d’Orsay, right when it opens. Other options: the Grand Palais & Petit Palais and the Fondation Louis Vuitton in the 16th (it’s an art museum owned by LVMH and it is fantastic).

It's strange that you can go and visit this Leonardo at the National Gallery in DC and often have the room to yourself or just 2 or 3 others.

https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.50724.html

Maybe they should move the Mona Lisa to her own museum with an interpretive center to attract the crowds who only want a selfie.

Concerns about the Louvre in the news
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cde9r0xgk67o

Was in Paris last summer. The orsay was surprisingly not that busy. Same with Orangerie. The louvre was madness. The lovely pictures ppl are posting on this thread mean nothing to me, because the louvre was so busy I was focused on nothing but pushing through the crowds.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my experience, the Louvre is overcrowded by people who don't really care about art, but just want to check a box. But it's huge. The further away from the Mona Lisa you travel within the Louvre, the more the crowds thin out. I recall very few people near the ancient Greek art, and having the Napoleon Apartments almost to myself. Personally I would skip it, and go to the beautiful Musee Rodin (the best thing in Paris!) or the Orangerie for a more enjoyable day.

I find the bolded statement to be absurd. I'm an art lover but the crowds at the Louvre made me want to leave, almost immediately. I would have loved an after-hours tour when no one else is there, so I could spend as long as I wanted at every exhibit. Sadly, that was not our experience.

The PP didn't suggest that YOU weren't an art lover because you've been to the Louvre. If every single visitor to the Louvre were really really into art, and not just there because it's part of the "must-see" tourist circuit, then surely all the amazing art museums in Paris would be equally crowded. But if you're this easily offended, Paris probably isn't the best vacation choice for you anyway.

Anonymous wrote:In my experience, the Louvre is overcrowded by people who don't really care about art, but just want to check a box. But it's huge. The further away from the Mona Lisa you travel within the Louvre, the more the crowds thin out. I recall very few people near the ancient Greek art, and having the Napoleon Apartments almost to myself. Personally I would skip it, and go to the beautiful Musee Rodin (the best thing in Paris!) or the Orangerie for a more enjoyable day.

I find the bolded statement to be absurd. I'm an art lover but the crowds at the Louvre made me want to leave, almost immediately. I would have loved an after-hours tour when no one else is there, so I could spend as long as I wanted at every exhibit. Sadly, that was not our experience.

Anonymous wrote:I would go to the Louvre just... because it's the Louvre. Like others said, go see a few of the amazing things. This has stayed on my mind forever, and it's what I think of when I think Louvre- - she's worth a visit:

Me too. The Nike of Samonthrace was also the cover of my art history text book, and I remember we didn't know where in the museum it was. When we came upon it, it was like "Ahhhhhhh...." We must have looked like gawping idiots, buts it was a magical moment.

In my experience, the Louvre is overcrowded by people who don't really care about art, but just want to check a box. But it's huge. The further away from the Mona Lisa you travel within the Louvre, the more the crowds thin out. I recall very few people near the ancient Greek art, and having the Napoleon Apartments almost to myself. Personally I would skip it, and go to the beautiful Musee Rodin (the best thing in Paris!) or the Orangerie for a more enjoyable day.

We did both during a one-week trip (my daughter and I - she was about the same age as yours, OP). We were both completely overwhelmed by the Louvre. Yes, it was wonderful to see it and have that experience, but it was just so... much. By contrast, we both *loved* Orsay. The paintings were exactly what we were looking for and the building itself is just exquisite. It's far smaller and easier to navigate. That was definitely our preference, though I'm glad we saw the Louvre too.

The Louvre but targeted and with a guide - discuss beforehand what to see.

Agree with above poster about orangerie - you could prob squeeze that in (no pun intended) if staying nearby.

Anonymous wrote:Totally get why everyone is saying Musee d’Orsay. But if you have never been to the Louvre, my vote is for the Louvre. But it is a mad house—get a private guide.

+1.

We did both with our teens, and the Louvre was so crowded that we left after about 45 minutes. We had a guided tour of the Musee d'Orsay with someone I'd found on Tours by Locals, and that was terrific, even though it was crowded. I'd try again for the Louvre, but only with a guide. This is who we used - would definitely book with her again:
https://www.toursbylocals.com/tour-guides/france/paris/guide-profile/cecilia-p-664d221a96689af343363517

I agree with your assessment.

I went to both last Spring when I could only fit in one. The Louvre was too crowded to enjoy. D’ Orsay was so lovely, but of course, the special Impressionism exhibit was there.

My teen daughter loved them both, but we paid for a small group guided tour of the Louvre. It would have been too crowded and overwhelming otherwise. If you don’t have time or money for that, stick to Musee d’Orsay.