Top 100 Art Museum Attendance 2013

[simms3_redux]

I'm surprised that the High Museum in Atlanta didn't make top 100...in 2010 it was #95 with 509,000 visitors.

http://www.ranker.com/list/top-100-m...nychick?page=4

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by ocman

No, I'd say the Norton Simon is just as good. Most of what's on their walls are the artists' best works, but very different in taste from what Frick collected. Kimbell and Cleveland arguably have a collection better than the Getty, though the collection at Kimbell is very impersonal.

Getty had very horrible taste. It's still taking effort to replace all those cheesy Rococco paintings that no one likes, but are pretty much fillers for empty walls.

I agree; the Norton Simon is a pretty good art museum, and while not free, the admission is cheap! I went there fairly recently, and had forgotten how cheap it is.

And yeah, while the Getty has great architecture, gardens and views, I'm really not into its permanent collection; it's too Western-centric for me. I like a good, comprehensive art museum. I think LACMA actually has a better permanent collection than the Getty, and it's also more of a cultural center, with lectures, concerts, film screenings, and various ethnic cultural events, like the Nowruz festival, etc.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by pico44

Sargent was a great painter, no doubt, but there aren't many who hold him in such high esteem as yourself. MFA certainly has the greatest collection of him in the world. The Met probably has the second best collection.

I completely understand my infatuation with Sargent isn't universal. I have been throwing paint on paper and canvas from before I could walk, and while I am not very good, I have a far easier time with landscapes and still lifes than portraits. Probably a common thing. Sargent's portraits drop my jaws every single time. I really believe no other American artist has surpassed his portraiture skill. Lady Agnew of Lochnaw is my favorite.

Originally Posted by pico44

As for your claim that Hopper and Sargent are the top two American painters ever, I disagree. Hopper would make my top ten. Sargent wouldn't. If I had to pick a top two, I would choose Eakins (best represented in Philly btw) and de Kooning.

No accounting for taste Eakins would make the bottom of my Top 10, while de Kooning wouldn't. Homer, Wyeth, and Cassatt top Eakins in my book as well.

Can we agree that O'Keeffe is just weird?

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I agree; the Norton Simon is a pretty good art museum, and while not free, the admission is cheap! I went there fairly recently, and had forgotten how cheap it is.

And yeah, while the Getty has great architecture, gardens and views, I'm really not into its permanent collection; it's too Western-centric for me. I like a good, comprehensive art museum. I think LACMA actually has a better permanent collection than the Getty, and it's also more of a cultural center, with lectures, concerts, film screenings, and various ethnic cultural events, like the Nowruz festival, etc.

Oh, there's no question that LACMA's collection is head and shoulders above the Getty's. No one in their right mind would argue otherwise, and it's a shame that lots of people have the impression that the Getty is the best art museum LA has to offer. Just look at how long it took for LACMA to finally enter into the conversation.

In terms of modern art, which is what most people are interested in, LACMA annihilates the Getty (that's not saying much, I know). The Getty has a better Van Gogh collection (thanks in full part to Irises), but that's about it. Again, that's not saying much because LACMA's Van Gogh collection consists of just two drawings. The museum's most glaring need, in my opinion, is at least one solid Van Gogh painting. Thank goodness for the Norton Simon... and the Hammer Museum, which quietly possesses the second most important painting by the artist in LA (Hospital at Saint-Remy).

Thanks to the generous Lazarof donation, LACMA now has a very respectable collection of paintings by Picasso and Braque that's somewhat comparable in size and quality to that of AIC, but still a good notch below NGA and PMA. The Norton Simon also has a solid collection of paintings from those two artists, which is to say that the full scope and quality of LA's art collection (modern art in particular) is divided among four museums (LACMA, Norton Simon, Hammer, and Getty).

Interestingly enough, LA's stronger emphasis on Latin American, Asian, and contemporary art is also a perfect metaphor that's emblematic of the cultural differences between it and the cities back east.

[ocman]

Originally Posted by pico44

Norton Simon as good as the Frick? I don't think there are many people out there who would agree with you.

I think people who have been to both would agree with me. Frick's collection is larger, but not better. Norton Simon's collection is just as expertly collected. The difference being both men had vastly different taste in art (Frick's impartiality to portrait vs genre scene) and collected different artists, with Simon veering past 19th century and Asian sculpture. There's no filler on Norton Simon's walls.

[mrnyc]

if you want to talk quality, focus and wonderful site specific experiences, then absolutely nothing tops the dia foundation in my modern art book. thank you houston oil baron $$$!

[bnk]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Can we agree that O'Keeffe is just weird?

No I like o k



Her pussy pics in the flowers and desert I found with great interst as

College student



I still respect her work to this day


But I have not looked engrossed at a painting in years she still has seared a memory of her work in my mind

It does not bother me in one bit her work was dedicated to other lesbians


Her work tantalized me when I was younger and will look more deeply into her work in the future

[min-chi-cbus]

Sounds like I should be paying more attention to "art"!

Maybe this emoticon is most apt:

[johnnypd]

Norton Simon is one of my favourite art museums anywhere, along with the Courtauld Institute in London which has a similar profile. Small, idiosyncratic & quiet, but full of hits on the walls with very few of the "fillers" you find in much larger museums.

The Getty's collection reflects the taste of the collector - which is not currently in vogue but may be in the future. The architecture, views & rotating exhibitions (and the Getty has some of the finest curators on the planet) mean it is always worth a visit.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Oh, there's no question that LACMA's collection is head and shoulders above the Getty's. No one in their right mind would argue otherwise, and it's a shame that lots of people have the impression that the Getty is the best art museum LA has to offer. Just look at how long it took for LACMA to finally enter into the conversation.

In terms of modern art, which is what most people are interested in, LACMA annihilates the Getty (that's not saying much, I know). The Getty has a better Van Gogh collection (thanks in full part to Irises), but that's about it. Again, that's not saying much because LACMA's Van Gogh collection consists of just two drawings. The museum's most glaring need, in my opinion, is at least one solid Van Gogh painting. Thank goodness for the Norton Simon... and the Hammer Museum, which quietly possesses the second most important painting by the artist in LA (Hospital at Saint-Remy).

Thanks to the generous Lazarof donation, LACMA now has a very respectable collection of paintings by Picasso and Braque that's somewhat comparable in size and quality to that of AIC, but still a good notch below NGA and PMA. The Norton Simon also has a solid collection of paintings from those two artists, which is to say that the full scope and quality of LA's art collection (modern art in particular) is divided among four museums (LACMA, Norton Simon, Hammer, and Getty).

I love Van Gogh, but I really don't think it's important that LACMA's collection of Van Gogh grows, or that it has a "respectable" collection of Picassos and Braques. I don't think it has to have a big collection of European artists/European art to be considered a good museum; like I said in my previous post, that's my big complaint about the Getty, is that it's too Western-centric/Euro-centric. Those rococo rooms are tacky and gross, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Quixote

Interestingly enough, LA's stronger emphasis on Latin American, Asian, and contemporary art is also a perfect metaphor that's emblematic of the cultural differences between it and the cities back east.

And that's one of the things I love about LA, is that it plays up these other cultures, and the contemporary art is very good.

Originally Posted by johnnypd

Norton Simon is one of my favourite art museums anywhere, along with the Courtauld Institute in London which has a similar profile. Small, idiosyncratic & quiet, but full of hits on the walls with very few of the "fillers" you find in much larger museums.

The Getty's collection reflects the taste of the collector - which is not currently in vogue but may be in the future. The architecture, views & rotating exhibitions (and the Getty has some of the finest curators on the planet) mean it is always worth a visit.

I really like the Getty's rotating/temporary exhibitions, and that's usually why I will go to the Getty. I think it was a few years ago, they had a very interesting photography exhibit on pre and post-revolutionary Cuba.

[dc_denizen]

As opposed to museums, I wonder what a list of gallery abundance and attendance would look like, and what it would imply about the priorities and health of the 'art' culture in various cities.

We were recently in Portland, and was really impressed with the first Thursday gallery night--lot of great stuff.

Philly does a good gallery crawl as well.

[mrnyc]

now 33% larger after about a decade of major reconstruction led by rafael vinoly, the wonderful and free cleveland museum of art, with one of the best representational collections in the world and one the the largest endowments, has finally fully reopened this winter. so expect its attendence in jump up in the years to come:

http://enjoy.ohio.com/cleveland-muse...-wing-1.455465

[WonderlandPark]

Been to a good chunk on this list

The "Big Four"

Louvre
British
Hermitage
Met

The Hermitage loses visitor count because its in freakin' Russia, but easily matches it peers, and its sort of quirky in its Russian way of doing things. The Dutch Masters collection there is to die for, holy crap. Russian Museum nearby in St. Petersburg is also well worth a visit and one of the underrated museums in the World IMO. Kremlin Museums are a distant 3rd behind those two. Prado was shockingly small, but extremely well curated and collected, no "filler" solid masterpieces all around. Same with Uffizi, but the crowds there, ungh. I don't see Istanbul represented...Istanbul Modern is deserving. Foot traffic is a lesser indicator, I would rather see curators and artists rank them. Was not impressed by the Korean museums, for example (compared with the big World museums, but Seoul is a monster city and drives foot traffic, so it has a couple on the list)

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by WonderlandPark

Been to a good chunk on this list

The "Big Four"

Louvre
British
Hermitage
Met

The Hermitage loses visitor count because its in freakin' Russia, but easily matches it peers, and its sort of quirky in its Russian way of doing things. The Dutch Masters collection there is to die for, holy crap. Russian Museum nearby in St. Petersburg is also well worth a visit and one of the underrated museums in the World IMO. Kremlin Museums are a distant 3rd behind those two. Prado was shockingly small, but extremely well curated and collected, no "filler" solid masterpieces all around. Same with Uffizi, but the crowds there, ungh. I don't see Istanbul represented...Istanbul Modern is deserving. Foot traffic is a lesser indicator, I would rather see curators and artists rank them. Was not impressed by the Korean museums, for example (compared with the big World museums, but Seoul is a monster city and drives foot traffic, so it has a couple on the list)

i agree - your arguement is why i added the dia sites. quality over quantity.