The National Gallery

1. Critique the logo

Is this just a typeface?  

After viewing the collection, would you propose a different typeface or a symbol?

When I first arrived at the museum I spent about 4 minutes looking around and trying to find the museum’s logo. After finding a map and looking at the front of the pamphlet I realized the museum doesn’t really have a logo, or at least I wouldn’t say it was a logo. All it was was “The National Gallery” with the word “National” being a bit larger than “The” and “Gallery”. So yes, I would consider this just a typeface. I would think that it would get a bit exhausting and annoying having to write and write “The National Gallery” on every single piece of work that the museum has it’s name on. Wouldn’t they want something a little simpler and even smaller perhaps? Additionally, after viewing the collection, I was a bit confused on why their “logo” would be so plain and simple. Most of the paintings were very intricate and detailed, looking rather picturesque. But then when I went to relook at the “logo” it was so ordinary and basic. If they wanted their “logo” to be more like the collection, they should of made it more elaborate and pretentious. Overall, I would definitely propose a different logo all together. It shouldn’t look like just a typeface, they should come up with more of a symbol or label, maybe not having the whole “The National Gallery” in it but possibly coming up with some sort of abbreviation like the V & A museum. The V & A Museum didn’t write The Victoria and Albert Museum on everything but rather came up with a simpler way to represent the title of the museum.

2. Van Gogh

In your opinion, do the van Gogh paintings live up to their position in art history? Feel free to discuss: line quality, gestural brushwork, color, mood, subject matter, etc. You may also feel free to compare and contrast two van Gogh paintings (to elaborate on your level of engagement).

I have always enjoyed observing Van Gogh’s paintings but I’ve never thought about if Gogh’s paintings live up to all the hype. Now thinking about it, I honestly do not think they live up to the hype. Yes, they are gorgeous pictures with beautiful gestural brushwork and color. Yes, each individual painting has it’s own mood and feeling to it. But, overall I do not think his work is as “artistic” as others. It also depends on what kind of art one likes. I personally do like the more abstract, modern looking art. But, if I were to compare his art to another artists, let’s say, to Julius Schnorr Von Carolsfeld’s painting of Boaz’s Field Painting, I would have to say that I don’t think Van Gogh lives up to the hype. Carolsfeld’s painting looks exactly like a picture. It is incredibly detailed, elaborate, precise and specific and I wonder how long it took Carolsfeld to complete the painting. With Van Gogh, it doesn’t look like it was a perfect picture taken. I love the more abstract-type of painting like Van Gogh does compared to Carolsfeld but for some reason I just think that other artist’s should have a higher position in art history. Sometimes it makes me think that maybe Van Gogh has a high position in art history just because he cut his ear off rather than because of his paintings, but who knows. While comparing Van Gogh’s chair with A Wheatfield With Cypresses I would say in the Wheatfield painting, the brush strokes and the colors are absolutely beautiful. You can see every stroke Van Gogh must have made and you can see how articulate he must have had to been with all of the wheat sticking up from the ground. Likewise, in Van Gogh’s chair you can see each straw individually on the bottom of the chair and you can see the strokes of paint when he painted the door or even the floorboard. But overall, I don’t think he lives up to his hype. I think if he was that wonderful of an artist, he should of tried to paint some more realistic, surrealism paintings to see if he could actually be that detailed and meticulous.

3. Object of Desire

What object from the collection would be suitable for your future home? Describe the characteristics that make this both a desirable work of art –and suitable for your future penthouse, cottage, log cabin, trailer… Please provide artist name and title.

I couldn’t really find a picture that would fit in my future house because I see my future house being more of a modern, abstract, colorful house (a Jewish mother’s house). In the National Gallery I saw many paintings that were more surrealism and incredibly detailed and many that were of religious views. When we went to the Tate Modern I could pick a million paintings that would fit perfectly in my future home, but unfortunately this question was asked for the National Gallery and not for the Tate Modern. So, if I had to pick one I would have picked Claude Oscar Monet’s painting called Water Lillies, Setting Sun. I saw this painting fitting in my future home more than any other painting in the National Gallery because it was the most abstract and had a color palette of green, orange and blues which I really enjoyed. I could see this being in one of my bathrooms or in my husband’s office but not in any of the main rooms. I love the water and the sun so I saw this representing something that I really enjoyed, sitting by a river with my significant other watching the sun set. I love the colors of a sunset and I love the fluidity of the brush strokes in this painting. I also like that it is a very simple painting with no people in it and having it just be a landscape background painting. I also like how the sunrays are being reflected on the water and the branches of the weeping willow. I’ve had a weeping willow tree in my backyard ever since I was born so it would be nice when I move houses to be reminded of my old house. Overall, I really didn’t like many of the paintings in the Gallery like I said before, so because this picture was the most abstract, simple and reminded me of things I like to do, I would have to settle and place this painting somewhere within my future home.

4. Gallery / Display

The National Gallery has the brightest palette of wall color thus far from our museum visits. Do these colors enhance or interfere from the displays? Do you prefer the minimal palette of the Tate Modern in comparison?

I really enjoy the minimal palette of the Tate Modern because I think it emphasizes our attention on the paintings more than the corridors. I thought the colors were beautiful in the National Gallery and I could see some of those colors being the color on my walls in my home but it definitely took my attention off some of the paintings. Many times I would find myself looking at the color of the walls analyzing if this color fit for this specific room, why they chose the color they did and if I could see that color in my future home. I’m not sure why I focused so much on the color of the walls but I think it was maybe because I didn’t enjoy the paintings. Additionally, I felt as if every painting had an extravagant frame around the piece of work. Overall, with the ornamented frames along with the colorful walls, my attention was completely taken away from the paintings and focused on the display.

5. Exploitation / Merchandising?

Does the use of objects from the collection to create merchandise such as handbags, umbrellas, and t-shirts diminish the original work of art? Are certain forms of merchandising more acceptable –and if so what are those forms –postcards and posters? 

Personally, I like the idea of using paintings and pieces of work on different merchandise. I think it gives the work more importance because then it’s not only seen online, in books or in real life but rather it is seen everywhere around the world. Every time I see someone with a bag or an umbrella with a painting on it, it catches my attention. I’m always interested in what painting it is and by whom. Also, many times I don’t read books with paintings in it, research artists and their work online or even go to museums so by seeing it during my every day activities, I am more inclined to research and analyze the paintings. I definitely think there are some forms of merchandising that are more acceptable than others. For example, I think mugs, notebooks, postcards, posters and dishes are completely acceptable and sometimes very beautiful when they have art on them. On the other hand, I think it is hideous when these paintings are on t-shirts, sweatshirts or any piece of clothing. It just doesn’t look right. Mugs and notebooks are definitely my favorite when it comes to art, but many times I don’t find myself buying objects that has paintings on them. I think it also depends on the type of painting. For example, if Carolsfeld’s painting of Boaz’s Field Painting was on a mug or a dish, I wouldn’t like it because it’s too detailed and too articulate. But, if Van Gogh or Picasso’s paintings were on these objects I would appreciate them more and it would be more acceptable.

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? 

            Like I said before, I really wasn’t a huge fan of this collection but one of the paintings that did catch my eye was Lake Keitele 1905 by Akseli Gallen-Kallela. This painting intrigued me because I loved the details. I liked how you could see the ripples in the water, the reflection of the clouds and sky in the water and how there was a little island of trees off in the distance. I could picture myself sitting on the beach next to this lake just looking out in the distance and feeling the breeze from the lake on my face. I could also imagine myself in a canoe or kayak just relaxing on this lake. I would like to return to this object for more contemplation because there are these random lines throughout the lake that don’t show ripples or a reflection of the sky but are rather just opaque. I wonder what that is supposed to represent and why Gallen-Kallela chose to paint those 7 various lines on the lake. I would also like to know more about this lake and how it related to Gallen-Kallela’s life or why he chose to paint this lake and not other ones.

Tate Modern

1. Critique the logo

There are variations of the Tate Modern logo presented with a range of blurred effects. In your opinion what benefit or distraction is executed with variations of the logo? Do slight variations connect to the range of contemporary art more than a static/single logo?

 Although I think I may have said I liked the Tate Britain logo, I have completely changed my mind. I really dislike the Tate logos. First off, I really dislike the blurriness of the word Tate. Although there are many different Tate museums and I understand why the word Modern or Britain are more straightforward and plain, I don’t think it should be that way. Its Tate’s collection and I think that should be emphasized more strongly that the individual Tate museums. Tate should be the highlighted word and the blurriness definitely doesn’t make it highlighted and important in my mind. It makes it seem like it’s just off in the distance and irrelevant which isn’t true. Secondly, I think that it is a complete distraction to have variations of the logo. Many times when I see different logos for the same museums I am confused as to if it actually is the same museum, why the logos are changed and what the significance of that is. I always thought a logo was a logo. It should be static and the exact same everywhere it is used. That is the point of a logo in my mind. On the other hand, I do think that slight variations in the logo connect to the range of contemporary art. But, I don’t think that the variety of art needs to be shown through different logos. I think by having the different types of Tate museums with the additional word like Britain or Modern, that emphasizes the broad range of contemporary art more than a variation in a logo would. Most people aren’t going to think, “oh, this logo is slightly different than the Tate Modern’s logo was so this is going to be a different type of art.” Rather, they will just look at the second word in the logo like Modern rather than Britain and realize that it’s different art. Overall, I am not a big fan of these logos. I think it was a cool idea to have a blurred word but it’s just not my favorite to be honest. 


2. Free Admission

Every museum that you have visited has free admission. In Chicago, admission to the Field Museum (Museum for biological and anthropological collections) is $29 Adult and $20 child. Are museums only for the rich in the United States? How do free museum admissions impact the London culture?

Free museum admissions were something I was absolutely not used to but very excited about. I really haven’t spent much time at museums because frankly, I never wanted to spend my money on visiting a museum when I would rather be out shopping, eating or seeing a movie. Overall, I think the free admissions have a large impact on the London culture. It doesn’t divide the smart from the stupid, the rich from the poor; it puts everyone on the same level and allows everyone to have the same “education”.  People from all different backgrounds, different types of people and different income levels surround us. By having free admission, it allows the people who live in London to become more “cultured” and have a different aspect of entertainment. They don’t just have to go to movies or concerts or shopping, they can entertain themselves by going to museums and while they are “entertaining” themselves, they are learning as well. Many times, we are learning things that we wouldn’t learn elsewhere. On the other hand, I don’t think that museums are only for the rich in the United States. But, I do think that it’s ridiculous the fee amount for museums. It singles out families who are able to afford these museums and who aren’t. It doesn’t allow everyone to have the same education or learn about their culture. Why not let everyone have access to museums? It just truly doesn’t make sense to me. I’ve been here for 2 months and I’ve already been to 8 museums. I’ve lived in the United States for 21 years and I’ve been to 3 museums. That’s absolutely ridiculous. Free admission is the way to go and it is just a respectable, politically correct thing to do. Don’t we want to stop the separation of people in our society?

3. The Unilever Series: Al Weiwei

The Unilever Series is comprised of millions of individual porcelain objects. The curator states the following, “Each piece is a part of the whole, a commentary on the relationship between the individual and the masses.” Do you agree or do you believe the installation falls short of answering pointed questions such as: What does it mean to be an individual in today's society? Are we insignificant or powerless unless we act together? Feel free to express your opinion on the ongoing discussion of installation art.

At first, I really liked the Unilever Series. I thought it was so awesome that it was just a room filled with millions of porcelain sunflower seeds. I was in awe of how individual skilled specialists handmade each of the seeds. It was really cool. But then, I thought about the questions that this installation art posed and it made me rethink the Unilever Series. I don’t think it expresses the idea that the curator is trying to covey. It doesn’t show how each person is different by having all of these seeds looking completely identical and made similarly. Rather, in my opinion, it is showing that we as a society and an individual are exactly the same, treated the same and act the same, whereas this is completely false. Not a single person in the world today is identical. What does it mean to be an individual in today’s society? Well, I plain and simply think it means to be different. To be an individual. To be your own person. To do your own thing. To take risks, etc. But, this installation art shows the opposite. It shows we are all too similar and designed the same way. On the other hand, I am still thinking about the question, are we insignificant or powerless unless we act together? Because in some instances, I think that yes we absolutely are powerless if we don’t act together like for example in war or in times of doubt. But, generally I think once again, that because we are all individuals, you can have as much power as you want as long as you put your brain to it. So, overall, I think that the Unilever Series should maybe rethink it’s message because when analyzing the sunflower seeds more in depth, all of my thoughts are completely opposite of the message that is trying to be expressed.

4. Display

The gallery walls remain white throughout the Tate Modern exhibition spaces. Does the color white enable a neutral field for contemplation of the contemporary and modern art? Would you prefer a break in color – an introduction of additional hues to alter the experience, or do the corridors and spaces in between art displays enable visual pulses?

I was really happy that the walls remained white throughout the exhibitions. In every museum, there are always very detailed and colorful paintings that are surrounded by either a very elegant frame or elaborate walls, especially here in London. By having intricate and detailed wall designs, my attention is always taken away from the individual pieces of art. I think that the color white completely enables a neutral field for contemplations of the art. It allows me to only focus on that piece of art and not be distracted by anything else. I wouldn’t prefer a break in color, but I wouldn’t want the whole entire museum to be just white. I think that in between exhibitions and in the corridors, having all the words written all over the walls was incredibly interesting. Also, the entrances to most exhibits were colorfully decorated with large writing on the overhang, which was eye-catching and interesting. So, I think that by having the break in color being in the corridors rather than in the exhibitions is a great instrument for my eyes. The Tate Modern was the first museum that I was actually able to spend time only focusing on the pieces of art.

5. Power station to Art museum

Describe your impressions both exterior and interior of the Tate Modern building. Is this an ideal building to house a modern collection?

At first, I really didn’t like the exterior of the museum. I thought it was boring and characterless compared to every other museum in London. It then gave me the impression that the artwork was going to be similar, lifeless and colorless. It gave me a weird feeling. Even when we walked in, it was raining and dark out which didn’t help much with the mood. Then, I wasn’t sure about the entrance. It just didn’t seem like a real museum. But, my mind completely changed when I walked inside and explored the museum. Now, I think the exterior completely encompasses what the entire museum is about. This building is modern. It’s contemporary. It looks like it’s from our past. And I like that. A lot of the other museums are really decorated and incredibly fancy. This one was completely simple. When you look at it from afar you can’t stop but wonder what it’s like inside. Then, when I walked inside I wasn’t disappointed at all. Like I said in question 4, I thought the exhibits and the corridors were perfect. I loved how the corridors had different fonts, words and writing on the walls and there were different pictures and large titles on the entrance to the exhibits. I then liked how within the exhibits the walls were white, allowing us to focus only on the art piece. This is the perfect building to house a modern collection. I think the exterior and the interior compliment each other very well, staying both with the very modernesque look and feel. Even though at first I wouldn’t choose this building for the Tate Modern, after seeing the whole museum and rethinking the idea of modern art, I think this building is perfect. It allows us to think about our past and realize that our past will never be left behind.

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? 

My favorite object was definitely a piece by Francis Picabia. Although I have never seen much of his work, this piece really stuck out to me. It was his painted called The Handsome Pork Butcher from c1924-6, c1929-35. This painting was so intriguing. There was so much to look at and so many different interpretations that could come out of this what looks to be simple painting. It looks like there is a woman’s face and a man’s face in this painting but I couldn’t exactly pick out every feature of both. I then was trying to figure out why there were yellow combs randomly in the butcher’s hair and near the sides of his/her face. There is so much to look at and so much to try and interpret that I would love to come back as well as sit down and discuss this piece of work with another peer.  

Tate Britain Museum

1. Critique the logo-Does the logo relate to the architecture, galleries, and collections? 

Describe the overall essence/energy?

 ~I am still debating my feelings on the Tate Britain’s logo. I can’t exactly wrap my head around why the logo was created and constructed the way that it is today. I really like how the word Tate is depicted. I like how it kind of looks blurry and bubbly in a way. This gave off the impression of confusion and frustration to me because you could definitely read what the word said but it was still blurry and hazy. This made me think that well, maybe the museum is a bit confusing and frustrating. In reality, I was very confused while walking through the museum and “The Coral Reef” exhibit made me incredibly flustered and frustrated in comparison to the logo. In contrast to the word Britain, which is just plainly and very straightforwardly written. This gave me the impression that this museum would definitely be British art. It wouldn’t be like the V&A museum where there is art from all different cultures and from all over the world. I wasn’t sure how to interpret those two words together. The only thing that I could really scrimmage out of my mind was that the designer maybe made the Tate bigger to show us that this museum comes from a larger Tate collection and that there isn’t only a Tate Britain but rather there are numerous Tate exhibitions. I think the logo really does illustrate what the museum will be like because the contrast in the two words of the logo is comparable to the different types of exhibits. Not all of them flow well together and sometimes I wasn’t able to decipher why these exhibitions were here, which is how I depicted the logo. Why was one word so plain and straightforward, while the other was blurry, larger and a bit hazy? The logo definitely had energy and I think the museum did as well. The difference in the pieces (abstract and more modern) as well as the architecture through out the museum (a bit plain with a lot of white walls but also very interesting in other parts) could be compared to the contrasting words in the logo. So although I can’t say if I am in love with the logo or not, it definitely provides an interesting and creating visual of the museum. 

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. 

 ~There is definitely a very clear difference in the presentation of Ophelia’s death in the visual depiction in relation to the actual play. Nicholas Hytner’s Hamlet was shown in a more modern and now-a-days aspect with Ophelia wearing everyday clothes (t-shirt and sweatpants). In Millais painting, Ophelia is wearing Elizabethean-style dress in a more traditional style. Also in the painting, Opheila is dying and laying in a pond of water because it was thought that she climbed a willow tree, the branch broke and she dropped into the brook and died. Whereas in the play Hamlet, Ophelia never fully laid in a pond of water. Although the painting shows a more traditional, elegant Ophelia and most likely how it was like during Shakesperian times, I liked seeing Ophelia’s death in the play aspect because it was more modern and everyday-like. I was able to relate to her death more in the play than in the classic, beautiful painting of Ophelia.

 

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. 

 ~ I definitely noticed a large contrast with these two exhibits. The sparsely arranged style with modern art really emphasized the art/piece itself whereas the salon style hanging focused, in my opinion, more on the framing and display of the pieces than on the art itself. I enjoyed the modern art a lot more than the Pre-Raphaelites because I am more of that free-flowing, outgoing, random, abstract person who likes to take risks. That’s how I saw the modern art. Some of the pieces I just couldn’t tell what it was trying to express. But that’s what I like. Art is supposed to make you think and come up with your own interpretation. I feel as if with the modern art we were able to do that, whereas with the Pre-Raphaelites, we weren’t able to do that as much because it was older more traditional pieces of work with pictures that were easily identifiable. Additionally, the modern art was more simplistic in a display aspect because just the painting was displayed. In the Pre-Raphaelites, I felt as if they were trying to make another form of art with the type of framing they used because it was such fancy bordering which wasn’t always necessary, not all of the pictures needed that type of framing. Overall, the modern art interested me more because the display technique was more simplistic and focused more on the actual art rather than in the Pre-Raphaelites having that actual piece seem as alternate piece of art. 

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 was terrified. I thought this exhibit was terribly scary. I am unsure why I think that, but as I was walking through the exhibit I had chills running up and down my body and I felt uneasy. It was a really weird feeling. As I continued to walk through the exhibit, I was utterly confused. I didn't understand what the point of the exhibit was, I had no background information on the exhibit and there were no signs explaining "The Coral Reef". I truly thought I was going to see Coral Reef. To be honest, I still don't understand what this exhibit was about. The odors made me nauseous. The navigation made me confused and flustered. And the mysterious feeling of the exhibit made me uneasy and tense. Although I have only given negative feelings, I really did enjoy this exhibit. It kept my mind racing, always trying to figure out what the point of the exhibit was. After leaving "The Coral Reef" and looking back on that experience, I was able to find my "favorite" part of the exhibit. When you first walked in, you saw just a normal room with green walls and a little desk thing. As you walk around the exhibit and "come to the end", the ending room where you think you are supposed to exit is exactly the same as the room that you entered, but to my surprise...you couldn't exit from that room, it was just a trick. It was really awesome. Then, we walked all the way back through the exhibit to go out the way we came. Annoying but awesome. Overall, I would say "The Coral Reef" is definitely art. In some ways I like this type of art more because it is incredibly subjective and not just a painting or drawing. You're really able to see the artists emotions and feelings in a different way. It also keeps your mind working because at first I was like what? this is art?, but then as I continued to reflect, I came to the conclusion that of course it is art. It just isn't the way everyday people think "art" is supposed to be like. 

5. Tate Britain versus V&A--Which museum experience did you find most favorable and why? Items for discussion: architecture, collection, navigation, etc. 

 ~Although I really enjoyed the Tate Britain museum, I think I will have to say that I found the V&A museum experience to be a lot more favorable. I enjoyed the V&A museum more because I felt like the collections made more sense. The exhibits didn't feel completely random. As in the Tate Britain, I couldn't always make sense of why these paintings were all together. For example, there were incredibly abstract paintings and The Coral Reef exhibit and then beautiful and important paintings like Ophelia. I understand that it was all part of Tate's collection, but I didn't feel any sort of connection between all of the exhibits. Whereas in the V&A, even though the collections were very unique and individualized, I somehow felt a connection between all of the exhibits. I thought it was also very interesting because in the V&A there were different areas for different parts of the world, which was very interesting because it gave us a glimpse of different cultures and different types of art throughout the world. Additionally, the navigation throughout the V&A was simple. I never got lost and I knew where to go which always makes me happy. Overall, I really enjoyed these two museums and I think the Tate Britain collection is really awesome, but for some reason, when I left the Tate Britain I didn't have that same "excited" and "wow, I'm definitely going back there" feeling as I did when I left the V&A. 

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?

 ~My favorite object from the Tate Britain museum was definitely Red Morning Trouble by Gilbert Proesch and George Passmore, painted in 1977. This piece caught my eye because I really like the black/white with some red. I thought the colors complimented each other very well. When I first walked through the room where this piece was hanging, I didn’t notice it. But then, I did sort of a pivot move because something caught my eye and I didn’t know what it was. So I turned back and looked at the Red Morning Trouble piece and realized that was exactly what caught my eye. I want to return to this object for greater contemplation because I would like to do a bit of research on Gilbert and George to see what made them come up with a painting like this. Why did they chose to paint some squares red and the others black/white? Also, who is the man in all these different positions? Is it Gilbert and/or George? I think by having some sort of background on their life, it would better help me understand the thought process with this piece.