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