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 difference is that Louvre contains thousands of historically and artistically valuable objects on permanent display in one location. Whereas urban murals are random, may be of questionable quality, and are here today and gone tomorrow.
I understand the distinction. I was addressing the notion of a DC arts scene in my initial post. My point was that Philadelphia has a wealth of art from the formal (i.e., Philadelphia Museum of Art, Barnes, Rodin) to the informal (i.e., Isaiah's Magic Garden, murals, street sculptures). DC has much of the former, but very little (if any) of the latter.
Quality of art is obviously in the eye of the beholder. There's a whole lot of street art that's not good, but there's also quite a bit that is very striking and creative. I don't think something necessarily has to be peer-reviewed by Yale-educated art critics to be considered "quality."
In your very first post, you went through your bullet points for LA's cultural amenities and simply said "yes" or "no," which doesn't prove anything and is therefore inaccurate and shows either a) your lack of knowledge of LA's cultural amenities or b) you just refused to acknowledge them. Your next post and now this post, you went into a little more detail on each of your bullet points compared to Chicago's, but still argue that "Chicago is better than LA in this or that" and "LA is not as good as Chicago in so-and-so." That's all fine and good, since those are your perceptions and you're entitled to them. That's more acceptable because you're actually elaborating and using examples. So my initial response to you was simply listing point by point some of the amenities/arguments you failed to touch upon, since all you said was "yes" or "no," which is lazy at the very least. Btw, nowhere when I was listing my arguments point by point did I say these LA things are actually better than Chicago's or even make a direct comparison. I was just making an argument for LA. So to say you were trying to be even-handed in your response is somewhat disingenuous, since you initially refused to give any support to your answers, and when you did, LA still lost on almost all points. If you felt condescended to by me, then I apologize. But saying just yes or no without further elaborating seems condescending itself (i.e. "Museums, well, no.").
Jimmy-- fair enough. I think you're over-thinking this a bit. It's a message board, not the Mensa Urban Think Tank. My intent was on balance refute the claim that LA was alone as the second city culturally, which quite obviously it is not. Rather than write a thesis on the various merits of all cultural attributes of a given city, I simply stacked up Chicago and LA quickly and to my knowledge-- which quite frankly-- while not perfect-- is pretty darned close. I agree though, it was not scientific by any means and certainly somewhat subjective.
I've already spent too much time on a thread that's turning into "every person who has a favorite city is pitting their city/village/hovel against another poster's city/village/hovel" crapfest. I'll simply leave it at Chicago and LA both have claims to as a second city in culture (and in some areas first city, i.e., film (LA) and architecture(Chicago), along with DC and SF). Of course, Chicago is better though.
Yeah, but the issue is cultural amenities right now. I would say that availability of high quality art for mass consumption is more relevant than which city has more artists.
This thread is like the massacre of MDAllstar..its actually kind of painful to watch. Although I admire that he's persistent, this is just a horrible painful death to witness. He should be smart and throw in the towel like his alter ego, DC'sBum.
This thread is like the massacre of MDAllstar..its actually kind of painful to watch. Although I admire that he's persistent, this is just a horrible painful death to witness. He should be smart and throw in the towel like his alter ego, DC'sBum.
Yung,
This is a healthy debate with differences of opinions. Some of you take this too personal and get in your feelings about nothing. Life goes on after your last city data post. Unless city data is your life.
This is a healthy debate with differences of opinions. Some of you take this too personal and get in your feelings about nothing. Life goes on after your last city data post. Unless city data is your life.
You confuse a "healthy debate" with sensible people trying to convince delusionist (You and your alter ego). Nobody gets in their feelings but you two because neither of you can accept the facts or even opinions when it comes to DC. Hence you both breaking your fingers on your keyboards with one ridiculous/laughable claim after the next. So again, this isnt a debate, more like a massacre.
Can someone please explain why two people have such a hard time understanding that many people dont think that DC is overall the #2 city in terms of cultural amentities?
DC is not some panacea after NYC; it seems that this reality is somehow hating. It is quite laughable honestly
You can't dispute it. It's actually the truth. It seems many people on here need a reality check about their importance in this world. You and I and everybody else on this board mean absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things, so when random people on city-data start to challenge a source like USA Today thinking they actually matter enough to do so, a reality check is in order. That's why I asked who all of you were and why does what you have been saying matter? It seems like nobody of importance is posting in this thread so I'm wondering why these opinions should matter and how any of you can challenge sources posted on here from national and international sources.
Dispute what that you are sour; that all else is opinions?
on USA Today; about as useful as forbes or T&L etc. to me not like the NY Times or Washington Post or more sceintific analyses.
But USA Today is sort of the eye candy of news; lists are what they are. T&L ranked Philly ahead of NYC on cultural amentities (personally find strange) o they are what they are.
MD one thing is that in general you will not accept other viewpoints (we all do this) but as it relates to DC you do often contridict yourself to make points; I have pointed this out in many prior threads and it was done here as well and when people dont agree that DC is the number 2 you basically refuse to accept their assesment. I dont believe Philly to be #1 but can source it from T&L and I dont believe it to be #2 or #3 maybe #4. I also dont see DC as better than #4 to me probably a little lower but still great in this resepct.
DC is a great job producer, building like crazy and has a tone of cultural amantities; is tat its best attribute, IMHO no, is it bad in this regard, no
On DC and positive and negative connotations. Think about it this way; DC got all the jobs; but will also get the discourse associated with what produced the jobs. Get it a two way street and it isnt some utopia, not a bad at all either
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.
