Tate Britain

1. Critique the logo. Does the logo relate to the architecture, galleries, and collections? Describe the overall essence/energy.

The logo for the Tate Britain in my opinion fits in very well with the overall energy and exhibits in the museum. Although there are classic works, much of the collection I saw was abstract/modern art This logo is pixilated, uses san sarif font and gives off a modern interpretive vibe - just like the art inside. I would not say that the logo fit in completely with the architecture as the building was more grand and seemed more rigid. The logo on the other hand is less serious, it is light, fun and progressive. Some of the furniture in the gallery did seem to fit with the logo, but more so with the exhibits - for example some of the minimalist galleries had plain, simple benches in neutral colors.

What I found really interesting and worked extremely well was using the logo to connect the different Tate museums. The Tate looked the same but Britain or Modern in the title had their own distinct styles. This differentiated them while still connecting them and keeping up the continuity.

2. Ophelia

For members of the Theater class please contrast the depiction of Ophelia’s death in Director Nicholas Hytner’s Hamlet with the visual depiction of John Everett Millais painting. For members not enrolled in the Theater class, discuss why you think this painting is one of the most popular artworks in the collection. Is it part of the fabric of English Literature? Note: it is the highest selling postcard in the museum shop.

For a painting depicting a death it is surprisingly sweet, tranquil, and poignant. She almost looks like she could be sleeping. She is surrounded by reeds, trees, flowers and bright colors. Her face looks relaxed and her pallid hue contrasts brightly against the dark, placid water. It seems like she is content to let the current carry her away, her arms are open seeming to welcome death and the escape from her depression and madness. It is a beautifully painful scene. In the Hamlet stage version we saw Ophelia's death is depicted completely differently. First of all on stage you can see the transition into madness and her craziness and you know what caused it. Unless you know the story of Hamlet and see her insanity, it is hard to really appreciate the darkness of her death from the painting. In the play she is described as dying in the way that the picture shows, but in this interpretation she is instead grabbed and murdered by the state. Although the painting is sad, it is very tranquil and calm. When Ophelia is killed in the play she is screaming and is violently murdered. As sad as it is in the painting, there is sense of closure and peace, while in the play it felt like she was yanked from life and and killed horribly.

3. Display

Compare and contrast the varied display techniques of Gallery 11 and Gallery 9. Discuss the relationship of the sparsely arranged style with the modern art in contrast to the salon style hanging (presented in groups with multiple rows) of the Pre-Raphaelites.

The modern art display fit in with the minimalist style of the art. It was clean, white washed ceiling and walls, almost sterile looking, with a plain light brown floor. Nothing in the room distracted from the paintings. Each large individual painting was displayed standing alone, and spaced out far from another one. The neutral colored, plain benches fit the decor of the room and the simple white guarders in front of the painting added to the minimalist feel. The huge room felt empty but at the same time I appreciated it as it made the colors and composition of the paintings pop against the white and have more of an impact. Nothing in the room detracted from enjoying what you were there to experience, which were the paintings themselves. I enjoyed this room a lot.

Although it was closed at the time, we were able to get a peak at the salon style gallery. The whole room, from the marble lining the wall to the ornate frames to the colors in the painting created a more welcoming, warmer atmosphere. The stacking of the paintings created a more claustrophic display and it was hard to focus on one piece. But this was alright because I felt the pieces didn’t seem to require your entire focus, they tended to be scenes or portraits which were just more straight forward. I guess it was because I didn’t get to examine them up close but I wasn’t sure why they chose to group certain patings together. I would be interested to go back and look at the gallery in person to get a better feel of it.

4. Installation Art

Describe your experience of “The Coral Reef” by Mike Nelson. Elaborate on the odors, navigation, mystery, etc. In your opinion – is this art?

I liked the Coral Reef and I definitely think it can be considered art. To me art is something that provokes a visceral emotion and this exhibit did. It was an interesting type of art I had never experienced before. It consisted of a series of rooms, some with multiple doors, all connected by halls. It seemed to be made of plywood and reminded me of a hastily put together shack with the drywall and plain wood. Much of the wood look worn and damaged with holes or dents. The entire place had a musky, damp smell and each room had minimal but interesting items in it. One had only a couch, a single cactus in the corner, and pamphlets tied together in the floor with Lenin written on them (pictured). One room had two TVs left on with only static going. Recently I looked at intense pictures from the city of Chernobyl since they have just recently been able to go back in. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/02/chernobyl-25-years-after-_n_816902.html#s233577) The pictures show people had left their most personal items behind, they are lost and the city is completely solitary and abandoned. This exhibit without a doubt reminded me of the town where everyone is forced to leave in a hurry The doors would slam shut behind. It was eery and creepy. I understand what he was trying to get at in this lost world of lost people. Not only did I feel lost in the maze of rooms, I felt strangely alone even though I knew I was in a building with hundreds of people. This is something you cannot often feel in the modern world where everyone has cell phones, it is over populated and you can connect with anyone half way around the globe with the click of your mouse. Also, maybe I’m reading too much into it, but there seemed to be a poltical compenent of the exhibit. All the Arabic material, Lenin books, and in one room a drug poster seems to point to how people in our society get lots in their causes and ideas. Were disconnected and push others further awy by getting lost in our own dogmas and beliefs. Stubbornly unwaveringly sticking to them. The internet can connect people but it can also push them further into only connecting with people who share their opinions. That’s why people like to be around people who support their way of thinking and congrate and exclude because of that. Maybe that was reaching too much but that was something I took away as a potential meaning. This solidarity people create can definitely be felt in the room. Its unsettling and creepy.

5. Tate Britain versus V&A

Which museum experience did you find most favorable and why? Items for discussion: architecture, collection, navigation, etc.

I liked the collection in the Tate Britain more then I liked the V & A, but I liked the architecture and the V&A building more then the Tate. It was an impressive space, very large and commanding which fit very well with the historical and cultural things items on display. I liked that the Tate had signifigantly more diverse kinds of art which appealed to me and held my interest. I wasn’t expecting to see many of the types and styles of the art, I have not studied much modern art so this caught me by surprise. It almost made the typical portraits and sculptures which were similar to those in the V&A become more unique and stick out because they weren’t as prevalent. I found it to be progressive and overall more inspiring then the V&A. Although I loved walking around the V&A and there was a lot to see it felt like a labyrnth. You could get lost easily and it was difficult to navigate. There were only certain stairways that would take you to an exhibit and it could easily get confusing. The Tate was more straight forward. The rooms were large, well lit, and the art was displayed so that it didn't feel overwhelming to look at. The Tate was overall much more light, exciting, and a better overall experience.

6. Object of appreciation

Provide a short description of your favorite object from the collections? Please provide label information such as name, date, origin, etc. Why would you return to this object for greater contemplation?

This is a piece called From Tarzan to Rambo: English Born 'Native' Considers her Relationship to the Constructed/Self Image and her Roots in Reconstruction 1987. It is combined photography and mixed media and was created by Sonia Boyce. I find this piece really interesting because it deals with how media can shape ones self image and how race is depicted and dealt with in our society. I feel like it has social and cultural significance and it is from a perspective I do not personally deal with going to a predominately white school. In a lot of ways though, I think the societal implications and messages can be universal and are relevant today. I feel like this piece has a lot to say and could be studied in a lot more depth especially in combination with some historical research.