MoMa and Chelsea

Having already been to MoMa this semester, I already new what to expect. Like the first trip, I expected to be underimpressed. However, with less required assignments this time, I found I was more able to see what I wanted and have more time to do so.
One of my assignments was to analyze the de Kooning exhibit. I undersdtood that his brushstrokes and color choices had to do with emotions he was feeling and that all of his paintings had deeper meanings than what a viewer originally sees. However, even with this understanding I found it difficult to fully appreciate. I understand that his paintings are expressive and emotional and I appreciate that. I also can't say de Kooning wasn't talented. What I don't agree with is why he's famous. Anyone given paint can express themself on paper. Their emotions are just as real as de Kooning's and yet the person will never have their own exhibit in a museum so what is it that separates him?
With th de Kooning exhibit as my only assignment, I had more time to look around at what I considered the interesting parts of MoMa. I enjoyed the 3d works the most because I didn't have to look at them as an "art critic" so to say but I could instead interact with them. It was interesting to see everyone in the group's reactions to different pieces rather than their artistic evaluations.
The trip left a lot of free time between leaving MoMa and heading for Chelsea during which time a few of us broke off and explored central park and the lobbies of the ritziest hotels in New York including the Plaza. This was definitely an experience! I learned so much by just being in the city. Chelsea ended up being just as interesting. I actually enjoyed the galleries there more than MoMa. It was so exciting to find a new gallery because there was no way of knowing what was inside. There were some galleries that we literally had to climb over the artwork just to get inside. The galleries were much more interactive than the museum and the artists weren't famous. I think the fact they weren't famous made me appreciate their work even more. These people weren't creating art for profit or because they thought someone would like to hang it in their house; they were creating art to express themselves. To me, this is the truest form of art, uninfluenced by the perception of what art "should" be. The Romans said it best: "Ars gratia artis" or "art for the sake of art."