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.
No comments:
Post a Comment