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