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.