Why are they always so quiet... I mean instead of people just staring at the paintings, thay should at least discuss what the meaning is to every one....... man if that happened I think there would be more people there...

Maybe they are "listening" to what the painting has to say to them personally. Paintings have the ability to communicate messages, if we are willing to wait, look, and listen to them. I think its a personal, solitary experience often times and that requires a quiet and open attitude to the viewing experience. In this fast paced, hurry up world, it takes a sensitive individual to look for any period of time. After all, it is not T.V. or the movies.

Here is a link that might be useful: Lynda Lambert Poetry Page

hahahahahahahahahahahaha thats true I guess we forgot what the meaning of art is.........

A little quiet goes a long way. I personally am grateful for the cool silence of a museum, given all the "noise" everywhere else in our public life. Even that silence can disappear if you're attending a "block buster" museum exhibition. Then it's a bit like milling around in a bus station (the noise and crowds and jostling to get a better look at the exhibit, ohmy).

"grumpy artist"

Here is a link that might be useful: http://dreamvigil.com/

And, you can forget trying to actually see "art" at an artist's opening reception because everyone is busy chatting with everyone else and gobbling up all the food in sight. It is unusual for anyone to be really looking at the "art."

I can appreciate both sides of this question. Undoubtedly many exciting and informative dialogues could occur in the museum setting. Part of the problem, as I have encountered it is as follows; nobody likes to be told what to do think see feel hear understand... anything!, when it comes to art. We approach it as a steely goddess and any who do not fall in line with our form of worship are questioned. As to the individuals who enjoy silence at the museum I have used foam earplugs in museums and had some of the most bizarre and enchanted visits. Not hearing all the talk, and believe me most of the guys in the museum are there to impress somebody other than themselves, not hearing the babbeling brook of our mouths can be a wonderful delight. I speak in circles, I love to discuss this stuff and though I have too high an opinion of myself and my ideas, I love and respect everyone who has the sense and duty to make art a real part of all of our lives.

One more for quietness here! When I have the opportunity of visiting a really great museum, extensive planning to avoid the crowds has become second nature to me. Dave, I´ll have to try earplugs sometime; now, if we could find a way to make the other museum-goers transparent...:-)
Kim

I think Lynda's explanation says it best. Yes, I believe we're to busy listening to what the paintings are saying to us. One thing I do notice is that the older, more passionate the Museum, the quieter it is. For example, The MOMA in NYC is extremely tranquil. I believe the "building" itself adds to the awe and experience. This building is nothing shy of a palace. The Museum in Seattle however, I found just a few decimals in volume over what I’m used too. The "modern" design and quizzical pattern the displays are arrange borrow a piece of my concentration usually reserved for appreciating the art. Another attribute to the melodious surroundings comes from the impulse we have towards any type of Dedicatory, which what museums, in my attitude, actually are. If anyone has ever attended the Baseball Hall of fame in Cooperstown, NY (a museum in its own tradition) the unusual silence there is almost eerie compared to the ability a Baseball fan has to experiment with their volume control. Maybe it's the reverence one has to the contributions another makes in their craft. Maybe the Ghosts of Gehrig and Ruth or Van Gough and Vermeer stand guard and monitor us and only our subconscious picks that up.
Please excuse the drifting from the topic here, but point in tact, Say if an artist (i.e.) Van Gough, Bruegal, Michelangelo etc. were an unruly sort. Say if they were a hard drinking, gambling and immoral fellow. Should this artist's contributions be kept from public viewing because of his behaviors? Should we prevent our next generation from their skill because of this? Maybe that's the way we should think when opinionating ourselves whether or not Pete Rose deserves to be enshrined in the HOF. Sorry for that rant. And trust me, IM not a Rose fan at all.

Hi:

I was visiting a museum in Chicago and got seperated from my wife and daughter. I walked in to a room that was dark except for one lit wall. My wife and daughter were sitting on a bench with there eyes glued to the wall as quiet as could be. I looked and was struck quiet. There is something that calls for total silance when in the presence of something as awsome as "Water Lillies". We all stared for about an hour in total silence.
Tom
tomporter@usa.net

I was in the Louvre recently and at certain points it was a cattle fair, particularly around the Mona Lisa. Hundreds of people were trying to see it all at once, clicking photos and not really looking at the picture at all. Nor did they look at any of the other picturesa in the room. So whilst I favour a well used gallery I also find myself in the wuiet reverence camp.

I heard of one museum that is different, it is Barnes foundation exhibit. It's not really a museum but a traveling exhibitiont of famuos paintings that is displayed in museums. Supposedly it encourages discussion and participation, not just a passive observation. Did not have a chance to visit it. Sounds like an interesting idea, but I'd go crazy if every museum was like that, I love tranquility and thoughtful atmosphere of big museum halls :)

The Barnes Foundation is fabulous. I was lucky enough to see it many years ago when it was housed privately near Philadelphia (Violet de Mazia).You had to have special permission to see it, as it was not open to the public then. I can still remember being awe-struck at the brilliance of the collection. I've scarcely seen any collection since to equal it. I, too, prefer quiet, in museums, and when I tend to make a comment, it will be in a whisper. At times, one has the feeling one is in a cathedral, when in front of the artist's work, which reveals many times his soul....

Demelza, I´ve been to the Louvre several times and haven´t seen Mona Lisa yet. The crowds are always there; one could think it was a po-mo ironic installation commenting on today´s culture. It is a problem with the great museums ( Louvre and d´Orsay in particular ) that they are such huge tourist-attractions. It´s very difficult to get a good eyefull of anything with the crowds stampeding through the galleries all the time. Last time at Orsay, I spent an hour in front of " Le dejeuner sur l´herbe " and had approx. 5 minutes of uninterrrupted viewing.

Anyway, at the Louvre there´s so much else to see; last time I for the first time saw the small portraits by Corneille de Lyon and was bowled over.

Will try to find something about the Barnes Foundation on the web; sounds really interesting.

Let me start this by saying that I am not an artist nor an art historian but rather one of the cattle that goes to museums. And I actually do feel like cattle sometimes, being herded from one room to another by the press of the others behind me.
I understand the need for and necessity of museums but I don't particularly like them. Granted, some of the great paintings look as if they were meant to be hung in a museum, with awe and reverence but so many others just don't. They need natural light, the lighting of the area they were painted in, whether that's the muted light of London or the soft clarity of southern France. I suppose I would like to see them in the setting where they were originally made or meant to be hung. I know it's impossible: this is just a wish.
When I go to a large museum I often feel overwhelmed. It's like eating a whole box of your favourite chocolates and when you come out, you feel slightly ill. Too much indulgence. I like the idea of travelling exhibitions.
Someone above mentioned the Mona Lisa at the Louvre. When I saw this painting about eight years ago in Paris I was horribly disappointed. Not at the picture itself but the way she was presented. It's not a large painting, she was imprisoned behind glass, ropes and a guard was standing nearby. Then a huge cattle herd, pressed shoulder to shoulder (OK, I was part of it) and everyone was taking videos and pictures (no flashes allowed). Quite frankly, it was awful. I think the Mona Lisa needs to be rescued.

Free the Mona Lisa.

it used to be free, but someone threw acid at it or something, and ruined it for everyone. now free acid, that would be a worthwhile cause...

To Mona re Barnes Musuem. It is not a traveling museum; it is a teaching museum. They have quite an extensive curriculum I have not taken it; I wanted to but it required a commitment I could not make--it is for the "average" person who has a great interest and curiousity in art. I 've visited Barnes and it's a very unique musem. The paintings are not grouped by artist, but by type--for teaching purposes, I guess And you just can't go there--because of parking limitations. It's in a residential area of the Main Line in Phila. and the residents do not want "riff raff" parking on the streets. There's also a controversy brewing because the late Mr. Barnes stipulated in his will that the collection MUST not be moved and the Board of Directors (some) want to make some major changes to the collections that are prohibited in his will. Well, I probably gave you much more than you wished. But it is .worth visiting!!