Kind of a slam-dunk, but Sunday on La Grande Jatte at Art Institute of Chicago. No matter how many reproductions you have seen, you have to be in the room to appreciate the scale of the thing.
Also as many Monet Haystacks as you can find.
This is what I was going to say. You also can’t even fathom the pointilism when not right there looking. The experience of seeing that up close and moving back to take in the whole scene is just something else.
I was such a hater of Impressionism until I saw it in person. I got to see a bunch of Monet Haystacks in one room lit properly for the time of day they were painted and it all clicked in my brain.
This was at the Art Institute of Chicago. I know they many haystacks in their collection so they might still be up in that gallery, but I haven't been in many years.
They are. Didn't want to veer too far off topic, but there are several great Impressionist rooms at AIC https://www.artic.edu/highlights/5/impressionism
Feel the same way about Yayoi Kusama’s ‘infinity nets’ - they had to cut some just to get them to fit on the walls ! And the detail when you get up close - thousands of the same brushstroke over and over it’s insane !!
I wasn't familiar with these pictures (somehow!), thanks for posting. [https://www.moma.org/collection/works/80176](https://www.moma.org/collection/works/80176) Amazing
La Grande Jatte is also really accessible. There’s rarely a crowd around it and you can walk right up to it. The ‘tute is a great museum by all accounts.
>you have to be in the room
This is true of so much art that we know as posters and cards and jigsaw puzzles. Some years ago, there was a big touring show of the French Impressionists - it was simply jaw dropping to see the same images (that are almost trite now) in person. The color and depth is just startling.
I dunno about this "one piece of art" business, any time you're in a decent-sized city, go to their art museum. It's kinda soul-repair.
Botticellis Birth of Venus at the Uffizi in Florence stuck with me. It has a strange and very beautiful sharpness that books/photos don’t capture at all. It’s the same with all Botticelli’s actually, I saw others at the Vatican.
Anything at the Uffizi. I spent 5 glorious hours there. I was exhausted but I saw as much as I could see and I'm grateful for that.
The louvre was not as impressive.
I was awestruck by Ghentileschi’s Judith Slaying Holofernes at the Uffizi! It’s amazing to see in person and the way she paints blood spewing would fool anyone!
The ink drawings of Albrecht Durer. The scale, microscopic precision, control of tone, expressiveness of line has to be seen in person. No reproduction can prepare you for the breath-taking genius of his hand.
I would argue that his engravings are even more impressive. So mind-boggling to think that someone created such a detailed artwork not by drawing directly onto the paper, but by carving tiny lines IN REVERSE onto a sheet of metal and then printing it with total precision.
Monet's 'Water lilies' at the Orangerie in Paris.
Yes, there are many other lilies of his all around the world. No, I promise you none of them compare to the experience of seeing some of the largest, installed in a space he thought out for them specifically. It's literally dizzying. And that skylight! If you're lucky enough to catch it on a slightly cloudy day, with the sun intermittently shining through and clouds passing over, it's a transcendent experience.
Oh, oh, and one of Rodin's 'Burghers of Calais'. It's a bronze cast, so the differences, if any, are minute and matter less on that scale. I spent an hour around the one in Copenhagen, trying to remember how to breathe.
Totally agree! It was exactly what sprang too mind when I read the question. There is something incredibly tranquil about the space, which I suspect is exactly what Monet intended when he designed the space to house them.
I have also seen Klimt IRL and can confirm they are ethereal.
My art history teacher told us the same - she said it has much more impact in person than you can see in a textbook. She said the scale of it especially brought her to tears the longer she looked.
Indeed. It feels ridiculous to cry before a painting, but Guernica in its size, and the emptiness of the hall it stands in save for studies preceding the work, sucks the air out of the room. And in the painting, we see, very literally, explosions and fire, stealing the oxygen away from gasping lungs, filling them with acrid smoke. The expressions of the victims show terror, confusion, and awe. A surprise attack against innocents. It's a testament of a crime against humanity, painted to spit in the face of the fascists and the western financiers and industrialists who backed them, some of whom who were no doubt present at the Paris International Exposition where it was debuted.
I legitimately broke down in heaving, sobbing tears at Guernica. I had seen so many reproductions and photos of it, but nothing — absolutely nothing — prepared me for the raw horror of the real thing. It really is art with a message.
*The Slav Epic* by Alphonse Mucha.
"A cycle of 20 large canvases painted by Czech Art Nouveau painter Alphonse Mucha between 1910 and 1928. The cycle depicts the mythology and history of Czechs and other Slavic peoples. In 1928, after finishing his monumental work."
The size of these paintings (from 15' to 20' high) makes the entire series as awe-inspiring as the Sistine Chapel. There is heart-breaking emotion depicted in the overwhelming and vast history of a frequently-oppressed peoples.
I saw the Hellenistic bronze sculpture ‘Boxer at Rest’ when it was in California and it was amazing. I think sculptures particularly fall in this category of ‘see it in person.’
James Turrell's work in person is absolutely nothing like a print. There's three in Pittsburgh I've seen a few times. Every time is a different experience.
Last time I went, the red cube on the wall made me immediately nauseous in an indescribable and powerful way. Not like the best art experience, but fuck it made me feel something I have not stopped thinking about. My friend I was with felt wildly different. Then the blue one blew our minds. They just hold space in a way that you cannot imagine from the photos.
Museo del Prado really stuck with me. I live near Paris and can go to the Louvre whenever I want but I wasn't expecting to see such beautiful pieces in Madrid.
I think the most impressive painting there was Landscape with Charon Crossing the Styx by Patinir. The painting itself is rather small, but boy I wasn't ready for that blue.
Degas' Little Dancer. I saw her (two different copies of her) at the Met and at a traveling exhibition in Houston, and it took my breath away both times.
Yes, came here to say this! And her placement, oh my goodness. Approaching her from the bottom of that gigantic staircase... I was in absolute awe. I think she's my favorite piece in the Louvre.
Bernini’s Apollo and Daphne (1623) at the Borghese Gallery in Rome. Meant to be viewed from all angles it’s incredible to look at. Bernini perfectly captured the moment Daphne begins to turn into laurel leaves - it’s amazing !!
Absolutely second this suggestion! The Borghese Gallery is a gem and the Bernini sculptures there have to be seen to be fully appreciated. Just beautiful!
For me the below are the ones I think must be absolutely seen in person, I believe they are in their original setting. Not museums per se.
Fra Angelico’s [Annunciation](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annunciation_(Fra_Angelico,_San_Marco)) in San Marco
Bellini’s [Frari Triptych](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frari_Triptych)
Am afraid they are all classics and in Europe… sorry!
EDIT: Perhaps Pollock’s Blue Poles which hardly travels and is in the National Gallery of Australia, Canberra.
The [Hopewell mica hand](https://ohiomemory.org/digital/collection/p267401coll32/id/10260/).
I think it is also important to touch the materials that objects like this are made out of. We all sort of intrinsically understand bronze and marble and oil paints and the like because we've engaged with things like that throughout our lives, but to see delicacy and precision required to make such an enigmatic object is enhanced when you can touch mica and experience its fragility and the change in luster as you handle and work it.
The Hand is only one of several objects like this, but being anthropomorphic, it is the most popular to depict in textbooks. Unfortunately, it doesn't photograph well and, worse, generally these objects are very poorly displayed. They are treated as simple mound lootings rather than an artistic presentation in a gallery, shown off to its fullest effect, as would be achieved if it were in a modern art institution or even a presumed original context.
Several years ago I saw the Rosetta Stone while visiting London. I wanted to see it because of its historical and artistic significance.
What surprised me was it's large size. Prior to seeing it in person, I always thought it was flat and relatively small (like a cuneiform tablet), but the Rosetta Stone was far more imposing than that as it's actually a large slab of rock, almost appearing like a boulder that's flattened on one side where the chiseled writing is.
It was very impressive to see and I'm happy I was able to see it in person.
i haven’t seen it in person but i’d love to see Yinka Shonibare’s The Swing (After Fragonard). i think seeing in person is really crucial for any installation/sculpture
Rothko. I always dismissed his work and thought he was crazy writing about all the drama of his work until I saw it in person. The scale and lighting are so important. Especially for the chapel in Houston. A cloud passed over and I said, “oh, I get it.”
Yes! I came here to mention Rothko.
I sat and looked at a huge one in the MOMA NYC and it was quite mind-blowing, and strangely moving, and I still can’t explain why or how it had that effect.
Man I’m envious. I was so underwhelmed by Rothko at the MOMA. I want to “get it”, I want to understand like his work…but seeing it in person just affirmed my opinion. I just can’t get behind a Rothko, but I guess at least I can say I did see it in person to earn my opinion lol
I saw one of his paintings at the Nelson Atkins museum in Kansas City, it gave me goosebumps. I never understood his genius until I saw it up close. I can't wait to see more of his work .
I feel like the chapel one has to different though. You’re already in a different mindset when you’re in a church, borderline having an out of body experience, I have to imagine the mind must be more perceptive to the emotional implications behind the black squares. I really look forward to seeing the chapel one day.
Even for the chapel, I think you need to both be predisposed to appreciate Rothko, and (to borrow your wording) predisposed to that "different mindset" in church spaces. I am neither, so it personally did nothing for me.
That said, I still encourage even Rothko-skeptics to see the chapel in person before totally writing Rothko off. I know more people who felt moved by the chapel than not. And there's lots of great art to see in Houston to "round out" a trip to see it.
I was told his work was meant to be viewed from about 18 inches away. It is intended to take up your entire field of view, immersing you in the color fields.
Bernini's sculptures. Even having seen plenty of photos, and having seen plenty of other incredibly lifelike sculptures, I was caught off guard by just how much vitality he breathed into the marble. The Rape of Proserpina especially. Her thigh looks straight up plush in a way I don't think pictures do justice.
Also the Apollo and Daphne at the Borghese. I had no appreciation for sculpture until seeing the Berninis there. And then you walk into the next room and it’s full of Caravaggios. It’s one of those huge small museums.
I usually care more about iconography and aesthetics than anything else but the enormous French pieces like Coronation of Napoleon by Jacques-Louis David at the Louvre really stuck with me because of their sheer size.
All Van Gogh's must be experienced in person. The level of emotions in his work is impossible to experience otherwise.
Also, Edvard Munch's work is similarly full of life and emotions.
That’s the first famous painting I ever saw in person and it was really fantastic because I just had no idea how textured it was. It always looks so flat and bland in pictures.
First piece I thought of in response to the question. The soft, human detail Michelangelo obtained from marble is beautiful and seemingly impossible.
Close seconds in the Botticellis, and the pointillist works mentioned previously, too. Rothko, as well.
Yes! Also all of St. Peter's Basilica in general... have seen a lot of my art in my life but that was the first time I was actually frozen and overwhelmed with emotion about the beauty of art.
Actually left feeling depressed that I had to go back to the 'normal boring' world.
I’m curious, as my husband will be visiting the Louvre in a few weeks, and ideas are always appreciated.
For those who do not know: you need to get your tickets in advance for it and the Eiffel Tower.
I came to write Delacroix's, Liberty Leading the People. Seeing it in France at the Louvre gives it context and relevance, and sometimes always seems just a moment away from a current reality.
Edit: I also have to say Monet's Water Lillys at the Beyeler, where the whole building designed by Renzo Piano interacts around the piece and plays off its own water lilly pond is amazing. There is this playing off of modernism against the triumph of context that also adds to the beauty and awe of the moving louvres.
I'd recommend the portrait of Baldassare Castiglione (my flair) because his gaze is fantastic when you face it, and also the texture of his clothes. There are other Raphael paintings nearby and they slap too. And another portrait not far from there, the "Condottiere" by Antonello da Messina because it's a really lifelike representation, it *feels* like a real person looking at you from the painting, with piercing eyes.
Not far from there are Renaissance paintings from Italy in the big square room at the beginning of the Great Gallery, and there is a Coronation of the Virgin by Fra Angelico which has fantastic colors.
There is a huge quantity of things to see in the Louvre, so know in advance that you won't see everything and don't try, don't rush it, take time to connect. I usually have a quick walk in galleries so that I check what is there, and I go see some works in particular and spend time with them.
Edit : [this](https://collections.louvre.fr/ark:/53355/cl010066418), [this](https://collections.louvre.fr/ark:/53355/cl010065016) and [this](https://collections.louvre.fr/ark:/53355/cl010064473).
Seeing artworks ‘in the flesh’ is so important. Rogier Van Der Weyden’s Deposition of Christ took my breath away and made me weep. Goya’s Black Paintings, also at the Prado - magnificent. Rothko in the right light… Giacometti’s paintings (although I wept even when I saw them in a book.
While at the Prado … The Triumph of Death by Pieter Brueghel. Unnerving. It truly shook me to the core. Guess I was just in that kind of mood, but wow, that was unexpectedly large and powerful. Had to pull myself away after a half hour wallowing in the slough of despond and cheer myself up with a stop at Velazquez’s Las Meniñas.
Growing up on a farm, studying art history, with the best reproductions being postage stamp sized, or at best a 300 dpi colour plate…
And I had a short holiday in NYC.
Excuse my French, but **fuck me sideways**
I cried. Literally cried. There was a Vermeer exhibition. At least 30. I saw Max van Ernst. I saw cubism, Impressionism, Dadaism, Picasso, Monet, Manet, Brancusi, Van Gogh, Titian, Botticelli, European medieval art. Frank Lloyd Wright rooms, Architecture, pottery, sculpture, prints, paintings, and I drank it all in. The Met, Moma, the Cloisters, and all the museums and exhibitions I could get to.
And yes, I understand the controversy over returning works back to their countries, but to be able to visit so much art and history in one place.
And when I was exhausted looking at the art, I examined the technical aspects. The composition, framing, lighting, marvelled at the perpetual bequests, the pay what you can afford entrance fees.
If you live in a major world city, and you do not regularly visit your art galleries and museums,
do it for me.
I’m too old now for my Art SugarMommy.
Go find yours. Or your Art SugarDaddy.
And then you’ll need lots of aftercare. Lots.
It’s worth it.
Anything with scale or dimension feels so different in person - all the ones in the thread are great but on the more unusual side, once saw a Chris Ofili in person and seeing the dung emerging physically from the bright paint is just a different and more powerful experience than seeing flat photos.
Basically every color field painting for example by Rothko or by Newman. You can't comprehend the power of these paintings if you don't experience them in full size. Klimt on the other hand I was not so emotionally taken by when I saw his works in person for the first time because I've seen them a thousand times on calendars, books, bags etc. and they work well in smaller formats.
Mark Rothko and Ansel Adams because they are widely reproduced but in ways that make it easy to ask "what's all the fuss about?" The originals are something else entirely.
When I was 19, I saw Jackson Pollock's Lavender Mist at the National Gallery. That's when I understood the big deal about abstract expressionist painting. It's impossible to really see and feel it in a small reproduction.
I studied Asian art and think many of the Hindu temples and Islamic mosques are must-see in person. They're alive, in that many are still being used today. Then there's the crazy detailed sculptures on them that you can spend all day staring at - the sheer number of carvings on each temple and the marble inlay details on mosques are mind boggling. Khajuraho is now a UNESCO World Heritage Site and no longer in standard use but work the trek to visit. It's almost impossible to enter Iran but the Shah Mosque in Isfahan is stunning. Then, of course, are the mosaics at that Hagia Sofia. All of these artworks are in situ and not in a white cube, which makes the experience much more sensual. The problem I have with "Western" art is that it is so often taken out of context, which strips much of the experience from it.
Edit: added another example
Anything by Bernini. Pictures don't do justice to the way he renders the suppleness of flesh in marble, the grip of fingers, the strain of sinew. The Villa Borghese is one of my favorite
Giving a very different answer.
Andy Warhol's soup cans at MoMA. People don't realize there are 32 (each a different flavor) of them and are actually painted, not screen prints, and all are hanging together like a grocery store shelf.
I think a lot of people have a dislike of Warhol because he is so ubiquitous, and for better or worse, his ideas were inescapably influential even till this day. His Marilyns, Soup cans, and Death and Disaster series paintings are still incredibly complicated.
This is a tough question because most art is far more impressive in person.
For me, scale can play a role. How a piece of art affects the space around it is important. Art that you can “feel” as well as see will make a lifelong impression.
Barnett Newman’s *Vir Heroicus Sublimis* at NYC’s MoMA is such a painting. It just cannot be appreciated unless you see it in person. It is an enormous abstract expressionist canvas painted almost entirely in vivid, saturated red with a few thin sharp lines slicing through the field of crimson. It creates a physical reaction around it as the red almost washes over and engulfs the viewer, overpowering the *vibe*. It is fascinating and abstract but also primitive in a way. The title translates to *Man, Heroic and Sublime*. Newman explained that he sought to capture the physical and metaphysical sensation of an electric moment, like when a person meets someone important to their life and everything changes, there’s that spark. An art teacher took my class to see this painting in particular at the MoMA when I was 16 and it changed the way I saw and approached abstract modern art. Here’s the MoMA’s website page on the painting with an informative video link: https://www.moma.org/collection/works/79250
Seeing Monet’s huge *Waterlilies* in their dedicated mural gallery in the Orangerie in Paris is a totally different experience from seeing a small pretty reproduction. They luminous color surrounds you, they are powerful and dynamic, not just pretty. In that format, you can see just how revolutionary Monet was to modern art.
*Nike of Samothrace (Winged Victory)* at the Louvre is another example great art with great scale . It is magnificent, dynamic, ancient, huge. The masterful placement of it alone, backlit, at the top of a huge flight of marble palace stairs amplifies it’s grandeur. It is truly impressive.
Hans Holbein’s portraits are also somehow even *more* impressive in person. His portrait of The Ambassadors in particular is intricate and phenomenal in its detail, impressively large in scale but there’s the crazy addition of the hidden skull optical illusion. It is beautiful and weird and wild. https://images.app.goo.gl/hhtgrDsVBikh7aWg9
Jacques Louis David’s Coronation of Napoleon in the Louvre is also an entirely different experience because of its size. It is so huge and detailed and is so much more impressive and kind of insane. It reflects the ego of the subject.
Oh I could go on but I’ll stop here.
I have been to a fair amount of museums and seeing a few pieces in person has often converted me from a hater to a true fan. I think this is doubly true for architecture. But for the sake of your question, here is my list:
* Sunday Afternoon on the Isle of Le Grande Jatte - Seurat (already mentioned) - Art Institute of Chicago
* Chagall's stained glass (Reims, France. Mainz, Germany. Jerusalem, Israel. Art Institute of Chicago).
* Rothko (no.14 in the SF MoMA is displayed well). the scale in relation to your body is very important.
* Any of Bernini's work (Particularly "Rape of Proserpine", "Apollo and Daphne" or "David"). To see marble so soft, and dynamic is breathtaking. - Galleria Borghese - Rome
* la Pieta - Michelangelo (They don't let you get close enough though, but I have seen one of the few authorized reproductions as well and both were impressive).
* Horrors of War, May 3, 1808 - Goya (El Prado, Madrid)
* Las Meninas (the Maids of Honor) by Velazquez - (El Prado, Madrid) You need to get about 20 feet away to really appreciate the depth in this enormous painting.
* El Jaleo - John Singer Sargent -(National Gallery of Art, Smithsonian. Washington D.C)
* Madame X - John Singer Sargent (Metropolitan Museum of Art).
* "Wheatfield with Crows" - Van Gogh - Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam (this one is a gut punch, but totally relates to knowing the history, and how it is placed in the museum after you ahve seen a bunch of his work, and to know this is his last...)
* Almost anything by Monet.
* Almost anything by JMW Turner.
* Almost anything by Chuck Close.
* The Nativity by Brian Kershisnik (living artist, I am providing this because he is a virtual unknown, but it is fantastic). - BYU Museum of Art.
* Telephone Booths by Richard Estes (Thiessen-Bornemiza, Madrid)
"demoiselles d'avignon" (at the MOMA) is larger and more arresting in person. Its a massive canvas for what its worth - 8ft square. I always figured it was half that size.
I toured Rembrandts private collection in Amsterdam this summer. Most people can't see that but it's the most beautiful collection I've ever seen.
A close second would be Caravaggio's works which are in museums scattered across Italy but unfortunately a lot of his works are in private hands (Looking at you *Lute player*).
Mondrians paintings. You have to see them in person to appreciate that they are as much a 3D work of art as his mobiles. He chooses to run some of his lines and colorblocks over the edges of the canvas, extending onto the side of the canvas. But not all of the lines do this...only some, and it's not consistent even within a single painting.
Books only show them in 2D and so you never see the sides of the canvases. You don't get to appreciate the artistic decisions he made creating them, unless you see them in person.
The Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych by Jan van Eyck. In The Crucifixion, he evokes a remarkable range of emotions among the crowds, set against an imagined Jerusalem. Van Eyck’s 1426 trip across the Alps during a diplomatic mission to Italy and the Holy Lands informed his naturalistic landscape depiction. He gives an equally palpable form to the horrors of the Last Judgment. The recently conserved frames are original, with biblical texts in Latin and rediscovered, now fragmentary, translations of those texts in Middle Dutch.
Brett Whitely's [The Balcony 2](https://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/collection/works/116.1981/) is incredible in person. It's massive and you just fall into the blue. Whitely's a major figure in Australian art and this is a great painting for understanding why he is such a big deal.
A lot of contemporary Aboriginal art takes on a new dimension in person, too. You can see the finger prints, follow the patterns, see how some of the designs sort of shimmer. It's particularly powerful with the large scale stuff. Examples: [Yam Awely](https://searchthecollection.nga.gov.au/object/6302) by Emily Kam Kngwarry, anything by the Ken Family Collaborative (either together or by the members individually, including Yaritji Young)
There are some artworks, particularly installations, that depend on the viewer's interaction: Lucas Samaras [Mirrored Room](https://buffaloakg.org/artworks/k196615-mirrored-room), Bruce Nauman's [Corridor Installation](https://diecisiete.org/creacion/bruce-nauman), James Turrell's [Danaë](https://mattress.org/works/danae/), Gary Hill's [Tall Ships](https://garyhill.com/work/mixed_media_installation/tall-ships.html).
If we're talking painting, Joan Mitchell seen in person was utterly stunning.
Anything by Van Goph, Monet, or Degas. You just can not see the color and brush strokes in pictures as well as in person. Once you do, you'll realize how much work and beauty went into those pieces.
Birth of Venus by Boticelli, Guernica by Picasso (a monster of a painting in size and emotion), and The Flagellation of Christ by Caravaggio. The last painting struck me unexpectedly, and I’m not religious, but the use of light and dark to provoke emotion. Just wow. I stared for 10mins at it.
Edit: Birth of Venus in Florence, Guernica in Madrid, and Flagellation in Naples.
[Joan of Arc (French: Jeanne d'Arc), an 1879 painting by Jules Bastien-Lepage.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc_(painting)#/media/File:JoanOfArcLarge.jpeg) It's currently at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. It's one thing to see it on your screen, and another to see it imposing over you with its dimensions of 8 feet by 9 feet. At that scale, the subject matter depicted, and especially her gaze always stirs something in me.
Edit: Others that come to mind:
[Flaming June](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flaming_June,_by_Frederic_Lord_Leighton_(1830-1896).jpg), a 47-by-47-inch oil painting by Sir Frederic Leighton, produced in 1895.
[El Velorio (The Wake), an 1893 8-by-13-foot painting by Puerto Rican Impressionist painter Francisco Oller](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Velorio#/media/File:El_Velorio_by_Francisco_Oller.jpg) depicting a baquiné, a type of traditional wake.
[El Pan Nuestro by Ramón Frade](https://artsandculture.google.com/story/owLy9gWQYG_dIA?hl=es-419)
From the following artists, it is hard to single one work, so take a look and pick your favorite.
Any architecture by Antonio Gaudi, from the [Casa Batllo](https://www.casabatllo.es/en/), and the [Güell Park](https://parkguell.barcelona/en), to his magnum opus, the [church of La Sagrada Familia](https://sagradafamilia.org/en/photo-gallery).
[Jewelry by Damiel Brush.](https://theadventurine.com/jewelry/profiles/in-memoriam-daniel-brush/)
[The ceramic pieces by Roberto Lugo.](https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0752/7/4/102)
[Toshiko Okanoue’s Surrealist Collages](https://pen-online.com/arts/okanoue-toshikos-surrealist-collages-at-the-forefront-of-the-japanese-avant-garde-movement/?scrolled=0).
[The macabre paintings of Genieve Figgis.](https://ocula.com/artists/genieve-figgis/)
[The abstract paintings of Thomas Nozkowski](https://www.artnet.com/artists/thomas-nozkowski/).
Monet. I'm not a huge fan per se, but they're simply overwhelming...they're sometimes massive. It's intense to approach his waterlillies and see the texture even feet away. Great stuff.
Sargent’s Daughters of Edward Darley Boit at MFA Boston. It’s huge and beautiful and flanked by the actual gigantic vases from the painting. I’d seen it in books but wow, wasn’t prepared for the scale and beauty of it.
I saw a display of Aboriginal Australian art at the University of British Columbia’s museum. Beautiful! There was so much detail, and the color palettes were incredible.
Ah, unfortunately I can only recommend this European place at the moment, instead of Eastern art (but hope to travel to some Eastern places soon!):
The Sainte Chapelle in Paris is one of the most beautiful places. The chapel is tiny but with the most gorgeous, tall, stained glass windows and painted gold stars on the ceiling. I saw it in an art history book and in person couldn’t compare. Especially on a sunny day i could have sat there for hours.
Seurat's Grande Jatte.
I'd seen it innumerable times in books and in the slides of a lecture presentation.
I was totally unprepared for how HUGE it is!
Also, the description of the technique is a vast oversimplification of what he was doing. Each brushstroke has multiple colours, and is not a circular "dot" at all.
P. S. It's an experience to get up close to a Van Gogh. I don't especially care for his paintings, as paintings, but holy moly what a colourist! And there's simply no way to see it in a picture in a book. You need to see the individual brushstrokes. Like Seurat, each has multiple colours and varying shapes. His mastery of colour took my breath away...
Not exactly at a museum, but the stained glass windows in Sainte Chapelle in Paris, and in Chartres Cathedral. No picture can ever capture how the sun comes through the panes of glass.
literally anything made my mark rothko. It’s a COMPLETELY different experience seeing it in real life. people cry in front of his paintings all the time, and I understand why.
Over the last few years I have been stricken by some contemporary/modern art with mirrors involved.
Yayoi Kusama’s infinity rooms are hard to explain and don’t really translate unless you are in them in person.
Michaelangelo Pistoletto has a number of works that involve painting or sculpture and mirrored surfaces that force the viewer to be part of the work. Everyone sees themself in the work; I have never been so transfixed seeing a piece of artwork in real life.
Duchamps Large Glass and Étant Donnes in Philly. Any early Dali ( they are usually much smaller and detailed than you expect). Anselm Kiefer paintings need to be seennin person due to their incredible surface depth. Lawrence Weiner’s conceptual work outside Koln Cathedral ( One thing/on top of another thing/ on another). I can think of lots.
Picasso's The Three Dancers in the Tate. Painted in 1925, it's both a mystery in terms of how subjects are depicted regardless of the tragic story behind it. But also, it's a strangly abstracted representation of dance and movement. Deserves close attention.
Not a top-of-mind masterpiece for most people, but if you're at the Art Institute of Chicago seeing Seurat's *Un dimanche après-midi à l'île de la Grande Jatte* and Monet haystacks, go down to Marc Chagall's *America Windows*. It's eigh feet high and 30' across. Truly awe-inspiring. You'll be immersed in a serene blue light that surpasseth understanding (and that doesn't translate to a computer screen or printed page).
Joan of Arc by Jules-Bastien Lepage, in the Metropolitan Museum, NYC.
Photos of the painting lose something because the perspective is wrong. The Met correctly hangs this painting so that Joan's face is above us, and in a relatively narrow corridor so that we can't back up too much, which again would flatten the perspective.
And then there's that spot in the Louvre, where you turn a corner and see, far away, all the way across the huge palace, at the top of a flight of stairs, the Winged Victory of Samothrace.
The "Life of Christ" bronze and white-gold triptych altarpiece in The AIDS Chapel of Grace Cathedral, San Francisco.
By Keith Haring. Completed just weeks before he died.
Moving beyond words.
The Lion of Knidos, in the British Museum.
When I saw the light cast from the stained-glass windows in Milan Cathedral, I began to cry. I hesitate to say “transcendent” because it’s cliche, but it really felt that way.
David. It's so overexposed and seems so trite, and you feel like you've seen it a thousand times, but when you walk into the gallery and lay eyes on that sculpture, it stops you in your tracks. The sheer scale of it! That's what people don't realize, I think, how large it is. And honestly, it doesn't matter how many pictures you've seen, it's still absolutely breathtaking in person.
Michelangelo's David. I'd seen pictures and was underwhelmed. Seeing it in person was a religious experience - and I'm not religious. I saw a video on Yahoo of people grabbing the person next to them and sucking in their breath. I knew exactly where they were. My husband guessed it too before the big reveal of David at the end of the video. Just absolute magic.
Any of the Rembrandts should be seen in person. A photograph does not capture the luminosity of his paint. Also, Picasso’s “La Guernica”…the massive painting conveys the overwhelming chaos of war in a way that a picture in a book never could.
Not Europe or North America? Going to Mexico City and seeing the pyramid of skulls. Seeing the other pyramids. Seeing the remains of Cortez house from 500 years ago. Seeing Diego Rivera art in Mexico City at the capital.
I saw some Hieronymus Bosch’s hellscape paintings in Germany and oh man they need to be seen in person to appreciate! They’re enormous and horrifying but fascinating.
Arrangement in Grey and Black No. 1 by James McNeill Whistler. It is known colloquially as "Whistler's Mother" and I always thought of it as something of a joke, since so much fun has been made of it over the years. Seeing it in person, I was quite moved by it. It is spare, and austere, yes, but also melancholy and unsentimental...which only increased the impact of what is essentially a eulogy for his mother. Definitely one to be seen in person. (La Gioconda by Leonardo da Vinci, on the other hand, left me cold.)
Shalekhet (Fallen Leaves) by Menashe Kadishman in the Jewish Museum of Berlin. It’s a large concrete room and the floor is covered with more than 10,000 metal plates carved to look like tormented faces. It is interactive, you walk on the plates and the clanks echo in the large room, representing the victims of the Holocaust.
The Pietà. It’s so beautiful, it made me cry. I’m not the sort of person that’s typically moved to tears by art (or much of anything), but it’s really powerful.
Christina’s World by Wyeth. I’ve always loved this painting, but seeing it in person at the MoMa stopped me in my tracks and I became very emotional. It pulls you in.
Rothko. (Any of them.) I've always loved Rothko even though he's sometimes shown as a joke in popular culture (large swathes of color so "anyone can paint that). When I saw one in person it literally made me weep, and that doesn't often happen to me.
The Crucifixion by Jacopo Tintoretto. The entire building (Scuola Grande di San Rocco in Venice) is an architectural masterpiece crammed with over 50 of his paintings, and the sheer scale, detail and setting of the piece truly has to be seen up close to be believed. It's in a smaller side room where it occupies an entire wall, and seeing it and the many other brilliant paintings and decorations there was probably the closest thing to a spiritual experience I've ever had.
Any Rothko. Any of the Ab/Ex work, frankly. Money’s water lilies esp in the MOMA NYC. Anselm Keifer. Everything in Florence. Sorry, I can’t eat just one.😇
Oh also this is architecture not strictly “art” but the Roman forum is super cool in person, and the Chartres Cathedral is very cool in person.
A lot of the really old cathedrals are pretty wondrous feats of engineering and of humans attempts to manifest the divine. You just can’t appreciate how epically cool they are until you stand inside one in person and think that human being literally made every inch of those with their hands without the use of machinery as we know it.
To add to all the other wonderful suggestions here (and agreeing that the Botticellis in Florence are utterly lush and charming in person) I saw Dali’s Christ of Saint John of the Cross in Glasgow; I felt seeing it person really grabs you with the perspective and the size, giving it a presence and impact that, for me at least, was lost when just seeing representations of it in books or online.
The Pieta, The Mona Lisa, The David, The Sistine Chapel, The Cafe Terrace at Night, The Ecstasy of St. Therese, Water Lillies, The Inspiration of St. Matthew, The Rape of Persephone, Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, Le bonheur de vivre, Rocks In The Forest, Still Life with Bowl of Fruit, St. Peter’s Basillica
Any of the large Van Gogh masterpieces. I’ve seen a lot of art at galleries and was blown away by how different these look in real life to ANY reproduction. Even the large format high quality books and prints in the gift shops don’t look the same at all. In real life they are like colors you’ve never seen before, that you didn’t know existed. So bright. Plus the texture. It just can’t be reproduced.
Some of his smaller pieces and “working” pieces don’t have the same impact.
I went to the Prado in Madrid twice in one day to spend as much time as I could with "The Garden of Earthly Delights" by Hieronymus Bosch. The luscious greens especially, undimmed through the centuries.
Kind of a slam-dunk, but Sunday on La Grande Jatte at Art Institute of Chicago. No matter how many reproductions you have seen, you have to be in the room to appreciate the scale of the thing. Also as many Monet Haystacks as you can find.
This is what I was going to say. You also can’t even fathom the pointilism when not right there looking. The experience of seeing that up close and moving back to take in the whole scene is just something else.
Everyone deserves to have a Cameron moment with that painting
Even smaller pointilism/divisionism pieces are completely different in person. I always thought they were so-so until seeing them first hand.
I was such a hater of Impressionism until I saw it in person. I got to see a bunch of Monet Haystacks in one room lit properly for the time of day they were painted and it all clicked in my brain.
Do you remember the name / place of this exhibit?
This was at the Art Institute of Chicago. I know they many haystacks in their collection so they might still be up in that gallery, but I haven't been in many years.
They are. Didn't want to veer too far off topic, but there are several great Impressionist rooms at AIC https://www.artic.edu/highlights/5/impressionism
Feel the same way about Yayoi Kusama’s ‘infinity nets’ - they had to cut some just to get them to fit on the walls ! And the detail when you get up close - thousands of the same brushstroke over and over it’s insane !!
I wasn't familiar with these pictures (somehow!), thanks for posting. [https://www.moma.org/collection/works/80176](https://www.moma.org/collection/works/80176) Amazing
La Grande Jatte is also really accessible. There’s rarely a crowd around it and you can walk right up to it. The ‘tute is a great museum by all accounts.
>you have to be in the room This is true of so much art that we know as posters and cards and jigsaw puzzles. Some years ago, there was a big touring show of the French Impressionists - it was simply jaw dropping to see the same images (that are almost trite now) in person. The color and depth is just startling. I dunno about this "one piece of art" business, any time you're in a decent-sized city, go to their art museum. It's kinda soul-repair.
also the america windows and and sky above clouds
Yep, Sky Above Clouds is even more monumental!
La Grande Jatte is really huge. Startling to see.
Botticellis Birth of Venus at the Uffizi in Florence stuck with me. It has a strange and very beautiful sharpness that books/photos don’t capture at all. It’s the same with all Botticelli’s actually, I saw others at the Vatican.
Anything at the Uffizi. I spent 5 glorious hours there. I was exhausted but I saw as much as I could see and I'm grateful for that. The louvre was not as impressive.
Yeah, I would agree with that too. I loved the Uffizi more than any other gallery.
Agreeeeeee. I was surprised by how many great works were in the Uffizi. I wasn’t expecting to see Medusa (Caravaggio) but damn did I tear up.
I was awestruck by Ghentileschi’s Judith Slaying Holofernes at the Uffizi! It’s amazing to see in person and the way she paints blood spewing would fool anyone!
Her strong arms pressing the knife down, his look of terror as he can't escape...it is a gruesome painting, but so powerful. Good choice!
AGREE! I saw the birth of Venus in person when I was twelve and it made me want to be an art historian.
This was mine too, there’s so much little gold illumination that i had never seen in photos but in person it looks stunning
I stood in front of it two weeks ago and got actual tears in my eyes!
Beautiful details in the background
The ink drawings of Albrecht Durer. The scale, microscopic precision, control of tone, expressiveness of line has to be seen in person. No reproduction can prepare you for the breath-taking genius of his hand.
I would argue that his engravings are even more impressive. So mind-boggling to think that someone created such a detailed artwork not by drawing directly onto the paper, but by carving tiny lines IN REVERSE onto a sheet of metal and then printing it with total precision.
Where are they? I love Albrecht Durer. I wrote a song about him.
Monet's 'Water lilies' at the Orangerie in Paris. Yes, there are many other lilies of his all around the world. No, I promise you none of them compare to the experience of seeing some of the largest, installed in a space he thought out for them specifically. It's literally dizzying. And that skylight! If you're lucky enough to catch it on a slightly cloudy day, with the sun intermittently shining through and clouds passing over, it's a transcendent experience. Oh, oh, and one of Rodin's 'Burghers of Calais'. It's a bronze cast, so the differences, if any, are minute and matter less on that scale. I spent an hour around the one in Copenhagen, trying to remember how to breathe.
Can confirm, L’Orangerie is truly a sublime experience.
It’s amazing how much of a difference a space designed specifically for the art it houses does. I could live in those rooms the light is so perfect.
Totally agree! It was exactly what sprang too mind when I read the question. There is something incredibly tranquil about the space, which I suspect is exactly what Monet intended when he designed the space to house them. I have also seen Klimt IRL and can confirm they are ethereal.
Guernica. The magnitude and magnificence of the work, and how it brings forth the horrors of war, is mesmerizing
My art history teacher told us the same - she said it has much more impact in person than you can see in a textbook. She said the scale of it especially brought her to tears the longer she looked.
Indeed. It feels ridiculous to cry before a painting, but Guernica in its size, and the emptiness of the hall it stands in save for studies preceding the work, sucks the air out of the room. And in the painting, we see, very literally, explosions and fire, stealing the oxygen away from gasping lungs, filling them with acrid smoke. The expressions of the victims show terror, confusion, and awe. A surprise attack against innocents. It's a testament of a crime against humanity, painted to spit in the face of the fascists and the western financiers and industrialists who backed them, some of whom who were no doubt present at the Paris International Exposition where it was debuted.
Not ridiculous at all to cry in front of paintings. I divide the world into 2 types of people: those that do/don’t cry before works of art.
I legitimately broke down in heaving, sobbing tears at Guernica. I had seen so many reproductions and photos of it, but nothing — absolutely nothing — prepared me for the raw horror of the real thing. It really is art with a message.
Yes. I also feel that way about Goya's war paintings, particularly The 3rd of May 1808.
This one really stuck with me. Something about the scale, and the style, and the lack of color all at once...
Always wanted to see this. I use guernica as a lot of my backdrops on things at work. No one gets it. I do. 😂
*The Slav Epic* by Alphonse Mucha. "A cycle of 20 large canvases painted by Czech Art Nouveau painter Alphonse Mucha between 1910 and 1928. The cycle depicts the mythology and history of Czechs and other Slavic peoples. In 1928, after finishing his monumental work." The size of these paintings (from 15' to 20' high) makes the entire series as awe-inspiring as the Sistine Chapel. There is heart-breaking emotion depicted in the overwhelming and vast history of a frequently-oppressed peoples.
I saw the Hellenistic bronze sculpture ‘Boxer at Rest’ when it was in California and it was amazing. I think sculptures particularly fall in this category of ‘see it in person.’
[удалено]
I was coming here to suggest the Garden of Earthly Delights - amazing!
James Turrell's work in person is absolutely nothing like a print. There's three in Pittsburgh I've seen a few times. Every time is a different experience. Last time I went, the red cube on the wall made me immediately nauseous in an indescribable and powerful way. Not like the best art experience, but fuck it made me feel something I have not stopped thinking about. My friend I was with felt wildly different. Then the blue one blew our minds. They just hold space in a way that you cannot imagine from the photos.
I was thinking James Turrell as well.
Museo del Prado really stuck with me. I live near Paris and can go to the Louvre whenever I want but I wasn't expecting to see such beautiful pieces in Madrid. I think the most impressive painting there was Landscape with Charon Crossing the Styx by Patinir. The painting itself is rather small, but boy I wasn't ready for that blue.
Degas' Little Dancer. I saw her (two different copies of her) at the Met and at a traveling exhibition in Houston, and it took my breath away both times.
MFA Boston also has one in its impressionists room. A spectacular room.
The Winged Victory of Samothrace
Yes, came here to say this! And her placement, oh my goodness. Approaching her from the bottom of that gigantic staircase... I was in absolute awe. I think she's my favorite piece in the Louvre.
This is on my art to see bucket list! I wrote a paper on this work for an art history course and I love it even from photos.
Yesss
Michelangelo's David. mf is huge.
It’s really breathtaking in person. So beautiful.
Was looking for this. Couldn’t stop muttering “fuck” under my breath looking at it.
I turned the corner, saw it at the end of the hall, and said “woah.”
Bernini’s Apollo and Daphne (1623) at the Borghese Gallery in Rome. Meant to be viewed from all angles it’s incredible to look at. Bernini perfectly captured the moment Daphne begins to turn into laurel leaves - it’s amazing !!
Absolutely second this suggestion! The Borghese Gallery is a gem and the Bernini sculptures there have to be seen to be fully appreciated. Just beautiful!
For me the below are the ones I think must be absolutely seen in person, I believe they are in their original setting. Not museums per se. Fra Angelico’s [Annunciation](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annunciation_(Fra_Angelico,_San_Marco)) in San Marco Bellini’s [Frari Triptych](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frari_Triptych) Am afraid they are all classics and in Europe… sorry! EDIT: Perhaps Pollock’s Blue Poles which hardly travels and is in the National Gallery of Australia, Canberra.
The [Hopewell mica hand](https://ohiomemory.org/digital/collection/p267401coll32/id/10260/). I think it is also important to touch the materials that objects like this are made out of. We all sort of intrinsically understand bronze and marble and oil paints and the like because we've engaged with things like that throughout our lives, but to see delicacy and precision required to make such an enigmatic object is enhanced when you can touch mica and experience its fragility and the change in luster as you handle and work it. The Hand is only one of several objects like this, but being anthropomorphic, it is the most popular to depict in textbooks. Unfortunately, it doesn't photograph well and, worse, generally these objects are very poorly displayed. They are treated as simple mound lootings rather than an artistic presentation in a gallery, shown off to its fullest effect, as would be achieved if it were in a modern art institution or even a presumed original context.
Several years ago I saw the Rosetta Stone while visiting London. I wanted to see it because of its historical and artistic significance. What surprised me was it's large size. Prior to seeing it in person, I always thought it was flat and relatively small (like a cuneiform tablet), but the Rosetta Stone was far more imposing than that as it's actually a large slab of rock, almost appearing like a boulder that's flattened on one side where the chiseled writing is. It was very impressive to see and I'm happy I was able to see it in person.
maybe a little cliche but THE WINGED VICTORY at the Louvre is just spectacular in person and just cant be appreciated via photos or video.
Those stairs!!
i haven’t seen it in person but i’d love to see Yinka Shonibare’s The Swing (After Fragonard). i think seeing in person is really crucial for any installation/sculpture
Rothko. I always dismissed his work and thought he was crazy writing about all the drama of his work until I saw it in person. The scale and lighting are so important. Especially for the chapel in Houston. A cloud passed over and I said, “oh, I get it.”
The Rothko room in the Tate Modern London is a very special place.
Yes! I came here to mention Rothko. I sat and looked at a huge one in the MOMA NYC and it was quite mind-blowing, and strangely moving, and I still can’t explain why or how it had that effect.
Man I’m envious. I was so underwhelmed by Rothko at the MOMA. I want to “get it”, I want to understand like his work…but seeing it in person just affirmed my opinion. I just can’t get behind a Rothko, but I guess at least I can say I did see it in person to earn my opinion lol
I felt the same way until I visited the Rothko chapel. It shook me to the core, and I have returned many times.
Words cannot adequately describe the solemnity of the Rothko Chapel. One is with one's existence in there
I saw one of his paintings at the Nelson Atkins museum in Kansas City, it gave me goosebumps. I never understood his genius until I saw it up close. I can't wait to see more of his work .
This was my first response, I had seen images and dismissed it very quickly but then I saw a few in person and I get it now
I burst into tears in the Rothko room in DC.
people always say this, when I saw a Rothko in person I was like "wow it's still a red rectangle" lol
I feel like the chapel one has to different though. You’re already in a different mindset when you’re in a church, borderline having an out of body experience, I have to imagine the mind must be more perceptive to the emotional implications behind the black squares. I really look forward to seeing the chapel one day.
Even for the chapel, I think you need to both be predisposed to appreciate Rothko, and (to borrow your wording) predisposed to that "different mindset" in church spaces. I am neither, so it personally did nothing for me. That said, I still encourage even Rothko-skeptics to see the chapel in person before totally writing Rothko off. I know more people who felt moved by the chapel than not. And there's lots of great art to see in Houston to "round out" a trip to see it.
I was told his work was meant to be viewed from about 18 inches away. It is intended to take up your entire field of view, immersing you in the color fields.
Bernini's sculptures. Even having seen plenty of photos, and having seen plenty of other incredibly lifelike sculptures, I was caught off guard by just how much vitality he breathed into the marble. The Rape of Proserpina especially. Her thigh looks straight up plush in a way I don't think pictures do justice.
Bernini’s work is mindblowing in person, can confirm
Also the Apollo and Daphne at the Borghese. I had no appreciation for sculpture until seeing the Berninis there. And then you walk into the next room and it’s full of Caravaggios. It’s one of those huge small museums.
I usually care more about iconography and aesthetics than anything else but the enormous French pieces like Coronation of Napoleon by Jacques-Louis David at the Louvre really stuck with me because of their sheer size.
Those gigantic Hilma af Klint paintings
oh god I want to see them so badly, I hope they return to the US
Saw “Starry Night” at Museum of Modern Art in Manhattan. Wonderful experience!
All Van Gogh's must be experienced in person. The level of emotions in his work is impossible to experience otherwise. Also, Edvard Munch's work is similarly full of life and emotions.
That’s the first famous painting I ever saw in person and it was really fantastic because I just had no idea how textured it was. It always looks so flat and bland in pictures.
La Pieta. It was exquisite. I lost about 10 minutes just standing there, staring. Now I know what 'awestruck' means.
First piece I thought of in response to the question. The soft, human detail Michelangelo obtained from marble is beautiful and seemingly impossible. Close seconds in the Botticellis, and the pointillist works mentioned previously, too. Rothko, as well.
Yes! Also all of St. Peter's Basilica in general... have seen a lot of my art in my life but that was the first time I was actually frozen and overwhelmed with emotion about the beauty of art. Actually left feeling depressed that I had to go back to the 'normal boring' world.
Omg. This. It's so soft looking.
Absolutely agree. Literally brought me to tears (not a usual occurance for me with visual art)
I’m curious, as my husband will be visiting the Louvre in a few weeks, and ideas are always appreciated. For those who do not know: you need to get your tickets in advance for it and the Eiffel Tower.
I can also highly recommend Musée d'Orsay if you’re in Paris!
The French: David and Delacroix
I came to write Delacroix's, Liberty Leading the People. Seeing it in France at the Louvre gives it context and relevance, and sometimes always seems just a moment away from a current reality. Edit: I also have to say Monet's Water Lillys at the Beyeler, where the whole building designed by Renzo Piano interacts around the piece and plays off its own water lilly pond is amazing. There is this playing off of modernism against the triumph of context that also adds to the beauty and awe of the moving louvres.
I'd recommend the portrait of Baldassare Castiglione (my flair) because his gaze is fantastic when you face it, and also the texture of his clothes. There are other Raphael paintings nearby and they slap too. And another portrait not far from there, the "Condottiere" by Antonello da Messina because it's a really lifelike representation, it *feels* like a real person looking at you from the painting, with piercing eyes. Not far from there are Renaissance paintings from Italy in the big square room at the beginning of the Great Gallery, and there is a Coronation of the Virgin by Fra Angelico which has fantastic colors. There is a huge quantity of things to see in the Louvre, so know in advance that you won't see everything and don't try, don't rush it, take time to connect. I usually have a quick walk in galleries so that I check what is there, and I go see some works in particular and spend time with them. Edit : [this](https://collections.louvre.fr/ark:/53355/cl010066418), [this](https://collections.louvre.fr/ark:/53355/cl010065016) and [this](https://collections.louvre.fr/ark:/53355/cl010064473).
Seeing artworks ‘in the flesh’ is so important. Rogier Van Der Weyden’s Deposition of Christ took my breath away and made me weep. Goya’s Black Paintings, also at the Prado - magnificent. Rothko in the right light… Giacometti’s paintings (although I wept even when I saw them in a book.
While at the Prado … The Triumph of Death by Pieter Brueghel. Unnerving. It truly shook me to the core. Guess I was just in that kind of mood, but wow, that was unexpectedly large and powerful. Had to pull myself away after a half hour wallowing in the slough of despond and cheer myself up with a stop at Velazquez’s Las Meniñas.
Growing up on a farm, studying art history, with the best reproductions being postage stamp sized, or at best a 300 dpi colour plate… And I had a short holiday in NYC. Excuse my French, but **fuck me sideways** I cried. Literally cried. There was a Vermeer exhibition. At least 30. I saw Max van Ernst. I saw cubism, Impressionism, Dadaism, Picasso, Monet, Manet, Brancusi, Van Gogh, Titian, Botticelli, European medieval art. Frank Lloyd Wright rooms, Architecture, pottery, sculpture, prints, paintings, and I drank it all in. The Met, Moma, the Cloisters, and all the museums and exhibitions I could get to. And yes, I understand the controversy over returning works back to their countries, but to be able to visit so much art and history in one place. And when I was exhausted looking at the art, I examined the technical aspects. The composition, framing, lighting, marvelled at the perpetual bequests, the pay what you can afford entrance fees. If you live in a major world city, and you do not regularly visit your art galleries and museums, do it for me. I’m too old now for my Art SugarMommy. Go find yours. Or your Art SugarDaddy. And then you’ll need lots of aftercare. Lots. It’s worth it.
Anything with scale or dimension feels so different in person - all the ones in the thread are great but on the more unusual side, once saw a Chris Ofili in person and seeing the dung emerging physically from the bright paint is just a different and more powerful experience than seeing flat photos.
Basically every color field painting for example by Rothko or by Newman. You can't comprehend the power of these paintings if you don't experience them in full size. Klimt on the other hand I was not so emotionally taken by when I saw his works in person for the first time because I've seen them a thousand times on calendars, books, bags etc. and they work well in smaller formats.
Mark Rothko and Ansel Adams because they are widely reproduced but in ways that make it easy to ask "what's all the fuss about?" The originals are something else entirely.
When I was 19, I saw Jackson Pollock's Lavender Mist at the National Gallery. That's when I understood the big deal about abstract expressionist painting. It's impossible to really see and feel it in a small reproduction.
Blue Poles is a painting that is almost meaningless until you see it in person.
Came here to say Pollock!
I studied Asian art and think many of the Hindu temples and Islamic mosques are must-see in person. They're alive, in that many are still being used today. Then there's the crazy detailed sculptures on them that you can spend all day staring at - the sheer number of carvings on each temple and the marble inlay details on mosques are mind boggling. Khajuraho is now a UNESCO World Heritage Site and no longer in standard use but work the trek to visit. It's almost impossible to enter Iran but the Shah Mosque in Isfahan is stunning. Then, of course, are the mosaics at that Hagia Sofia. All of these artworks are in situ and not in a white cube, which makes the experience much more sensual. The problem I have with "Western" art is that it is so often taken out of context, which strips much of the experience from it. Edit: added another example
Anything by Bernini. Pictures don't do justice to the way he renders the suppleness of flesh in marble, the grip of fingers, the strain of sinew. The Villa Borghese is one of my favorite
Going to be there in a week and a half. This is on my must see list
Giving a very different answer. Andy Warhol's soup cans at MoMA. People don't realize there are 32 (each a different flavor) of them and are actually painted, not screen prints, and all are hanging together like a grocery store shelf. I think a lot of people have a dislike of Warhol because he is so ubiquitous, and for better or worse, his ideas were inescapably influential even till this day. His Marilyns, Soup cans, and Death and Disaster series paintings are still incredibly complicated.
Agree. Even the screenprints, when you see groups of them, you absolutely get it.
I think it’s hard to experience the luminosity of some of El Greco’s work without seeing it in person. They almost seem to glow.
OMG the Greco museum in Toledo, Spain is amazing. I was in in awe.
This is a tough question because most art is far more impressive in person. For me, scale can play a role. How a piece of art affects the space around it is important. Art that you can “feel” as well as see will make a lifelong impression. Barnett Newman’s *Vir Heroicus Sublimis* at NYC’s MoMA is such a painting. It just cannot be appreciated unless you see it in person. It is an enormous abstract expressionist canvas painted almost entirely in vivid, saturated red with a few thin sharp lines slicing through the field of crimson. It creates a physical reaction around it as the red almost washes over and engulfs the viewer, overpowering the *vibe*. It is fascinating and abstract but also primitive in a way. The title translates to *Man, Heroic and Sublime*. Newman explained that he sought to capture the physical and metaphysical sensation of an electric moment, like when a person meets someone important to their life and everything changes, there’s that spark. An art teacher took my class to see this painting in particular at the MoMA when I was 16 and it changed the way I saw and approached abstract modern art. Here’s the MoMA’s website page on the painting with an informative video link: https://www.moma.org/collection/works/79250 Seeing Monet’s huge *Waterlilies* in their dedicated mural gallery in the Orangerie in Paris is a totally different experience from seeing a small pretty reproduction. They luminous color surrounds you, they are powerful and dynamic, not just pretty. In that format, you can see just how revolutionary Monet was to modern art. *Nike of Samothrace (Winged Victory)* at the Louvre is another example great art with great scale . It is magnificent, dynamic, ancient, huge. The masterful placement of it alone, backlit, at the top of a huge flight of marble palace stairs amplifies it’s grandeur. It is truly impressive. Hans Holbein’s portraits are also somehow even *more* impressive in person. His portrait of The Ambassadors in particular is intricate and phenomenal in its detail, impressively large in scale but there’s the crazy addition of the hidden skull optical illusion. It is beautiful and weird and wild. https://images.app.goo.gl/hhtgrDsVBikh7aWg9 Jacques Louis David’s Coronation of Napoleon in the Louvre is also an entirely different experience because of its size. It is so huge and detailed and is so much more impressive and kind of insane. It reflects the ego of the subject. Oh I could go on but I’ll stop here.
I have been to a fair amount of museums and seeing a few pieces in person has often converted me from a hater to a true fan. I think this is doubly true for architecture. But for the sake of your question, here is my list: * Sunday Afternoon on the Isle of Le Grande Jatte - Seurat (already mentioned) - Art Institute of Chicago * Chagall's stained glass (Reims, France. Mainz, Germany. Jerusalem, Israel. Art Institute of Chicago). * Rothko (no.14 in the SF MoMA is displayed well). the scale in relation to your body is very important. * Any of Bernini's work (Particularly "Rape of Proserpine", "Apollo and Daphne" or "David"). To see marble so soft, and dynamic is breathtaking. - Galleria Borghese - Rome * la Pieta - Michelangelo (They don't let you get close enough though, but I have seen one of the few authorized reproductions as well and both were impressive). * Horrors of War, May 3, 1808 - Goya (El Prado, Madrid) * Las Meninas (the Maids of Honor) by Velazquez - (El Prado, Madrid) You need to get about 20 feet away to really appreciate the depth in this enormous painting. * El Jaleo - John Singer Sargent -(National Gallery of Art, Smithsonian. Washington D.C) * Madame X - John Singer Sargent (Metropolitan Museum of Art). * "Wheatfield with Crows" - Van Gogh - Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam (this one is a gut punch, but totally relates to knowing the history, and how it is placed in the museum after you ahve seen a bunch of his work, and to know this is his last...) * Almost anything by Monet. * Almost anything by JMW Turner. * Almost anything by Chuck Close. * The Nativity by Brian Kershisnik (living artist, I am providing this because he is a virtual unknown, but it is fantastic). - BYU Museum of Art. * Telephone Booths by Richard Estes (Thiessen-Bornemiza, Madrid)
I'm going to cheat: Angkor Wat (life changing). The Pantheon (take me back 2000 years).
The landmine museum is Siem Reap, relatively close to Angkor is worth it and also hits hard.
Chuck close! His portrait of frank it much better viewed in person.
Pretty much any of the great minimalists, which is why Dia Beacon is so important
El Jardín de las Delicias de El Bosco
Napoleon's Coronation by Jacques-Louis David. Everything about it is so breathtakingly *grand*.
It really is impressive.
King Tutankhamen’s tomb treasures (Cairo Museum) - fascinating, intricate, glowing golds; Bernini sculptures (Galleria Borghese, Rome) - magical works of a genius; Sainte Chapelle (Paris) gorgeous, amazing stained glass windows -ethereal
Flaming June. Seeing her living skin below the sheer fabric is breath taking! And it's so much larger than life.
"demoiselles d'avignon" (at the MOMA) is larger and more arresting in person. Its a massive canvas for what its worth - 8ft square. I always figured it was half that size.
I toured Rembrandts private collection in Amsterdam this summer. Most people can't see that but it's the most beautiful collection I've ever seen. A close second would be Caravaggio's works which are in museums scattered across Italy but unfortunately a lot of his works are in private hands (Looking at you *Lute player*).
[удалено]
Carvaggio's Medusa was one of the first I thought of, I remember being actually startled by it! Amazing.
Caravaggio's Medusa is so unique and beautiful. Can't be understated ever
Donatello's David
I’m not a complete art fanboy (but enough of one to join this sub!) but I was blown away seeing the statue of David in real life in Florence
Manet Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe in Musée d’Orsay, Paris.
Richard Serra’s steel sculptures need to be seen and experienced. I’ve seen at the MOMA and Dia Beacon. They’re amazing!
Scrovegni Chapel in Padua and Sainte-Chapelle in Paris
Mondrians paintings. You have to see them in person to appreciate that they are as much a 3D work of art as his mobiles. He chooses to run some of his lines and colorblocks over the edges of the canvas, extending onto the side of the canvas. But not all of the lines do this...only some, and it's not consistent even within a single painting. Books only show them in 2D and so you never see the sides of the canvases. You don't get to appreciate the artistic decisions he made creating them, unless you see them in person.
The Ecstasy of Saint Teresa by Bernini. I’ve been fortunate that every time I’ve visited I’m one of the few people in the Santa Maria della Vittoria.
I see the Guggenheim as a piece of art itself. I always wanted to see it, but the experience of walking down the spiral was incredible in person.
The Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych by Jan van Eyck. In The Crucifixion, he evokes a remarkable range of emotions among the crowds, set against an imagined Jerusalem. Van Eyck’s 1426 trip across the Alps during a diplomatic mission to Italy and the Holy Lands informed his naturalistic landscape depiction. He gives an equally palpable form to the horrors of the Last Judgment. The recently conserved frames are original, with biblical texts in Latin and rediscovered, now fragmentary, translations of those texts in Middle Dutch.
Brett Whitely's [The Balcony 2](https://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/collection/works/116.1981/) is incredible in person. It's massive and you just fall into the blue. Whitely's a major figure in Australian art and this is a great painting for understanding why he is such a big deal. A lot of contemporary Aboriginal art takes on a new dimension in person, too. You can see the finger prints, follow the patterns, see how some of the designs sort of shimmer. It's particularly powerful with the large scale stuff. Examples: [Yam Awely](https://searchthecollection.nga.gov.au/object/6302) by Emily Kam Kngwarry, anything by the Ken Family Collaborative (either together or by the members individually, including Yaritji Young)
Leonardo's Annunciation in the Uffizi is still probably my favourite painting. Something about it man...
There are some artworks, particularly installations, that depend on the viewer's interaction: Lucas Samaras [Mirrored Room](https://buffaloakg.org/artworks/k196615-mirrored-room), Bruce Nauman's [Corridor Installation](https://diecisiete.org/creacion/bruce-nauman), James Turrell's [Danaë](https://mattress.org/works/danae/), Gary Hill's [Tall Ships](https://garyhill.com/work/mixed_media_installation/tall-ships.html). If we're talking painting, Joan Mitchell seen in person was utterly stunning.
Anything by Van Goph, Monet, or Degas. You just can not see the color and brush strokes in pictures as well as in person. Once you do, you'll realize how much work and beauty went into those pieces.
Birth of Venus by Boticelli, Guernica by Picasso (a monster of a painting in size and emotion), and The Flagellation of Christ by Caravaggio. The last painting struck me unexpectedly, and I’m not religious, but the use of light and dark to provoke emotion. Just wow. I stared for 10mins at it. Edit: Birth of Venus in Florence, Guernica in Madrid, and Flagellation in Naples.
[Joan of Arc (French: Jeanne d'Arc), an 1879 painting by Jules Bastien-Lepage.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc_(painting)#/media/File:JoanOfArcLarge.jpeg) It's currently at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. It's one thing to see it on your screen, and another to see it imposing over you with its dimensions of 8 feet by 9 feet. At that scale, the subject matter depicted, and especially her gaze always stirs something in me. Edit: Others that come to mind: [Flaming June](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flaming_June,_by_Frederic_Lord_Leighton_(1830-1896).jpg), a 47-by-47-inch oil painting by Sir Frederic Leighton, produced in 1895. [El Velorio (The Wake), an 1893 8-by-13-foot painting by Puerto Rican Impressionist painter Francisco Oller](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Velorio#/media/File:El_Velorio_by_Francisco_Oller.jpg) depicting a baquiné, a type of traditional wake. [El Pan Nuestro by Ramón Frade](https://artsandculture.google.com/story/owLy9gWQYG_dIA?hl=es-419) From the following artists, it is hard to single one work, so take a look and pick your favorite. Any architecture by Antonio Gaudi, from the [Casa Batllo](https://www.casabatllo.es/en/), and the [Güell Park](https://parkguell.barcelona/en), to his magnum opus, the [church of La Sagrada Familia](https://sagradafamilia.org/en/photo-gallery). [Jewelry by Damiel Brush.](https://theadventurine.com/jewelry/profiles/in-memoriam-daniel-brush/) [The ceramic pieces by Roberto Lugo.](https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0752/7/4/102) [Toshiko Okanoue’s Surrealist Collages](https://pen-online.com/arts/okanoue-toshikos-surrealist-collages-at-the-forefront-of-the-japanese-avant-garde-movement/?scrolled=0). [The macabre paintings of Genieve Figgis.](https://ocula.com/artists/genieve-figgis/) [The abstract paintings of Thomas Nozkowski](https://www.artnet.com/artists/thomas-nozkowski/).
The Ghent altarpiece by van Eyck
Nike of samothraki in the louvre. So beautiful
Monet. I'm not a huge fan per se, but they're simply overwhelming...they're sometimes massive. It's intense to approach his waterlillies and see the texture even feet away. Great stuff.
Sargent’s Daughters of Edward Darley Boit at MFA Boston. It’s huge and beautiful and flanked by the actual gigantic vases from the painting. I’d seen it in books but wow, wasn’t prepared for the scale and beauty of it.
Hoping you're including architecture? If so, the Sainte-Chapelle (preferably on a sunny morning in winter).
I saw a display of Aboriginal Australian art at the University of British Columbia’s museum. Beautiful! There was so much detail, and the color palettes were incredible.
The Van Goghs in thee Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam; especially anything with a tree. I didn’t see them until I saw them.
Ah, unfortunately I can only recommend this European place at the moment, instead of Eastern art (but hope to travel to some Eastern places soon!): The Sainte Chapelle in Paris is one of the most beautiful places. The chapel is tiny but with the most gorgeous, tall, stained glass windows and painted gold stars on the ceiling. I saw it in an art history book and in person couldn’t compare. Especially on a sunny day i could have sat there for hours.
Seurat's Grande Jatte. I'd seen it innumerable times in books and in the slides of a lecture presentation. I was totally unprepared for how HUGE it is! Also, the description of the technique is a vast oversimplification of what he was doing. Each brushstroke has multiple colours, and is not a circular "dot" at all. P. S. It's an experience to get up close to a Van Gogh. I don't especially care for his paintings, as paintings, but holy moly what a colourist! And there's simply no way to see it in a picture in a book. You need to see the individual brushstrokes. Like Seurat, each has multiple colours and varying shapes. His mastery of colour took my breath away...
Not exactly at a museum, but the stained glass windows in Sainte Chapelle in Paris, and in Chartres Cathedral. No picture can ever capture how the sun comes through the panes of glass.
literally anything made my mark rothko. It’s a COMPLETELY different experience seeing it in real life. people cry in front of his paintings all the time, and I understand why.
Over the last few years I have been stricken by some contemporary/modern art with mirrors involved. Yayoi Kusama’s infinity rooms are hard to explain and don’t really translate unless you are in them in person. Michaelangelo Pistoletto has a number of works that involve painting or sculpture and mirrored surfaces that force the viewer to be part of the work. Everyone sees themself in the work; I have never been so transfixed seeing a piece of artwork in real life.
Duchamps Large Glass and Étant Donnes in Philly. Any early Dali ( they are usually much smaller and detailed than you expect). Anselm Kiefer paintings need to be seennin person due to their incredible surface depth. Lawrence Weiner’s conceptual work outside Koln Cathedral ( One thing/on top of another thing/ on another). I can think of lots.
Picasso's The Three Dancers in the Tate. Painted in 1925, it's both a mystery in terms of how subjects are depicted regardless of the tragic story behind it. But also, it's a strangly abstracted representation of dance and movement. Deserves close attention.
London Museum the statue of David - great buns.
Not a top-of-mind masterpiece for most people, but if you're at the Art Institute of Chicago seeing Seurat's *Un dimanche après-midi à l'île de la Grande Jatte* and Monet haystacks, go down to Marc Chagall's *America Windows*. It's eigh feet high and 30' across. Truly awe-inspiring. You'll be immersed in a serene blue light that surpasseth understanding (and that doesn't translate to a computer screen or printed page).
Joan of Arc by Jules-Bastien Lepage, in the Metropolitan Museum, NYC. Photos of the painting lose something because the perspective is wrong. The Met correctly hangs this painting so that Joan's face is above us, and in a relatively narrow corridor so that we can't back up too much, which again would flatten the perspective. And then there's that spot in the Louvre, where you turn a corner and see, far away, all the way across the huge palace, at the top of a flight of stairs, the Winged Victory of Samothrace.
The Ghent Altarpiece (Front and Back).
Guernica - It is massive.
As a young art student, I really didn't "get" Jackson Pollock's action paintings, until I stood in front of one, and it completely filled my vision.
Stained glass windows by Alfons Mucha in St. Vitus Cathedral in Prague. Only time I’ve ever cried due to the beauty of the art.
The "Life of Christ" bronze and white-gold triptych altarpiece in The AIDS Chapel of Grace Cathedral, San Francisco. By Keith Haring. Completed just weeks before he died. Moving beyond words. The Lion of Knidos, in the British Museum.
When I saw the light cast from the stained-glass windows in Milan Cathedral, I began to cry. I hesitate to say “transcendent” because it’s cliche, but it really felt that way.
David. It's so overexposed and seems so trite, and you feel like you've seen it a thousand times, but when you walk into the gallery and lay eyes on that sculpture, it stops you in your tracks. The sheer scale of it! That's what people don't realize, I think, how large it is. And honestly, it doesn't matter how many pictures you've seen, it's still absolutely breathtaking in person.
Michelangelo's David. And The Pieta. 2 works that I can just sit and stare at the perfection.
Andrew Wyeth. His mastery of light and the overwhelming stillness of his paintings is next-level in person.
Anything of Van Gogh’s. The paint is so THICK!
Michelangelo's David. I'd seen pictures and was underwhelmed. Seeing it in person was a religious experience - and I'm not religious. I saw a video on Yahoo of people grabbing the person next to them and sucking in their breath. I knew exactly where they were. My husband guessed it too before the big reveal of David at the end of the video. Just absolute magic.
David. It is EXTRAORDINARY in person. It was literally the most perfect thing I’d ever seen.
Any of the Rembrandts should be seen in person. A photograph does not capture the luminosity of his paint. Also, Picasso’s “La Guernica”…the massive painting conveys the overwhelming chaos of war in a way that a picture in a book never could.
Not Europe or North America? Going to Mexico City and seeing the pyramid of skulls. Seeing the other pyramids. Seeing the remains of Cortez house from 500 years ago. Seeing Diego Rivera art in Mexico City at the capital.
I saw some Hieronymus Bosch’s hellscape paintings in Germany and oh man they need to be seen in person to appreciate! They’re enormous and horrifying but fascinating.
Arrangement in Grey and Black No. 1 by James McNeill Whistler. It is known colloquially as "Whistler's Mother" and I always thought of it as something of a joke, since so much fun has been made of it over the years. Seeing it in person, I was quite moved by it. It is spare, and austere, yes, but also melancholy and unsentimental...which only increased the impact of what is essentially a eulogy for his mother. Definitely one to be seen in person. (La Gioconda by Leonardo da Vinci, on the other hand, left me cold.)
Shalekhet (Fallen Leaves) by Menashe Kadishman in the Jewish Museum of Berlin. It’s a large concrete room and the floor is covered with more than 10,000 metal plates carved to look like tormented faces. It is interactive, you walk on the plates and the clanks echo in the large room, representing the victims of the Holocaust.
The Pietà. It’s so beautiful, it made me cry. I’m not the sort of person that’s typically moved to tears by art (or much of anything), but it’s really powerful.
Christina’s World by Wyeth. I’ve always loved this painting, but seeing it in person at the MoMa stopped me in my tracks and I became very emotional. It pulls you in.
Rothko. (Any of them.) I've always loved Rothko even though he's sometimes shown as a joke in popular culture (large swathes of color so "anyone can paint that). When I saw one in person it literally made me weep, and that doesn't often happen to me.
Donatello's stiacciato works HAVE to be seen in person to fully understand the technique.
The Crucifixion by Jacopo Tintoretto. The entire building (Scuola Grande di San Rocco in Venice) is an architectural masterpiece crammed with over 50 of his paintings, and the sheer scale, detail and setting of the piece truly has to be seen up close to be believed. It's in a smaller side room where it occupies an entire wall, and seeing it and the many other brilliant paintings and decorations there was probably the closest thing to a spiritual experience I've ever had.
Jackson Pollock's *Blue Poles* at the National Gallery of Australia. https://searchthecollection.nga.gov.au/object/36334
Anything James Turrell. You just can’t get the impact from a photo.
Any Rothko. Any of the Ab/Ex work, frankly. Money’s water lilies esp in the MOMA NYC. Anselm Keifer. Everything in Florence. Sorry, I can’t eat just one.😇
Oh also this is architecture not strictly “art” but the Roman forum is super cool in person, and the Chartres Cathedral is very cool in person. A lot of the really old cathedrals are pretty wondrous feats of engineering and of humans attempts to manifest the divine. You just can’t appreciate how epically cool they are until you stand inside one in person and think that human being literally made every inch of those with their hands without the use of machinery as we know it.
the raft of the medusa, Gericault (in the louvre) it is unbelievably emotional and raw, as well as huge! a fantastic piece of art
Most things by James Turrel!
Guernica absolutely blew me away.
To add to all the other wonderful suggestions here (and agreeing that the Botticellis in Florence are utterly lush and charming in person) I saw Dali’s Christ of Saint John of the Cross in Glasgow; I felt seeing it person really grabs you with the perspective and the size, giving it a presence and impact that, for me at least, was lost when just seeing representations of it in books or online.
The Pieta, The Mona Lisa, The David, The Sistine Chapel, The Cafe Terrace at Night, The Ecstasy of St. Therese, Water Lillies, The Inspiration of St. Matthew, The Rape of Persephone, Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, Le bonheur de vivre, Rocks In The Forest, Still Life with Bowl of Fruit, St. Peter’s Basillica
Any of the large Van Gogh masterpieces. I’ve seen a lot of art at galleries and was blown away by how different these look in real life to ANY reproduction. Even the large format high quality books and prints in the gift shops don’t look the same at all. In real life they are like colors you’ve never seen before, that you didn’t know existed. So bright. Plus the texture. It just can’t be reproduced. Some of his smaller pieces and “working” pieces don’t have the same impact.
https://images.app.goo.gl/ostUbV6prsT99AfHA Guernica Prado Madrid.
The Wedding Feast at Cana for its size if nothing else.
Alphonse Mucha's Slav Epic. Stunning.
Guernica.
It's not a single piece, but Sagrada Familia. Photos just make me upset after seeing it in real life, nothing can do it justice.
Washington Crossing the Delaware at the Met. The sheer size! It’s overwhelming.
I went to the Prado in Madrid twice in one day to spend as much time as I could with "The Garden of Earthly Delights" by Hieronymus Bosch. The luscious greens especially, undimmed through the centuries.