Tate Britain

LOGO

When I began to think critically about the Tate logo(s) I wasn't convinced. I was thinking conventionally, that the image is too complex, or too difficult to recognize or reproduce. Thinking about it more I think the designers arrived at a good solution given the challenge of uniting four various museums under one brand identity. The letters that make up TATE are such strong simple forms that they can handle the distortion of different blur effects or warping and still be legible. Also, the Tate has a reputation for being a cutting edge place, and the logo is meant to reflect this dynamic nature - although from what I can tell there are actually only four variations in frequent use, three with a shifting emphasis, and one that is a consistent thin stroke weight. I think the unconventionality of the mark does fit with the more contemporary collections. One could argue it also relates to the older works in that artists like Turner - who is heavily featured - were also pushing the envelope in their time. Thinking about if the galleries relate to the logo I remember what Steven said about the Tate Britain maintaining complete control over the lighting, and a possible connection between the perfectly diffused light and the diffusing logo. The interior is very simplified compared to the exterior, which has nothing to do with the logo as far as I can tell, although both feel very solid to me. In conclusion, I think the prestige Tate has allows them greater freedom with their logo, and they have sufficient resources to maintain it.

A beautifully empty gallery

OPHELIA

Honestly, I still am not clear on the circumstances of Ophelia's death in the production of Hamlet at the National Theatre. But let's say I do understand, and I understand it as she was going mental and her father arranged for her to be "taken care of" as we say, aka dragged off and killed by the men in suits. This interpretation greatly contradicts the idea put forth by Millais, and by Gertrude in the play - who is told that Ophelia drowned by accident, but also hints at Ophelia's lack of will to live. This lack of will is the dominant quality of Ophelia by Millais in my opinion; that is presuming she is alive, a point I am conflicted about. For me there is some confusion about precisely when this moment is happening, it could be just after she has fallen in, and has not begun to sink, or I could see it as post-mortem, and Ophelia has floated back up to the surface and is just drifting along, expressionless. At the same time I feel like I can see the breath in her chest and throat and some cognizance is her eyes. This personal reflection alone I think already shows there is much more development here, more facets to appreciate; I found the representation in the staging of Hamlet too brief and quite passionless, we saw Ophelia go a little bit mad and then she is just taken away, we never see the true height of her ruin, mental or otherwise… 

Dead or Alive?

DISPLAY

The style of hanging art to be displayed is not something I ever really considered. Museums always seem to hang their art in a manner that is appropriate considering the style of art and the location so I had no reason to reflect. We generally hang modern art in large white rooms with plenty of space between pieces, as opposed to historical art which is sometimes hung to replicate how it would have been in that period, many pieces, all crammed together with large ornate frames. Sometimes historical works are not hung salon style, perhaps that is more common in museums like the MET where all the works are masterworks and should be seen. With salon style hanging I find it hard to see some of the pieces and also that the close proximity makes it hard to concentrate on one piece and not have the surrounding works creep into sight. But it is all the attitude of the period; in the past there was a desire to be overwhelmed by art and pattern and visual interest, and I think there is value in recreating this experience to see the art the way it would have been seen in it's day. So the style in gallery 9 also makes sense for it's period, that is the way we have displayed the art of the past century. Such minimal works would make no sense in baroque gold frames nor in modern frames most of the time, and without the edge definition created by a frame greater distance is necessary between each piece to distinguish them.

INSTALLATION ART

I really enjoyed my experience in Coral Reef; it was exactly what I would want a haunted house to be, slightly creepy but without moving/living things popping out at you. I don't know if the installation was supposed to be taken very seriously but I approached it with a sense of humor. It actually reminded me very much of my amateur attempt at installation in the 3D foundation class at UW; for the project I took over a small empty room in Sterling Hall while the building was desolate and undergoing renovation and set it up to look like someone was still working there doing experiments in the 70's or something. I didn't have the same finesse as Nelson surely, I really enjoyed how authentic he made the spaces feel - the musty basement smell and overall dirtiness and dustiness. I like the idea of sensing the former presence of a person, without any people actually present, and the idea of uncovering their activities but - like in Coral Reef - not being able to fully comprehend what went on. The installation is definitely mysterious, when I came out someone mentioned layers of religions going on and my response was "oh, is that what the point was? I could see that I guess." Apparently this installation was first done in 2001 earning Nelson a Turner Prize nomination, and I have to wonder if it was more relevant at that time, but that might just be my desire to move past the Islamic issue in art. Coral Reef gave me a post-modern feeling, a genre I have trouble accepting as art sometimes, so is this art? I'm not sure, but I think the skill Nelson has in creating this complex environment that is so easy to get lost in gives me greater confidence to call it art.  
 

My crap installation (but there's a fan!)

TATE BRITAIN VERSUS V&A


Thinking about experience alone I prefer the Tate Britain. This might be because I had been to the V&A before, so the Tate Britain felt fresher, but I also highly value getting off the beaten path, and the idea of a smaller more carefully selected museum. I'm not saying the V&A is necessarily showing everything they have, but they have more space, and a smaller museum makes more sense to me - visitors can see everything, and not feel overwhelmed. The Tate Britain is also more out of the way in Pimlico and I enjoyed going to an area I had never experienced before. I thought the Tate was very well displayed and each piece felt considered. The V&A has the challenge of having lots of smaller objects that could not be displayed without a case, nor would it make sense to display each piece individually, and as I have already mentioned my preference is to see each object one at a time. The V&A also seemed to be mostly very large rooms, another quality I find overwhelming, sometimes I don't know where to start, and it can be exhausting to work through a whole room that size so I start to move more quickly just glancing at pieces. At the Tate Britain I could walk into a room and spend a moment on every piece and a few rooms like that leaves me with a greater impression than a large room of equal area that I breeze through. I did find the V&A easier to navigate, surprising because of the size difference, but this might have been because of disruptions at the Tate Britain, like closed or empty galleries. My final consideration is that while I definitely love the decorative arts, I have to say I prefer them as the side dish to my main course which has to be works on canvas and paper.

OBJECT OF APPRECIATION

For my object of appreciation I am torn between several pieces - the John Singer Sargent Carnation, Lily, Lily, Rose, the prints of Barry Flanagan and the prints of Lucian Freud. My selection has to be Freud's 1 from 1996. What I enjoy most about this piece is that I feel a certain personal connection with Freud's work, when I work as a fine artist I enjoy doing work that usually centers on people depicted in a stylized way, which is the same thing Freud does, he also has a unique line quality, another thing common in my work. So maybe it is narcissistic to say those are reasons why I appreciate this work, and his others as well, but they just appeal to me, also because this piece is an etching, a medium I often find irresistible. When I work with the figure I make pretty simplified versions on images, Freud's have much more fine detail, which is a quality I would like to explore and he handles it very well. The panel about Freud in the museum suggests that his works portray "the act of looking" as much as they portray a certain individual. I think this is an interesting achievement and I would like to look at the pieces more to look for that and for the "sense of the uncanny or an air of anxiety and apprehension."