Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 13 Jan 1999 13:31:59 -0700 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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
|
|
|