thing is that overall their Dutch collection is stronger. It is a closer call on Italian paintings, but I think that the National is stronger on Medieval and early Renaissance, at least. The Louvre may be stronger than the Met on Greco- Roman statuary, in which the National Gallery is none competitive, but my impression is that the Met is superior in antiquities, although I wasn't thorough enough to say that definitively. The main thing is that if one frequents the great American museums, as I do, one is not exactly bowled over or due for an epiphany, especially in overheated, humid rooms teeming with tourists.
What I meant by calling the contemporary exhibit chauvinistic is simple: they took a lot of guys who were pretty boring and not very relevant to recent art movements, and gave them a lot of space because they were French or Francophone. Meanwhile, the omissions were striking, and could only possibly be justified by difficulty of acquisition. I find it hard to believe, though, since I know that some of the stuff missing was on the market in the last few years. The do not have a Roy Lichtenstein or George Segal, and their Andy Warhol holdings are poor, for example. They give some space to a couple of pop artists of no consequence, and little discernible talent, from France. They have two Rothkos, one borrowed from the National Gallery, no Barnett Newman, no Robert Motherwell, no Franz Kline, two Jackson Pollocks, one of which is completely misleading, and no Willem de Koonings. The New York School is blown off, practically speaking. There is no representative of the Washington Color School, not Morris Louis, not Kenneth Noland, no one. There is maybe one poor Jasper Johns, and two or three not so good Robert Rauschenbergs.
Even in the (much better) pre- 60s collection, there is no notice of George Bellows, John Sloan, Edward Hopper, Arshile Gorky, among Americans, or Gustav Klimt, Oskar Kokoschka, Egon Schiele, or any of the other Vienna Secessionists. Again, one suspects that the space given to less important, although thankfully talented French painters from the period has preempted any attempt at completeness.
By the way, the package just included airfare, some transportation, a couple of minor tours, some pre- paid passes, and accommodations, our itinerary was up to us.
I was really glad to be home, yes......... |
