The Gun Counter

Anyone been through the new wiz bang art museum in LA?

What's a reasonable amount of time to allocate for a first time visit (considering we're not art geeks)?

blackeagle603 wrote:Anyone been through the new wiz bang art museum in LA?

What's a reasonable amount of time to allocate for a first time visit (considering we're not art geeks)?

Plan on spending several hours at least. Just walking around the grounds is worth the price of admission.
I especially liked the hands-on workshop that demonstrates how works of art are restored.
If you make a reservation in advance you can park at the bottom of the hill and take the tram up, if not you may have to park in one of the off-site parking lots and ride the "commuter" buses to the top. Either way it's not particularly onerous.

How good is it compared to say, the Met?


HTRN

As someone who is a bit of an Art Geek, (I would have happily been an architect, if... well, considering I don't plan to be a lawyer or a biochemist, I should have stayed in architecture...) comparing one art museum to another is not particularly relevant, unless you mean by standards of display, etc. A top museum's collection will be impressive, and worthwhile, IMO.

I think a big failure of many art museums is that they're built for school tours -- eg, large groups, spending a few minutes, in front of the famous paintings. It takes time to understand art. It should be thought of more as theater and less as a decoration, and time should be devoted, accordingly. I also think too many museums don't properly "celebrate" the individual pieces. I understand the mindset behind this -- as a curator, your pride is the size and depth of the collection, and to an extent, you want your museum to show those dimensions, but for the art, you should have each piece as separated as possible from the building (neutral room, good lighting) and the rest of the pieces -- preferably w. some comfortable seating at a pleasant distance in front of it.

Aglifter wrote: I also think too many museums don't properly "celebrate" the individual pieces. I understand the mindset behind this -- as a curator, your pride is the size and depth of the collection, and to an extent, you want your museum to show those dimensions, but for the art, you should have each piece as separated as possible from the building (neutral room, good lighting) and the rest of the pieces -- preferably w. some comfortable seating at a pleasant distance in front of it.

This is my big complaint about the Met - they tend to put alot of the smaller sized pieces from lesser knowns too close together, and far too often, above others, so it tends to be a "wall of art" - while taking in the whole thing( an entire wall of Renoirs!) can be stunning too much of the individual pieces are too hard to really look at. Most of this is due to wall space - when you have 16 foot ceilings, it's hard not to double stack 'em.


HTRN

From what I've seen/read in features on The Getty, the facility and grounds are a significant work of art in and off itself. The rest (reportedly) is gravy.

We took our kids there the day after Disneyland so they were pretty glassy-eyed.
I, and several of the kids, are anxious for another visit.