The National Gallery

1. Critique the logo

Unfortunately, I do think that the logo is just a typeface. I don't know what font this is, but it is just "The National Gallery," in a certain font. It's boring and it doesn't say anything about what it showcases inside its walls. Additionally, the banners are all plain red and simply state, "Admission Free." Once again, this leaves you completely oblivious to what the National Gallery actually displays.  

After viewing the collection, I would propose a symbol of some sort. Like you had mentioned, I would also decrease the size of "Gallery," because there's no point in having it be larger than the rest of the typeface. I don't know what symbol would be fitting, but something to distinguish it. Or maybe a frame or something considering they have great, bold, and ornate frames on almost all of their paintings.

Although my new design is still plain, it's just a twist on the logo they already have. They like a dark red and now their logo is encased in a dark red frame!

2. van Gogh

To be completely honest, I was surprised at how ugly van Gogh's Sunflower painting is in person. Honestly, children could imitate this painting and it would look quite similar. I am not art smart at all, but I enjoy aesthetically pleasing art or unconventional funky art; van Gogh doesn't quite fit in either. However, upon closer examination, I think what makes the Sunflower painting and van Gogh, in general, so famous is the technique he uses in creating the colors. Pictures do not capture his layering technique, which he uses liberally. In the sunflower painting specifically, he uses layers upon layers of paint to create an almost 3-D effect of colors and layers. The same technique can be seen in his painting Wheatfield with Cypresses where he specifically uses this layering technique in the grass to highlight the different colors of the grass. The sunflower painting and the wheatfield painting are so colorful that you want to touch it just to see how it would feel. His technique is unique and self-inspired which I think makes his place in art history justified. Even though his work is not aesthetically pleasing or pretty, he is so talented and different from other artists and any work of his probably stands out as uniquely his.

3. Object of Desire

I knew when I saw The Water-Lily Pond (1899) by Claude Monet that it was my object of desire and entirely suitable for my future home.

The future home where it would be displayed is my large cottage in the woods. It looks something like this picture.

  

It would be displayed above the fireplace like this picture below.

The Water-Lily painting would suit my future home because it is a painting set in nature and my home would also be set in nature. The painting is flush with green and other natural colors found in nature like pretty pink flowers. I would think that I could walk outside and see nature in its most natural setting just as it is painted by Monet. In fact, I love the painting so much that I would decorate my cottage around this painting. Monet's painting celebrates nature and the bridge celebrates the small human touches that can make nature more accessible and approachable without ruining the beauty.

4. Gallery / Display

The National Gallery does indeed have the brightest palette of wall colors from all of our previous museum visits. I noticed walls that were red, gray, teal, purple, and various print patterns. I felt that the colors of the wall enhanced the displays because they didn't detract or distract from the paintings at all. The paintings were hung in salon style, so you weren't overwhelmed with the number of paintings per wall and the frames on all of the paintings helped to distinguish the paintings from the colorful wallpaper.

(picture credit:http://www.nationalgalleries.org/media/5/titian_2.jpg)

 In fact, I really liked all of the color choices that the National Gallery chose to display their paintings. I feel that the consistency in one color for a section of rooms was nice because it created a sense of cohesiveness and then the change in color for a new section was also nice because it kept you from becoming bored. I think that having a neutral color of white for the walls of the Tate Modern makes perfect sense due to the lack of frames and the importance of bold colors in the paintings. However, the colors in these paintings were usually paired with an assortment of colors as most of the paintings were of people or landscapes. The focus was often on a figure or an object, therefore the necessity of having a white wall as a neutral place for the eyes to rest and not be distracted was unnecessary. 

5. Exploitation / Merchandising?

The first display that I saw upon entering the gift shop was van Gogh's Sunflower painting in various forms such as an address book, an umbrella, a scarf, candles, stationary set, silk ties, and finger puppets. It was the grossest display of mass merchandising I've ever seen! I didn't even love the Sunflowers painting and I was disgusted by the way that it was used and reformatted for these various items. I think that the use of Sunflowers to create merchandising like this diminishes how great the painting is and it's significance in art history. At least postcards and posters keep it in painting form and they're for admiration, a way for non-rich people to own a piece of van Gogh in their own homes. Postcards and posters don't diminish from the original work of art itself because you know that it is merely a reproduction of a picture of the painting and they are still in a similar format. How can you admire Sunflowers in the form of an umbrella? Or a finger puppet? It's just a sunflower finger puppet!

I think that the mass merchandising of various works of art apart of pictures, post cards and posters is a perversion to the original piece of art itself. It's tacky and it doesn't say much about appreciating art.

6. Object of appreciation

My original object of appreciation was Flowers in a Terracotta Vase (1736-1737) by Jan van Huysum. I liked it because of how realistic it looked. The grapes looked so real that I almost felt like if I reached out to touch them I would really be able to touch them! The flowers were so detailed and simply gorgeous. I couldn't believe how much attention van Huysum paid to each petal of each flower. However, upon seeing it on a postcard, it looked so flat and un-special. I still liked it, but I couldn't say that I appreciated it as much as I did upon the first glance.

I went back to the Impressionism section and I found the one painting that had drawn me back for a second glance within one visit. 

Name: The Skiff (La Yole) 

Year: 1875

Artist: Renoir

Oil on canvas

I would return to this painting for greater contemplation due to the technique that Renoir used in painting. The various shades of blue used in the pond and the lovely orange of the canoe simply amaze me. In addition, his technique creates such a blurred effect that still manages to convey the scene quite clearly. It almost seems as if the rower of the boat is watching Renoir as he paints them. The object is watching as the painter paints her...how neat is that? It's not the direct gaze of someone who is being painted for a portrait but rather the curiously blank face of someone turned toward the front of the painting. It's like a picture that's too blurry. The more you look, the more you can try to make out details but in the end, you can only guess at what you see.

Tate Modern

1. Critique the logo

In my opinion, the variations of the logo through blurring benefit the Tate brand because it maintains the overall essence of the Tate logo and yet it shows that it is a constantly morphing brand. The focus of the logo is "Tate," which is certainly eye catching and consistent despite the changes in the names of the other museums. The specific variations for the Tate Modern illustrate that the brand itself is ever changing and modern, just like the artwork it showcases. 


I think that the Tate logo is probably the most unique and most adaptive logo that I've seen. I can't say that it is my favorite logo/brand ever, but it is definitely one of the most creative and distinct logos I've seen thus far. 

 

 

2. Free Admission 

In the United States, museums are a privilege for those who can afford the extra expense. I would guess that the number of Americans who visit museums every year is quite minuscule compared to the overall population. As Britt, our tour guide said, "In London, the cost of living is high, but culture is free." That is one aspect to British culture and society that I have highly appreciated. During my short 22 years long life, I have been to three museums: the Milwaukee Museum, the Chazen Museum, and the Metropolitan Museum in NYC. Since I've been to Europe, I've been to 7 museums and all of the museums in London have been free. 

As a lover of museums, I am so appreciative of the free admission policy of the London museums. I watch the crowds when I'm in the museums and I especially noted the crowd at the Tate Modern. Just as London is a city with a diverse population, the London museums showcase a diverse population as well. I noted a diverse range of people such as English school children, women with full length fur coats, presumed tourists from Japan, Italy, South Korea, Portugal, and Germany, and individuals with disabilities. This to me showed that the free admission that most museums in London have create a sense that culture and art is free and accessible to everyone despite socioeconomic status and/or physical impairment. Culture as it exists in London, whether it is history or modern art, is barred from no one and by being able to access these works in a setting such as a museum, everyone is an equal participant in creating and critiquing culture. 

America lacks a cohesive culture due to its "melting pot/mixed salad," and due to the fact that it is a money driven country. Culture is meaningless if there cannot be a monetary gain. Culture, or should I say "high culture" is not free in America. It is still very much reserved for the rich/upper middle class and for special occasions. Unfortunately, those special occasions are far too few and in between. But that's at the very heart of the problem, for me. I don't think that museums and all of the knowledge that it showcases should be reserved for the rich or for special occasions; museums should be free and open to the public because the main point of museums is education.

3. The Unilever Series: Al Weiwei

“Each piece is a part of the whole, a commentary on the relationship between the individual and the masses.”

The installation proposes an interesting point, which is to question the notion of individuality in humankind, especially individuality in regards to a community or a mass population. What you see is not what you get, or so the poster for this piece of installation art states. However, as much as I enjoy the work and the effort that must have gone into making this display, I cannot help but feel that it does indeed fall short of answering any questions that one might have as a result of this piece of art. 


What does it mean to be an individual in today's society? The fact that there are so many sunflower seeds and that one design is not distinguishable from the other makes one question the notion of uniqueness and individuality itself. Is it possible to be different? Is it possible to be normal? What happens when you cannot distinguish one from the other when looking from afar? What does it mean to be an individual in a collective? Is there a point in being unique/different? 


Would one obviously different sunflower seed thrown in there somewhere have made a different point about individuality? e.g. a bright blue or red sunflower seed


Would a hundred sunflower seeds have made the point successfully? Would a few thousand have made the point? 


I think to myself that Weiwei had so much space to work with in deciding his installation art piece and he chose this Sunflower Seeds piece. It has a profound resonance that as a museum go-er, I didn't comprehend to the fullest extent. I know I didn't. Honestly, this could be by object of appreciation because I need a second visit to contemplate it and its implications with more depth. So no, it did not answer any of the questions that it stirred up in me, but it did give me a lot of food for thought. 

4. Display

The gallery walls in the Tate Modern are white, without fail. I think that the while walls allow for the color in the paintings to be shown in the best light possible. Also, by having this neutral color on the walls, the museum curators have less worries when placing paintings in certain rooms because they don't have to worry about how the wall color will contrast with the painting itself. The white walls allow for a cohesion, a blank canvas on which to display any type of artwork. 


A break in color would be nice, but the color of the wall truly has to match all of the paintings displayed in that room. For example, the Romantics collection at the Tate Britain had a greenish color on the wall. The ornate gold frames complemented the wall color and helped the painting to stand out against the wall color. The green color itself did not detract from the color in the paintings, so it was perfectly logical to have the wall not be white. 


I think that the colors in the corridors and the common areas outside of the exhibition areas add enough color so that your visual sense is engaged and enabled. I think that if the white walls were to be varying colors, you would actually enjoy a neutral white wall so that your eyes can rest and not be preoccupied with color.

5. Power station to Art museum

The exterior of the Tate Modern is pretty darn ugly. It's hideous. It doesn't look grand enough to house a collection of modern art. It reminds me of the Humanities building on campus and that is definitely not a compliment. I was very unimpressed and highly doubtful about the quality of art I would find inside the museum despite its large size. In fact, its size is probably the only thing it has going for it. It is not an attractive exterior and it doesn't stand out in any particular way.




The interior, is a different story. It is a very spacious museum, and yet, the space feels like it is occupied just enough. There's not an overabundance of art objects and the escalators make access to different floors a breeze. The interior design doesn't hide the fact that the building is large and somewhat austere, but instead embraces this scarcity of design and functions as a cool, streamlined area to display modern art. I liked it very much. I thought the interior was very impressive and I could understand after all why this building was chosen to house the Tate Modern. Additionally, because of the division in floors, it was easy to see how the exhibits were divided up. The other museums tend to be organized like a maze. This maze of a museum was separated by floors, which made it easier to navigate.

6. Object of appreciation

 Artist: Salvador Dali (born in Spain, worked in Spain & USA)

Name: Metamorphosis of Narcissus (1937)

Oil on canvas

  

According to the description beside the painting, Dali was trying to portray the metamorphosis of Narcissus, who according to Greek mythology, fell in love with his own reflection in the water. Dali uses the images to suggest emotions triggered by metamorphosis such as anxiety, disgust and desire.  

I would return to this painting for greater contemplation because I didn't get all of those emotions when looking at this painting. I was drawn in by the way that Dali played around with the idea of reflection. I was intrigued by the colors that he used and the surrealism of the scene he painted. Staring at this painting, I could see the emotion of desire because of the small figures of possibly naked women in the center of the painting, but I didn't see disgust and anxiety. I saw a reflection that wasn't quite as appealing as the "reality." I saw a checker board in the background, which made no sense to me whatsoever. I saw an egg, with a symbolism that completely went over my head. This is me is a prime example of modern art. I think that Dali is a very skilled painter, but I just don't understand what he was trying to convey in this painting, which is why I appreciate it and would need to go back for a second look.

Tate Britain

1. Critique the logo

The building of the Tate Britain looked like an ancient Roman temple and the interior was simply gorgeous and very spacious. I believe that the building itself was quite a good fit for the collections and galleries it housed. However, the logo didn't quite fit the building even though the collections did. I felt like the logo was too modern for such a historic and majestic  building.

The overall essence of the Tate logo is that is is changeable and it's not static. It's a very distinct font and very recognizable. I saw a woman with a shopping bag a couple of weeks ago with the Tate logo and I thought to myself "That looks cool. The Tate Britain." It imprinted itself on my mind because it is unique and it stands out. The faded and ghostly looking "Tate" is much larger than the word Britain, which I understand is because there are other "Tate" museums such as the Tate Modern and the Tate Liverpool. The focus of the logo is "Tate," which is certainly eye catching and consistent despite the changes in the names of the other museums.

The positive thing about the logo is that it is effective in branding the Tate museums as being part of a group. I would say that the logo is definitely part of an iconic brand. The negative thing about the logo us that it doesn't really tell you anything about what you can expect to find in the museum. Yes, you can read into the words "Britain" or "Modern" and deduce what kind of collection it has. But their banners had no pictures and neither did their map. I think that the logo is more important than the collections and that is problematic. As a relatively new museum go-er, I would like to have an idea of what I'm going to find on the inside. So far, I think that the Science Museum has done the best job with using their logo to showcase what they have on display on the inside. 

 

2. Ophelia

In John Everett Millais's painting, he depicts a visual of poor Ophelia's death from Shakespeare's Hamlet. It is a disturbing subject, but the detail in the painting is simply amazing. You can see how Millais was influenced by the Pre-Raphaelite form of art and the attention he paid to the details and colors seen in nature. 

In the painting, you can see in her face and her body language that she is genuinely distraught and her arms are bent as if she is giving up on life. In contrast to the play, you do not see Ophelia drown at all. It is left completely to your own imagination with detail provided via a conversation between Gertrude and Laertes. Getrude says that Ophelia fell into the river while picking flowers and she let the currents sweep her away. She committed suicide by drowning. It was a very cold and unemotional death. I did not feel impacted as an audience member. 

I feel that Millais's depiction better shows that despite Ophelia's "madness," her decision to let herself drown was a very conscious one and her pained facial expression shows that she has given up on life. The painting is able to evoke more emotion in me than just hearing about her death. 

3. Display

The displays in Gallery 11 and Gallery 9 made me think that they were showcasing a new and modern way to display artwork which is very different from the traditional salon style of hanging paintings and portraits. Galleries 9 and 11 had bare white walls with paintings sparsely displayed on the large walls. In a very large room, there would be about 3 paintings on each wall, which is interesting when the walls would have definitely been able accommodate more and still be considered spacious. The way that interactive art was displayed was also quite creative in that you weren't quite sure if what you were looking at was artwork or not depending on the "security" around that art.  (When in doubt, never touch! Scratch that, when in a museum, never touch, period!)

Despite those few pieces of artwork, there were very few objects in the room other than the paintings. I noticed that in the middle of the room there were large benches and these benches would have been placed directly in front of the paintings. The bright white walls and the minimal amount of clutter in the galleries led me to think that you were really meant to take the time to focus on the colors and the subject of the paintings. There were no other distractions, no grand painting frames; just you and the painting.

As you know, the one day we went, they closed down the Pre-Raphaelite section. However, I stayed later than most, and I was able to see the collection with the lights on (although the wall was still in place). The walls were a gray color with paintings scattered all over the walls.  The paintings all had ornate, gold frames which distinguished them from all of the other paintings.

 

 

The way that the painting were arranged in the Pre-Raphaelite section was much more traditional than the modern art galleries. There were so many paintings that it was almost indistinguishable looking in from the outside. However, I do enjoy the traditional salon style of displaying the portraits. I think that is because I am more accustomed to that style of display.

4. Installation Art

I found "The Coral Reef" by Mike Nelson to be a thoroughly disturbing and creepy experience. It was really powerful in creating a sense of isolation and mystery. When I first walked in, I thought I had walked into the wrong place so I backtracked to the entrance and asked the museum employee if I was at "The Coral Reef." He said yes and pointed for me to go back in and so I did. Luckily, I ran into some classmates inside and we were able to explore it together, but even so, I was really scared someone was going to jump out at me. It felt like I was in a maze of door after door and it just never ended. I would be curious to see the layout of the rooms from above because there were multiple doors per room and each one led to a different place! And the smell! Ugh, the whole place smelled mildewy, moldy, and just plain old. I wonder how Nelson got the place to smell so bad. Either way, I found the experience to be a bit of a "mind fuck," and it scared me. I'm the sort of person who likes thrills and ghost stories, but I found myself to be thoroughly scared from this experience and I'm not sure if that was Nelson's intent.

Is this art? I don't know. In my limited experience with museums and art, this is not a traditional form of art, but there was so much thought put into creating this "Coral Reef" that I can't help but think that it is a work of art. The experience is individualistic and interpretive, which leads me to think that this definitely could be interpreted as art. Art is such a fluid and generic term that I suppose it is completely in the eye of the beholder. Is this art? Yes, in my opinion it is.

 

5. Tate Britain versus V&A

I found that I had a better museum experience at the V&A for multiple reasons. I personally preferred the collections at the V&A over the collections at the Tate Britain. At the Tate Britain, I liked JMW Turner and the Romantics and I liked some of the modern art, but I found the collections at the V&A to be more diverse and more numerous. I liked everything that I saw at the V&A and I wanted to stop in every section whereas I just quickly browsed the collections at the Tate Britain.

Also, while the exterior of the Tate Britain is more pleasing to the eye than the V&A, it was easier to figure out where you were and where you wanted to go inside the V&A than the Tate. The Tate felt maze-like at times. I would walk out one gallery expecting to be somewhere totally different and end up right where I had started from the second door. I got frustrated in the Tate because there wasn't enough to hold my interest and I kept ending up in the same rooms. Meanwhile, I did get lost in the V&A a few times, but I didn't mind at all because there was always something new to catch my attention. 

6. Object of appreciation

My favorite object from the Tate Britain was a painting by JMW Turner, found in the Romantics collection.

Name: War. The Exile and the Rock Limpet.

Date: 1842

Artist: JMW Turner 1775-1851

According to the description alongside the painting, Turner is depicting Napolean in exile on the island of St. Helena. "Cut down to size by defeat, he represents the futility of war whose 'sea of blood' is evoked by the sunset and in verses Turner wrote for the picture."

I would return to this painting for greater contemplation because I would like to study the subject and the technique Turner used in painting. I didn't realize the historical significance of this painting or what Turner was trying to depict. I was drawn in by the gorgeous colors and blending. I noticed that Turner uses this blurring of color technique quite often, but I especially loved the colors he used in this painting.