I understand the strong reaction against such a heresy as to express a negative
coment about  The Louvre. However I want to insist in a few points wich I think
hasn't been quite understood:

1 - The building is surely one of the tops of the man's creative capacity.
2 - The collections showed are integral part of the human kind heritage of the
highest quality.

My negative feelings about it, were particullarly on the following points:

1 - It is too big. Too many objects - lack of information about them
individually
2 - Labirintic disposition. Departments are not separated and in the midle of a
greek
     sculpture room you might get in a corridor with XVI century painting.
3 - In exceptional beautiful rooms with XVIII century roof and wall paintings
where
     has been displayed  egiptian or roman sculpture, I felt shoked with the
context.
4 - Watching the behaving of those thousands of visitors, running around all
the time,
     I believe that something is not right. Those objects would deserve much
more.

As a responsable for a small museum in an extreme of Europe and used to care
for
things like " How to call the visitors attention", "How much time does the
visitor
spend in front of the object exposed as a sign of his pleasure or interest for
it", etc,
I felt that there were a lack of consideration for the visitor in general, for
the
extraordinary importance of the objects (individually) and for the building it
self
(specially the interiors). Estatistically, I believe that The Louvre is
probably one
of the places in the world where visitors pay less attention per object.

My desapoitment is that 98% of  the visitors of The Louvre are normal people,
(no especialists or art investigators) beeing impelled to a stressfull and rush
visit.

In spite of having no supporters on my (confessed) over reaction against the
museological conditions of The Louvre, I want to thank you all the interesting
comments I have received during the last days.

Emanuel