Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Met is not the best art museum in the world or in the US for that matter. It is a great museum, but one can enjoy the National Gallery of Art or the Louvre for less money.
You are failing to understand something important. The Met is considered one of the best museums in the world. All of the museums differ, depending on the strength (and weaknesses) of their particular collections.
If you are a mid 20th-century specialist, or even a dilettante, you might find the Met disappointing. It is not one of their greatest strengths, which would be Impressionist painting, probably, 18th-century painting and decorative arts, Egypt - although the Brooklyn Museum has a better collection of the latter. The Met has a very good collection of Netherlandish painting, not much for high Renaissance, and so on.
Point is, "best" is a rather useless terminology here. Depends where your interests lie.
And the fact is, and I am not saying this is a good thing (at all), fewer people are traveling to see the same structures and objects that they can study on line - having the misguided opinion that this is just as productive. It is not, but I digress.
In fact tourism in Florence hasn't increased on the past 20 years, it is not even on Europe top 20
Well, I'm not surprised: how many people are willing to go back to Florence to see the same things?
Come on: I don't get the appeal of Florence... it's a provincial city stuck in the past.
But - you know - NYC pales in comparison to Florence
Well, I'm not surprised: how many people are willing to go back to Florence to see the same things?
Come on: I don't get the appeal of Florence... it's a provincial city stuck in the past.
But - you know - NYC pales in comparison to Florence
Well ... I actually believe that serious study of the history of art requires trips to Florence, and to many other places. It's just that people are not doing this, settling for the "virtual" experiences that are never sufficient.
But Florence does pale, given the much more powerful institutions in New York. This is also a very great challenge for Paris.
Er, I posted that link to show you that - in fashion field - NYC is actually a capital, more important than Florence, Rome and Milan... Is a minimum level of IQ too much to ask from you?
The link you posted was about LONDON, including the reasons why it is a greater fashion capital. It did not give a detailed discussion about NY. Minsunderstanding one's own posts is a sign of failing IQ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by italianuser
I wrote: NYC may not be number 1 on any field, but it's still one of the world most important cities.
Come on, is it so hard to understand?
Tsk...tsk...not reading my post. I told you that you affirmed what I've been saying about NYC all along. NYC is not #1 in arts and culture. I do not care if you think "it's one of the most important cities". Many people will always argue that NYC is one of the most important cities in their book. The point is it's not #1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by italianuser
Oh my God.... I can't believe it... yet, Art Deco masterpieces have been built in NYC, not in Florence.
I explain you again, even though I don't want to be a broken record: nothing significant has been made and built in Florence after the Renaissance.
Nothing.
Zero.
Nada.
You won't find something comparable to Central Park, to the Guggenheim, to the Rockfeller Center, to the Empire State Building, to the brownstones of Brooklyn, to the art deco buildings of the UWS, to the Museum Mile, Bryant Park, the Flatiron etc etc in contemporary Florence.
And you know why? Because Florence - outside its small historical center - is absolutely an unremarkable city.
Because you are an ignorant poster with no sense of history. Of course you won't find anything comparable. It adheres to an earlier school of art that paved the way for subsequent philosophies centuries later in the same token that democratic principles of ancient Greece paved the way for the French Revolution and Arab Spring centuries after. That alone makes Florence significant in today's times.
Last edited by Forest_Hills_Daddy; 06-03-2013 at 01:27 PM..
NYC is not #1 in arts and culture. I do not care if you think "it's one of the most important cities". Many people will always argue that NYC is one of the most important cities in their book. The point is it's not #1.
You are simply mistaken. It is not even under debate.
New York is the center of the art world, period. You do have your "outsider art" movements, "periphery" over "hegemony," but these things are discussed and exhibited ... in New york.
Discussion and exhibition = the art world.
I do understand your point about history, in fact, I actually agree - again, I do think people need to study these works firsthand - but you are confusing objects with the broader conceptual actuality which is the art world. You are collapsing two very different things, each of which is rather indispensable.
You are failing to understand something important. The Met is considered one of the best museums in the world. All of the museums differ, depending on the strength (and weaknesses) of their particular collections.
If you are a mid 20th-century specialist, or even a dilettante, you might find the Met disappointing. It is not one of their greatest strengths, which would be Impressionist painting, probably, 18th-century painting and decorative arts, Egypt - although the Brooklyn Museum has a better collection of the latter. The Met has a very good collection of Netherlandish painting, not much for high Renaissance, and so on.
Point is, "best" is a rather useless terminology here. Depends where your interests lie.
No, being the best is not a useless terminology. It is an absolute statement. We cn say a lot of nice things about the Met but #1 it definitely is not.
No, being the best is not a useless terminology. It is an absolute statement. We cn say a lot of nice things about the Met but #1 it definitely is not.
No offense, obviously you are not a person involved in the aforementioned art world !
And this conversation is therefore ridiculous.
How about retrieving those required basic art history courses from the dust bin where they were tossed in the 1990s.
Read my post again before resorting to non sequiturs (a common strategy for those who realize that they are wrong) like Henry and italiandouser. If you need to hedge your pronouncements (it is but...) then it cannot be #1. Maybe it is #1 in this aspect and #1 in that aspect, but #1 in its totality? Come one. Even you can understand that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlem resident
I do understand your point about history, in fact, I actually agree - again, I do think people need to study these works firsthand - but you are confusing objects with the broader conceptual actuality which is the art world. You are collapsing two very different things, each of which is rather indispensable.
Some people are implying that they are dispensible. Usually these are people with no comprehension of anything that happened before 1990.
Last edited by Forest_Hills_Daddy; 06-03-2013 at 02:10 PM..
Read my post again before resorting to non sequiturs (a common strategy for those who realize that they are wrong) like Henry and italiandouser. If you need to hedge your pronouncements (it is but...) then it cannot be #1. Maybe it is #1 in this aspect and #1 in that aspect, but #1 in its totality? Come one. Even you can understand that.
Some people are implying that they are dispensible. Usually these are people with no comprehension of anything that happened before 1990.
Why did you change it?
What you had before, was much more amusing.
Anyways, why are you still arguing with Harlem Resident? She's clueless about art.
Despite her verbose and futile efforts at attempting to sound knowledgeable, she gave herself away when she claimed Berlin was near the top in the world of arts.
NY is not the arts capital of the world. I would say, it doesn't even rank second....More likely it's third, after Paris and London...
Because you are an ignorant poster with no sense of history. Of course you won't find anything comparable. It adheres to an earlier school of art that paved the way for subsequent philosophies centuries later in the same token that democratic principles of ancient Greece paved the way for the French Revolution and Arab Spring centuries after. That alone makes Florence significant in today's times.
The only ignorant poster who write exaggerated, ridiculous, anachronistic statements is Forest_Hill_Daddy.
Have you understood? You are the only ignorant here.
First of all, I'm an italian (who has lived in USA) and I know MY country better than you.
First of all.
Second, I have a degree in History of Art.
Third, none is denying Florence (or Athens) importance in human history: but if you write "Florence is more important than NYC due to its primary role during Renaissance era" you write an anachronistic exaggeration.
As if I wrote "London pales in comparison to Athens because Athens is the cradle of Western World civilization".
Get real.
We live in 2013.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
