I have found the whole blockbuster conversation very interesting.  I
found David Haberstitch's contribution(s) rather interesting.  I agree
with a lot of what he says.  Today he wrote, and I am paraphrasing, that
blockbusters validate the whole premise of museums as places for
contemplation . . .  While in essence I agree that visitors are drawn in
by the promise of the real thing, sometimes it backfires.

Has anyone out there ever been to a "blockbuster"?  While they can be
wonderful, I have found that the crowds are sometimes so awful that you
cannot contemplate the art work because you can't see it.  And  how can
a comtemplative mood be set when the gallery is full to capacity, or
more so, breaking fire code, day after day?

When I was a 8 we went to see King Tut at the Met.  I had wanted to see
this so badly that we treked across the country and stayed with
relatives to do so.  Most of what I can remember is my parents hoisting
me up, again and again, onto their shoulders to look over a sea of
people's heads at the artifacts.  It was exciting and still magical for
an 8 year old kid, but not at all what I had expected.  I was
disappointed to not be able to see the works up close.

The Vermeer show at the Smithsonian a few years ago was the same way :
a wonderful show of beautiful artwork but a nightmare to attend.  You
couldn't get close enough to the works to appreciate the details the
artist lavished on them.  And need I say anything about the scum
scalping the free tickets for hundreds of dollars at the curb?

A disappointment?  You bet.

Enough of a disappointment to turn me off of "blockbusters"?  Probably.

Best to all,
Mariah Sacoman