The MET

I realized, during my trip to NYC, how much of the art in the MET was sponsored and created in order to revere religion and the rich. The shear number of portraits of the rich or the noble amazed me.

I think is says something about us that we honor these things. Well, now that I think of it, I don’t really think anyone who goes to the MET, or any other museum at that, really goes to see a portrait of a rich women or man from the 1600’s or a picture of the resurrection. I think these are just filler pieces.

It seems that in order for a museum to be considered world class, it has to have a massive collection on display. Like the Louvre in Paris, France.

Most people go to a museum to see the famous pieces, by artists they have heard about, like Picasso. Not to see all the filler pieces.

However, I also think that these pieces have left a mark on people. In general, it seems that people judge a piece of artwork by the skill it took to create it. I think this criteria is wrong.

Art should be judged by the emotion it brings out in you, by what it is trying to say and by how you relate to it. Not by the skill of the artist to create a photograph like painting.

This, I believe, is the main barrier that many people face when they are confronted with contemporary and modern art.