Or create a separate museum for Monalisa and few top exhibits for tourists interested only in them.
In 10 years, bus full of tourists will go straight to the pyramid, then straight to the Da Vinci exhibit, take their goddamn selfie, and leave. The rest of the visitors will mostly enter through the historical entrances and never interact with those throngs of Mona Lisa lookie loos.
The Louvre is doing exactly what makes the most sense; they're not stupid, they're just not very fast, as is usual for a museum.
Slap a copyright on that post and DM me!
> It seems like such a waste for people to fawn over that one painting and pretty much ignore all the other masterpieces you can see there
I think you're making the rather large assumption that everyone is into art in the first place, and thus find it surprising that they would fail to appreciate everything other than the Mona Lisa.
In reality, I suspect a lot of folks just weren't going to go to the museum at all otherwise. They only go to see the Mona Lisa, not because they think it's a particularly magnificent piece of art, but simply because:
(a) they don't want to look silly saying they visited Paris but didn't see the most famous painting in the world there, and/or
(b) the whole world talks about it, and they naturally want to experience whatever it is, to maybe see what all the fuss is about.
Such reasons are pretty natural, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the intrinsic merits of -- or appreciation of -- the Mona Lisa relative to whatever else is there. It could've just been a hole in the wall, and if it had been the most famous thing in the world, it would've prompted a similar reaction.
It’s amazing how much fame sort circuits reasoning in the human mind.
My memories of the Mona Lisa is of a rather small paint behind dirty glasses with a large group of japanese tourists grouped in front of it and I simply didn't have the patience to wait and I just really glanced at it while passing by.
Also like most paints of its age, it is seriously damaged, colors aren't the original one and paint is cracked. I wish there was a way to actually enjoy in person those paints as they were when they were delivered to their customers.
My memories of the few times I've been to the Louvre are exactly the same as yours.
Musee d'Orsay down the river is a much better museum in my opinion and the one I never skip when I'm in Paris, the Louvre I'll only go to if someone I'm with has never been and really wants to.
The number of times a glare on the glass obscured the work, or I've walked through a room completely befuddled about what I'm looking at until finally on my way out discovering that I entered from the "wrong" direction and they intended that I take one very specific weird meandering path through the halls, and I get no info until the end of an exhibit otherwise, is ridiculous. On top of that, I feel like I get some history and analysis per artist or per period when what I really want is per work, explaining how they painted it, what they were thinking about or referring to (since art is almost always part of a conversation), and what's notable about that specific work. I'd also probably like fewer pieces from a given artist in a row and just have more a collection of contemporaries that drew inspiration from each other in a sequence so I can see how techniques and vocabularies developed, rather than "Here's the artist room. He was very famous and used a lot of color. We have access to these for a month, so take a good look."
It's weird just how much better science museums are at exhibit building. Please, art museums, crib their notes!
I also which a normal entry fee would allows you to comeback several times in a period. I don't have the stamina to contemplate 300 art pieces in a row. Can I watch 300 movies in the same day or can I even listen to 300 music records while giving them my full attention in a day? Nope.