Top 100 Art Museum Attendance 2013

[ue]

Originally Posted by ocman

As comparatively small as it is, it has a better art collection than the Met. But it's modern art. A tourist prefers to see art that are also antiquities and that may be 1000 years old.

I must be one of the few who prefers modern art, then. The centuries old stuff is neat from a historical perspective and it is amazing how some pieces of art have lasted so long, but I rarely have a connection to any of it.

The comment about Rococo in the Getty is spot on. Nice for a few galleries, but it gets old fast.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by StethJeff

Kind of surprised that AIC isn't higher up on the list. The Getty and de Young are a little out of the way for visitors to their respective cities. Neither has what most people would consider a must-see piece. Besides, art is rarely on the mind of most visitors to both LA and SF. People come to California to enjoy the coast, do outdoors stuff, go to commercial tourist traps, etc. In the case of the Getty, as others have mentioned, people mostly go for the view. Again, art isn't on people's minds when they come here.

Meanwhile AIC is smack in the middle of the city. It's Chicago's most unavoidable landmark. Unlike most museums on this list, the AIC has a ton of iconic work that people grew up seeing in school text books and being parodied over the years in other media. Chicago being more of a legacy city with its insane architecture and bleeding "Americana" the way it does, I'd suspect that seeing art is something that more visitors would want to do in a place like Chicago. AIC oughta be up much higher IMO.

Originally Posted by Quixote

And while visitors to LA may not view seeing art as a top priority, The Getty is LA's #1 rated tourist attraction... even if most people are going for the views and gardens.

Yup. Also, according to the asterisk, attendance for the Getty also include the Getty Villa. Likewise, FAMSF includes the de Young and the Legion of Honor. (I'm not sure what kind of attendance the latter has; I've personally never been there). I imagine this might have an impact on the numbers?

The other thing about Chicago: There are a ton of famous museums/cultural institutions all clustered together in the same general area (Adler Planetarium, Shedd Aquarium, Field Museum of Natural History; even the Museum of Science and Industry is a straight shot down LSD) and the ticket prices really add up for tourists, especially families. I imagine that may be a factor.

[nito]

The large number of museums from London being represented in the list doesn’t really come as much of a surprise (not only due to the quality and quantity, but also) due to the free admission policy; a major positive in my opinion.


Based on cities with two or more museums in the original post

[pico44]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Wow, I love all these comments, I didn't realize there were lots of other art museum aficionados here.

My original list reflects my strong personal bias against anything post Post-Impressionist. High art for me ends somewhere around Fauvism and Surrealism, and depending on my mood that day may more may not include Cubism and/or Futurism. I make exceptions for certain Realism stars like Hopper. For that reason alone I didn't put MOMA on the same level as the AIC and the BMFA.

On the other hand, I place high personal value on early American masters like Copley, Cole and Bierstadt, and later our few truly-treasured contributors to visual art's highest forms (Romanticism, Neoclassicism, Impressionism, Post-Impressionism) in Homer, Cassatt, Hassam, and eventually (IMHO) the two greatest artists America has ever produced: Sargent and Hopper. The MFA and the AIC blow the rest of the museums in the US out of the water for these, and that includes the Met.

Hell, the entire main rotunda in the MFA was designed, sculpted, and painted by Sargent.

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.

Hopper's Nighthawks at AIC is deservedly his most famous painting, and one the great paintings ever created imo. But the Whitney is by miles and miles, the best museum for Hopper out there. In fact, if you collected all the Hoppers in the world outside the Whitney into a group, it might not equal the Whitney in quality or quantity.

The Art Institute might have the second greatest collection of modern art in the world. And of course they have a top-four collection of Impressionism, with Seurats grand masterpiece as the centerpiece. The rest of their collection isn't nearly as impressive, but what they have is more than enough to make it one of the best museums anywhere. Europe included. I still think the National Gallery DC has a slightly better collection. But only very slightly.

Boston has an embarrassment of riches with the MFA, which is of course a national treasure, but also the Isabella Stewart Gardner and Harvard Fogg museums, both gems.

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.

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by nito

Based on cities with two or more museums in the original post

If you include the Huntington Library in LA's total it gets bumped up a few places.

[emathias]

I've only been to 11 of those museums, unfortunately. The 11 I've seen are good ones, but still, only 11.

Originally Posted by Shawn

For American art museums, I am under the impression that in terms of quality and breadth of collections and in terms of endowments and financial backing, nothing touches the Met. There is a big gap, followed by the Art Institute of Chicago and the MFA in Boston, and then another group which includes the Smithsonian, MOMA, the Getty, the Philadelphia Museum of Art, and the Cleveland Museum of Art.
...

The Met is quite impressive. And so are the Art Institute and the MFA, although smaller. I've been to all three in the past year. The very first huge art museum I ever saw was the Hermitage in what was then still called Leningrad, but I was only 16. The first big one I saw as an adult was the Art Institute and I was quite impressed. Occasionally I run across some self-deprecating type in Chicago who poo-poos the Art Institute, belittling it for reasons I can't understand. Since I first saw the Art Institute (I'm a long-time member there now), I've seen the Louvre in Paris and the Prado and Reina Sofia in Madrid and the Met in New York and and the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. And I think the Art Institute belongs in that league or, at worst, maybe a slight step below the Met and the Louvre. The biggest advantage, in my opinion, that the Met has over the Art Institute, is that the Met has more cultural artifacts in addition to purely art. If you took a few of the more artistic cultural collections from the Field Museum here and combined them with the Art Institute, it would be a more like comparison.

I think the Art Institute would greatly benefit from a) expanded hours and b) reduced admission price. I really wish they'd go back to their "suggested donation" model, where if you couldn't (or just didn't want to) pay, you didn't have to.

This is one of those categories where I wish the U.S. would come up with a system of "regional capitals" where major cities that have emerged as defacto capitals of their regions would receive additional Federal dollars to bolster that position not only for infrastructure, but also for cultural things. So instead of only making D.C. a big center of American investment, also cities like Atlanta and Dallas and Denver and Chicago. Yes, smaller cities would miss out some, but I think it's important to reap benefit from the natural synergies of consolidation and there are fairly clear regional capitals at this point.

Originally Posted by pico44

You're list is pretty good, but I would make a few changes. You are absolutely right about the Met and the huge gap. Some call it the greatest single museum in the world. I might agree, but the Louvre and Prado--in spite of not being nearly as encyclopedic--are both super close I would actually put MoMA at number two. And very comfortably at that. Not many American museums can claim to having the greatest collection of any genre of painting, mainly because modern America is relatively late to the art game. But the MoMA has, without a shadow of a doubt, the best collection of modern art anywhere. And by a wide margin. Keep in mind that modern art is an all-ecompassing term that includes many many genres, and also that modern art is (in my not-so-humble opinion) the most wonderfully creative period in all of art history; and it stands to reason that MoMA is absolutely one of the greatest museums on the planet. After that I'd put in the National Gallery of Art, which does every period of Western Art spectacularly well, often better than the Met. Then come MFAB and AIC, both world class museums, with the Frick right behind them. No American museum punches above its weight like the Frick does (Isabella Stewart, Norton Simon and Barnes are all distant challengers). Then I'd put Philly, Getty, Kansas City, Cleveland, Kimbell Whitney, MFAH and LA County; roughly in that order.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by emathias

If you took a few of the more artistic cultural collections from the Field Museum here and combined them with the Art Institute, it would be a more like comparison.

in addition to the field museum's VAST collection of cultural artifacts, don't forget about the oriental institute down at the university of chicago. while considerably smaller, it has a veritable treasure trove of art and artifacts pillaged from the ancient world (mesopotamia, egypt, nubia, assyria, etc.). it's perhaps chicago's best hidden gem as far as museums are concerned.

if you've never been, i would HIGHLY recommend it!

[simms3_redux]

Originally Posted by ue

Ah, I see.

Another thing: I'm surprised SFMoMA isn't on the list. Doesn't it get well over 600,000 visitors per year?

You are right. FAMSF stands for Fine Art Museums of San Francisco, which includes two museums: the deYoung in GG Park (more contemporary) and the Legion of Honor, which focuses on European pieces and is really an endowed collection from the Spreckels family (sugar magnate + wife). The Legion of Honor is a 1924 75% scale replica of the Hôtel de Salm in Paris, and the deYoung, which has at least 75% of the FMASF attendance figure (I believe over 1.3 million by itself), is a 2005 Herzog + Meuron creation. The original FAMSF building is the Palace of Fine Arts, which is a 1915 remnant of the Panama-Pacific Exposition, which rivals the World's Columbia Exposition in Chicago in terms of architectural wonder.

The total endowment for FAMSF is only ~$200M, maybe less.


However, SFMOMA definitely tops 650,000-700,000 visitors by all counts. It also has a considerable endowment (for the US). I think of the $600-$650M they are now raising, or have raised for their current capital campaign, around half of that was for building up their endowment, with the other half going towards the SNØHETTA designed expansion currently under construction. SFMOMA by itself is 3rd most visited museum in SF, at best, though (behind deYoung and CA Academy). But I would *easily* consider the SFMOMA to be the 2nd best and 2nd most extensive/high quality collection of modern 20th century/current artwork in the United States and one of the top contemporary collections in the world.

2016 will mean free attendance for those under 18 (museum reopens with 100,000 SF of additional gallery space in 2016):

http://www.sfmoma.org/about/about_news/977

[simms3_redux]

Originally Posted by emathias

I've only been to 11 of those museums, unfortunately. The 11 I've seen are good ones, but still, only 11.



The Met is quite impressive. And so are the Art Institute and the MFA, although smaller. I've been to all three in the past year. The very first huge art museum I ever saw was the Hermitage in what was then still called Leningrad, but I was only 16. The first big one I saw as an adult was the Art Institute and I was quite impressed. Occasionally I run across some self-deprecating type in Chicago who poo-poos the Art Institute, belittling it for reasons I can't understand. Since I first saw the Art Institute (I'm a long-time member there now), I've seen the Louvre in Paris and the Prado and Reina Sofia in Madrid and the Met in New York and and the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. And I think the Art Institute belongs in that league or, at worst, maybe a slight step below the Met and the Louvre. The biggest advantage, in my opinion, that the Met has over the Art Institute, is that the Met has more cultural artifacts in addition to purely art. If you took a few of the more artistic cultural collections from the Field Museum here and combined them with the Art Institute, it would be a more like comparison.

I think the Art Institute would greatly benefit from a) expanded hours and b) reduced admission price. I really wish they'd go back to their "suggested donation" model, where if you couldn't (or just didn't want to) pay, you didn't have to.

This is one of those categories where I wish the U.S. would come up with a system of "regional capitals" where major cities that have emerged as defacto capitals of their regions would receive additional Federal dollars to bolster that position not only for infrastructure, but also for cultural things. So instead of only making D.C. a big center of American investment, also cities like Atlanta and Dallas and Denver and Chicago. Yes, smaller cities would miss out some, but I think it's important to reap benefit from the natural synergies of consolidation and there are fairly clear regional capitals at this point.

I really like the Art Institute, as well.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

You are right. FAMSF stands for Fine Art Museums of San Francisco, which includes two museums: the deYoung in GG Park (more contemporary) and the Legion of Honor, which focuses on European pieces and is really an endowed collection from the Spreckels family (sugar magnate + wife). The Legion of Honor is a 1924 75% scale replica of the Hôtel de Salm in Paris, and the deYoung, which has at least 75% of the FMASF attendance figure (I believe over 1.3 million by itself), is a 2005 Herzog + Meuron creation. The original FAMSF building is the Palace of Fine Arts, which is a 1915 remnant of the Panama-Pacific Exposition, which rivals the World's Columbia Exposition in Chicago in terms of architectural wonder.

The total endowment for FAMSF is only ~$200M, maybe less.


However, SFMOMA definitely tops 650,000-700,000 visitors by all counts. It also has a considerable endowment (for the US). I think of the $600-$650M they are now raising, or have raised for their current capital campaign, around half of that was for building up their endowment, with the other half going towards the SNØHETTA designed expansion currently under construction. SFMOMA by itself is 3rd most visited museum in SF, at best, though (behind deYoung and CA Academy). But I would *easily* consider the SFMOMA to be the 2nd best and 2nd most extensive/high quality collection of modern 20th century/current artwork in the United States and one of the top contemporary collections in the world.

2016 will mean free attendance for those under 18 (museum reopens with 100,000 SF of additional gallery space in 2016):

http://www.sfmoma.org/about/about_news/977

I find it hard to rank SF's museums (personally) because they all have such different missions. I've always found SFMoMa to be an excellent modern art museum, and it will only get better with the acquisition of the Fischer collection and new wing. Yet sometimes I think the Asian Art Museum is actually better at what it does, in that it provides both a broad survey of the many cultures as well as comprehensive depth for several. And while the de Young's permanent collection is pretty good, I find myself more impressed with the traveling exhibitions. Maybe that's just because I've been visiting since I was a kid. Anyway, I've never spent much time at the Palace of the Legion of Honor, but the Rodin sculptures are memorable. And I will definitely give a shout-out to the (Oakland) Museum of California, which has had some truly amazing historic exhibitions over the years.

[Fresh]

Walking ignorantly and absent-mindedly into the British Museum and abruptly finding myself standing in front of the Rosetta Stone is something I won't soon forget. The Louvre is just overwhelmingly beautiful in it's architecture and setting and the D'Orsay was a pleasant surprise.

Hoping to visit the Met later this year.

[pico44]

Originally Posted by emathias

in Madrid and the Met in New York and and the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. And I think the Art Institute belongs in that league or, at worst, maybe a slight step below the Met and the Louvre. The biggest advantage, in my opinion, that the Met has over the Art Institute, is that the Met has more cultural artifacts in addition to purely art. If you took a few of the more artistic cultural collections from the Field Museum here and combined them with the Art Institute, it would be a more like comparison.

I'm sorry but no. Not remotely close. AIC is superior to the Met when it comes to modern art*, and is close and perhaps even equal to the Met when it come to Impressionism (depending on how much weight you give Grand Jatte), but in every other genre, era, area, etc; the Met is vastly superior. Vastly.

*contrary to some comments here, the Met actually has a very good modern art collection, probably one of the ten or fifteen best in the world. Even moreso since a recent donation of about a billion dollars worth of cubist paintings from the collection of Ronald Lauder. In fact, the Met is going to annex the Breuer building on Madison Ave after the Whitney decamps for downtown, and use it for the exhibition of their modern art, similar to how they use the cloisters to exhibit their midieval art.

[pico44]

Originally Posted by StethJeff

I knew someone would bring up Irises. It's great, and famous to some people, but it isn't exactly that iconic. Certainly not like AIC's Seurat or American Gothic, or even Blue Boy at the Huntington. The iris was a common subject in his paintings. Irises isn't exactly instantly recognizable.

I disagree. Irises is absolutely one of Van Gogh's greatest paintings. Everyone loves his Sunflowers, and rightly so, but he did The same Sunflower painting three times. Those irises are singular, beautiful, spectacular. I'd rank it up there with Starry Night, his Wheatfields at the Met, and the Night Cafe at Yale. Probably right behind those three.

[pico44]

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.

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

[Capsule F]

I would wager that the Philadelphia Art Museum may be one of those rare museums that attract more people to its outside and grounds than it does to to see its collections.

I'm being somewhat facetious, but I do not doubt an additional 500,000 people come to see the rocky statues and the front concourse and steps, and gardens.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by nito

The large number of museums from London being represented in the list doesn’t really come as much of a surprise (not only due to the quality and quantity, but also) due to the free admission policy; a major positive in my opinion.

Agree, museums should be accessible to everyone not just those who can afford such things. I'd support my taxes going up if it meant free museum and gallery entrance for all.

[Minato Ku]

Originally Posted by Capsule F

I would wager that the Philadelphia Art Museum may be one of those rare museums that attract more people to its outside and grounds than it does to to see its collections.

I'm being somewhat facetious, but I do not doubt an additional 500,000 people come to see the rocky statues and the front concourse and steps, and gardens.

The exterior of the Louvre with the famous Pyramide attracts a lot of people.
Many of them don't visit in the museum.


Picture by Benh LIEU SONG, Wikipedia common

Funny or sad note but the shopping mall under the Louvre (Carrousel du Louvre) had 15.2 million visitors, it is more than the museum itself.

[Capsule F]

Originally Posted by Minato Ku

The exterior of the Louvre with the famous Pyramide attracts a lot of people.
Many of them don't visit in the museum.


Picture by Benh LIEU SONG, Wikipedia common

Funny or sad note but the shopping mall under the Louvre (Carrousel du Louvre) had 15.2 million visitors, it is more than the museum itself.

Yes sir, I completely agree. I was almost going to include that in a comparison but I forgot. I spent exhaustive amounts of time in the courtyard and the mall underneath the museum. A very exciting environment. I wonder, what do others think are museums that draw people to their grounds perhaps more so than their collection?

[simms3_redux]

Originally Posted by fflint

I find it hard to rank SF's museums (personally) because they all have such different missions. I've always found SFMoMa to be an excellent modern art museum, and it will only get better with the acquisition of the Fischer collection and new wing. Yet sometimes I think the Asian Art Museum is actually better at what it does, in that it provides both a broad survey of the many cultures as well as comprehensive depth for several. And while the de Young's permanent collection is pretty good, I find myself more impressed with the traveling exhibitions. Maybe that's just because I've been visiting since I was a kid. Anyway, I've never spent much time at the Palace of the Legion of Honor, but the Rodin sculptures are memorable. And I will definitely give a shout-out to the (Oakland) Museum of California, which has had some truly amazing historic exhibitions over the years.

Yes I agree with this, too. I forgot about the Asian Art Museum (candidly, I haven't visited yet). deYoung's exhibitions are great! SF's museums are definitely for SF residents moreso than tourists, in my opinion (with the exception of the SFMOMA, which is undoubtedly one of the great modern art museums). I've been to some great exhibits at Yerba Buena across from the SFMOMA, as well. I would describe the Legion of Honor as a smaller Frick with a location really only convenient to locals who can trek out there, and in a building every bit as beautiful as the Frick.

Seeing art is just one of those things you must do while in New York. It is not one of the must dos while in SF, however, SF definitely has some great art within its museums. It's just a different thing, I suppose.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

in addition to the field museum's VAST collection of cultural artifacts, don't forget about the oriental institute down at the university of chicago. while considerably smaller, it has a veritable treasure trove of art and artifacts pillaged from the ancient world (mesopotamia, egypt, nubia, assyria, etc.). it's perhaps chicago's best hidden gem as far as museums are concerned.

if you've never been, i would HIGHLY recommend it!

Yeah, I'm surprised the Oriental Institute doesn't have the highest numbers in the world having the Ark of the Covenant in it's collection and all... Just don't try to open it if you go visit...