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.