The Museum of Modern Art had wonderful moments. I thought the gift shop was awesome, though I couldn't come to any decisions on what to buy, there was just too much.
I've always seen art as a reflection of history. It shows me something about the time period in which it was created. Whether it's designed to emulate a certain style, or meant to counter certain artistic principles, art tells a story.
The thing is, I'm just not as interested in the more recent stories. I know that expression is important, and a lot happened in the latter end of the 20th century, but I still just don't get certain forms of art. I can't see how leaving a canvas completely white holds any artistic value against some of the masterpieces out there.
You can justify its importance all you want, I just like to look at something that displays some kind of skill. If I can do it myself, I don't need to look at it in a museum.
The MoMa has certain installations that fall under the category of Art with a capital A. I honestly did see a blank canvas screwed to the wall. I also saw a video of people pulling hair out of their mouths and draping it all over a guy. I did not enjoy said video.
What MoMA did have that I enjoyed: Van Gogh, Frida Kahlo, Picasso, Rousseau, Monet, and Manet. I even like Pollock, and Roy Lichtenstein's "Drowning Girl" is really cool too. "Campbell's Soup Cans" and "Gold Marilyn Monroe" by Andy Warhol were crowded, but I pushed my way in front to get a good view.
They have a really amazing prints section displaying work by Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec that appealed to my theatrical side and he did numerous play posters in a style reminiscent of art nouveau.
I liked the MoMA, and I think if there was an exhibit on an artist I love I would visit it again. Having said that though, I would certainly visit the Met again, no matter what their special exhibitions are.
