> > Impressionism is probably my favorite era in painting -- Renoir, Degas, Manet, Monet, etc, are all artists whose work I adore. I'm not crazy about Van Gogh, but I like some of it.
> >

I like impressionism, yet, when I had the chance to see it in juxtaposition (more or less) with more classical works, it just didn't seem to "hold up" in comparison--either in technique or in emotional responses evoked. It seemed blah and elementary next to some of the more soaring, dramatic classics. I realize that's probably comparing apples to oranges, but that's the, er, impression it made on me when I last visited the Getty Museum (which houses Van Gogh's "Irises", by the way). Perhaps I would have had a different opinion if I saw them in a different setting?--the heart of the Getty is really the antiquities--Roman and Greek.

On a side note, I had as much fun watching the people there as I did looking at the art. A group of mentally retarded adults were visiting. They moved pretty rapidly though the galleries and sseemed to enjoy the pictures with animals in them the most. There was also large class of high school students who seemed very interested and enthusiastic about the exhibits. Their mood was in contrast to their drab and colorless clothing, and I wondered why no one had on anything brighter than grey. I saw a blind woman and her guide dog. She was dressed from head to toe in black, which did *not* look drab but really very stylish. The Getty is not a particularly interactive or touch-friendly museum, however, so I wondered how much value she really would get out of her visit. Maybe she was there to visit the gardens?

Back to the art: I found that it became overwhelming to try to look at *all* the art, so after a while I decided to just concentrate in detail just on one or two pictures in each gallery--sometimes the one that most grabbed my eye when I walked in, and sometimes the one that least did. This seemed much more satisfying. Anyone else do this?

koalamom