arrow-right cart chevron-down chevron-left chevron-right chevron-up close menu minus play plus search share user email pinterest facebook instagram snapchat tumblr twitter vimeo youtube subscribe dogecoin dwolla forbrugsforeningen litecoin amazon_payments american_express bitcoin cirrus discover fancy interac jcb master paypal stripe visa diners_club dankort maestro trash

Spots, Sights and Sounds

National Museum of American Art Portrait Gallery feels like gallery of rich-people selfies

National Museum of American Art Portrait Gallery feels like gallery of rich-people selfies

by Christian Michael

November 24, 2018


So, I admit up front that I first thought this was the National Museum of American Art. On the first floor, it seemed exactly that. I went in and turned left and there were no "portraits," per se. It was lots of period art from the 1930's.

As I progressed, most of the art focused on portraiture, but even on the third floor, the art ranged away from portraits into a variety of other art. It wasn't until I sat to write this review that I realized it was the National Portrait Gallery which, for me, is disappointing.

I don't care much for photos of famous dead people, in general. I like a verb in my art, and portraits rarely have them. There are some amazing epic pieces throughout -- paintings of Yosemite and the Rockies, or farmers along the Adirondacks, but portraiture doesn't much appeal to me. It was a nice experience, but I think I liked the architecture more than the building's content. Still, if you love museums, it's worth the stop.

I thought rather highly of the exhibits on space photography, as well as the third floor "storage exhibit," where they show how art is displayed long-term in climate controlled environments.

 

 

0 comments


Leave a comment

Please note, comments must be approved before they are published

Shopping Cart