Soothing rhythms stoke the fire in my belly. I'm going to get on my daughter-of-an-antiquarian-art-book-dealer high-horse for a second and agree with this article. I love modern art and was so excited for my first trip to MoMA after my modern art history class last winter. But what I encountered was not the celebration of art that I'd anticipated but an elitist, overpriced, overcrowded mess. Yes, the new MoMA is a beautiful space with an astounding collection, and, yes, I spent most of my time there going "Wow!" But my main problems with MoMA resembled my complaints about the Centre Pompidou. MoMA failed to display most of its permanent collection. If you have Duchamp's "The Bride Stripped Bare by her Bachelor's Even," you display it, damnit!

Saltz mentions the MoMA's hegemonic treatment of Modern Art, and this stance's failure to challenge the viewer. He juxtaposes this banal approach with the more inventive Tate Modern, and considering that the Tate Modern is one of my favorite museums, he's absolutely right. The Tate chooses themes--e.g. love and death, the body, or advertising as art--and organizes its collection around them. Consequently, you find Rodin and Dali in the same gallery, something completely unheard of in the stale environment of MoMA.

So I have to say, Saltz makes some excellent observations. Plus, points for mentioning Foucault's Penopticon.