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.