That was quite a show. I was up there earlier this year for the first exhibit.
And just to brag a little, I was fortunate enough to visit the actual D’Orsay in Paris. We were supposed to go to the Louvre, but it was too difficult to get in, so we had to “settle” for the D’Orsay. Now, I’m sure the Louvre is wonderful, but I was blown away by the stuff at the D’Orsay.
Of course, living in the South Bay, I think I can dodge the “elite” label. Too close to San Jose, you know. 
Interestingly enough, the European art community’s reaction to Warhol’s work was to assme it was an ironic commentaryon the soullessness of capitalism; a Marxist paen, as it were.
If true, that would have rebutted your use of this example.
But it almost certainly ain’t. 
My personal Paris list (based on available time in town)
The Louvre - every time.
Rodin - every time.
D’Orsay - maybe.
Pompidou - never again. This is the first place I think of when I think of edgy crap. This is where I saw a urinal hanging on the wall. This is where I saw a painting done in menstrual blood. This is a museum that my wife and I walked out of rather than linger. I won’t say it was not art, but I sure as hell did not enjoy it or appreciate it. There is some great stuff there, but some of the newer pieces were just not doing it for me.
I’m sure you’re not alone.
My own wish would be for more artists to study logic.
I never said that art is not designed to make you think. It certainly CAN be – it just doesn’t HAVE to be.
I’m too lazy to go back and see if you were the person that chided me for my supposed lack of art history knowledge, but surely YOU are aware that the definition of what constitutes art is in some dispute. Is architecture art? Even if form follows function, as the Bauhaus school folks preached? Must it also “have the potential to offend?”
But that said… congratulations on your first gallery show!
I envy you for having seen the Musee Rodin. I’ve been to to Philadelphia version several times. And I’m shocked at the “maybe” for D’Orsay. I mean… Degas!
I’m shocked as well. Having been to them all, I’d put the Musee D’Orsay at the top, Rodin 2nd, and the Louvre last (by a long stretch). Agree the Pompidou is worthless, though.
I impressionism isn’t your cup of tea, then I can see why it would be on a “maybe” list.
Just be sure that some sort of strike is going on when you visit Paris (which is not hard to do). You won’t get the full French experience without one.
The top target for me now is the Prado, in Madrid. I’m a huge fan of Goya…
We hope to go in Fall 2011…
Hey listen up asshole, I’ve probably been to more art museums, in more continents, in the last 10 years then you’ll ever go to in your pathetic fucking life. As a matter of fact the last time I went to an art museum was last Saturday. I like modern art just fine. I have a Klimpt poster on my wall. I just think that the crack in the floor of the Tate and other bullshit that pretends to be oh so dangerous is drivel, and often art settles for being deliberately offensive rather than good.
That’s not what the experts say:
Manet was vilified by the public in his day. Therefore opponents to Smithsonian’s curator choices are Philistines. Art is suppose to challenge, to shock, to make one uncomfortable, but most of all to provide grist for accomplished poseurs like myself.
Neither does a Jackson Pollack.
Somehow though, you are pretty ignorant of what art is out there though. All of the examples you mentioned exist. They are displayed all of the time. If you go to art museums as often as you say you do, you should know that. There is no monolith of pretentious art critics controlling what you see.
From what I read, Warhol did not at all mean it ironically. I understood his commentary as a comfort that a wealthy person and a poor person could sit down and enjoy the same cup of soup. I interpret that as a compliment to Campbell’s Soup. I could be wrong. I have no doubt capitalist art gets displayed in art museums. SFMOMA has a whole room dedicated to modern manufacturing products. I thought the Apple laptop was a little odd, but you don’t get much more capitalist than that.
Klimt. Congratulations though, since that puts you in the company of approximately 83% of dormed freshman.
Klimt is considered modern art?
Why yes it is.
I’d like those of you are aghast at the prospect of people being upset by the art exhibit to honestly consider this scenario:
Two identical images of Jesus on the cross, painted in shades or red/brown, are submitted for consideration. The material for one says it was painted with blood drawn from people living with AIDs and represents the struggles associated with being a sexual minority in our hetero-normative society.
The material for the other says it was painted in blood drawn from the umbilical cord of still born babies and represents the suffering of aborted fetuses in a society that allows the murder of innocent babies.
Which of those is more likely to be accepted for exhibition in a prestigious gallery?
Which of those truly challenges the views of the typical patron of those galleries?
Don’t know, don’t care.
Both are probably artworks that i would find relatively uninteresting, as artworks. Also, despite the fact that i’m pro-choice, neither would particularly offend me. I’ve seen more gruesome pictures held up by anti-abortion protesters on a number of occasions.
Perhaps most importantly, for the topic of this debate, neither one being hung in the Smithsonian would cause me to call for defunding of the Institution.
I’d really expect that MC Escher, Klee, Hocking, and pictures of Bob Marley are more popular than Vienna Secessionism.
So an exhibit that says homo-phobia and AIDs are bad challenges you and makes you uncomfortable? It’s nice that you’ll admit to that, but it makes you kind of a dick.
That was a joke.
Hey, at least I don’t go around bragging about the pedestrian hangings on my wall.