Museum pet peeve

Recently returned from a week-long trip to New York City. Chris and I were there for a wedding and squeezed in lots of touristing.

I had been to NY many times before but this was the first time I went to MoMa and the Met. These are the major leagues of museums. We don't have anything comparable in L.A. Maybe the Getty, but it doesn't have the quantity of big hitters that its NY counterparts do.

MoMa was absolutely mind-blowing. Art's greatest hits, if you will. You turn a corner and bam! There's Picasso's "Three Musicians." Or Jasper John's "American Flag." Or Matisse's dancers. There was a room of Mexican art too with the real pieces of work I had only seen as prints growing up. The place is so packed with top works that Andrew Wyeth's "Christina's World" was relegated to a hallway leading to the restrooms! I might have missed it had nature not have called.

There used to be an etiquette in museums that allowed people time in front of a work before they moved on or moved back for a fuller view. This was not the case at MoMa or the Met. I was constantly peeved by the heavy presence of cameras and their owners who, in essence, take stills of stills. In some cases, they even take video of stills, which is ridiculous considering the pieces are inanimate objects 99 percent of the tim.

People would pose for pictures in front of pieces, throw you looks if you walked into their photos; snap at you to get out of the frame.

Excuse me but the whole point of shelling out $20 for a museum is to experience the art. The art that's hanging right in front of you. The art that a photo couldn't possibly capture.

These people need to stop ruining the experience for those of us who understand that seeing the work in person outweighs ever seeing it duplicated in any form, even the digital one.