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.