revise the following article, make any edits to make it grammatically correct and more sophisticated. cut out repetitive sentences if necessary. "It was my third time visiting the Metropolitan Museum already. After visiting the Metropolitan Museum for three times, I still regret not being able to finish the entire tour in one visit. Besides the stunning artwork, I am most amazed by how the exhibits were organized. After three hours of visit, I still eagered to see more. I didn’t get tired of the artworks at all or felt the arrangement was unnatural. 
The museum’s exhibitions were mainly classified through geographical regions instead of a general timeline. Moreover, some exhibitions were placed intentionally to break the sense of continuity of time. For instance, the modern art section at the Metropolitan Museum was in the top left corner of the building. It connects European sculpture and decorative arts and the Michael C. Rockefeller Wing—a collection of art including sub-Saharan Africa, the Pacific Islands, and North, Central, and South American culture, representing diverse cultural traditions from as early as 3000 B.C.E. to the present. The location of the contemporary art exhibit was an interesting and logical choice. Making a leap from the ancient to the modern, the exhibit allows visitors to freshen their eyes. It helps the visitors catch a break between the historical collections. Moreover, the sharp contrast makes the visitors observe the outstanding characteristics of modern art—the innovation in forms and content of art. Additionally, contemporary artists have been consistently producing excellent work to exhibit in the metropolitan museum. The current location of modern art will be able to host new exhibits from time to time while not breaking apart the narrative the museum was trying to illustrate. In general, the location of exhibits ensured a continuous delivery but still maintained to freshen the visitors’ perspective from time to time, encouraging them to keep appreciating works of art in the widest variety.
Additionally, the arrangements of the artwork inside the exhibitions were also delicately designed to present the artwork perfectly. The painting by Jackson Pollock was arranged with many other contemporary artists. But the huge paintings were placed in even bigger rooms. The space in the large room not only reflected how overwhelmingly large the paintings were, but also allowed the visitors to take a break from the countless and numerous collections.
I was deeply in love with the Cecily Brown temporary exhibition. I couldn’t really appreciate modern art before the visit. Because it was a temporary exhibition, there are a lot of Cecily Brown’s artwork. I was even allowed to see her sketches and drafts. Her works are mostly abstract but very coordinated in terms of the choice of color palettes. I can stare into every one of those paintings for hours, soaking myself in the understanding and feelings they convey. Surrounded by these paintings, I really appreciate how the Metropolitan Museum still decided to set up temporary exhibition galleries despite the original room was already not enough to display every refined piece of art. The temporary exhibits also give the visitors a reason to comback for more everytime.
I first visited the Metropolitan Museum when I was 6. My most vivid memory was seeing the Buddha scultures. They were so much alike the Buddha I see back in China. It was interesting to see something similar in this place far away from my homeland. I was also intrigued by the differences between the Buddha sculture here and those back in China. The sitting Buddha in particular was not in an upright position. He was leaning against his arm and curling his legs casually. All Buddhas I used to see in temples were sitting upright in peaceful but tense positions. This time, I have noticed something different besides the similarities and differences among the sculptures.
The European sculpture aisle, located on the first floor of the museum, was inviting a lot of natural lighting. The windows were designed in a way that the visitors were able to appreciate them with bare eyes and no artificial light. The texture of the marble can be best appreciated that way. It makes me think that back in the days when there was no electricity, the designers of these artworks would want their works to be appreciated this way. The lights were even still dim when the night fell. It could be because of the Enlightenment, the sculptures were trying to capture the human aspects and the natural elements. The sculptures seemed approachable—there is very little distance between the sculptures and the visitors—which is probably what the artists originally wanted. The windows were mainly on the roof and through one particular wall. I couldn’t see any modern technological inventions through these windows. No cars, no buildings, no giant screens. I felt like I was invited to see a sculpture collection back in time. 
The Asian art section, on the other hand, was very different. There were no window ceilings or any natural lighting. The Suzhou Garden was even adopting artificial lighting even though it was supposed to be an outdoor sight. Most of the artworks in the exhibit were religiously related works. The organization and lack of sunlight made visitors feel like they were visiting temples and historical remains, enhancing their visiting experience. The walls were also in dim colors, creating a serious vibe instead of a casual and approachable vibe like the one in the European sculpture aisle.
Overall speaking, although I couldn’t comment on the general narrative the metropolitan museum was giving because I didn’t finish the entire exhibition in one visit, it was still shocking how the museum made the transition between collections and making the visitors have the sense of visitng under its cultural and historical context. I’m looking forward to visiting it the fourth times and many more."