none the less still generally favorable

[keannu]

I can't understand the theme of the whole paragraph, it's all greek to me.
1. Why does the writer think the physical conditions are favorable? Just because of well equipped facilities?
2. Why does the writer think a certain object's being important makes visitors feel excluded? It sounds really weird.

is64
ex)Museums and galleries offer access to visual culture in physical conditions which, though increasingly crowded(and often no longer free), are none the less still generally favorable. The institutional atmosphere of some museums may be threatening, but, on the other hand, the more fashionable 'user-friendly' approach is not necessarily more contributory to serious study. When the museum bookshop and cafeteria are the most prominently sign-posted location in a museum complex, and when other people's hired cassette tours of the exhibition are readily audible as you stand trying to concentrate on examining a painting, it can be very distracting. Through an awareness of why we like certain objects may help in visits to museums, the knowledge that authorities have said that a certain object is 'important' can make us, the uninformed viewers, feel excluded.

 

[emsr2d2]

For a brief guess, I would say that they're basically just saying that the inside of most museums and art galleries are still quite pleasant (generally favourable) even though many of them are rather crowded and you have to pay to get in. They can still be nice places to visit.

Suggesting that a particular piece or object is "important" can make some people feel bad that they've never heard of it or that they don't know anything about it. People don't feel so bad if they walk around a gallery just looking at things and believing that everyone is looking at them from the same general standpoint - ignorance! However, if we go to a museum or art gallery already knowing that other people (experts) have said that a particular piece is "important", it can be difficult for us (the uninformed viewers) to go and look at it and not understand why it's important.

 

[keannu]

Thanks a lot! The reason why I took it weired was that the writer's view feels only his opinion. If I went to the Louvre Museum and heard "Mona Lisa"'s explanation by the expert(curator or whoever), I would feel much more comfortable in understanding the piece than just wondering why it is called a masterpiece.

 

[SoothingDave]

Remember also that "art" is increasingly defined in ways that mystify common people. A certain work in a museum may look no more impressive than a cheap print found at a Target store. Why one is considered a treasure by experts and the other is not can make one feel that he is missing something, being excluded from some secret circle that decides that object A is art and object B is not.

Especially so where art is abstract or performance based.

Don't Throw That Away - Top 10 Art Accidents - TIME