Graffiti

Like the cliche I am (urban white middle class daughter of union-loving liberals) I love graffiti! I think it adds visual interest and life to areas that maybe aren't so pretty, and it adds another layer to the complexity of streetscapes. Where some see vandalism or delinquency I hope to see creativity and self-assertion. Graffiti, to me, has it's place in art and culture, and in the street or particular streets because it doesn't belong in areas like Kensington.

The Shoreditch area is chock full of graffiti, some clearly commissioned and some clearly not. It's all part of the supposed hip, artsy and gritty vibe of the area, as well as representing the laissez-faire attitude of the youth. The area has been greatly gentrified - exposing how graffiti has become part of the culture of different ethnicities beyond the minorities that began it. This mural could be a response to the influx of money, or one of the infiltrators trying to live up to their liberal persona. All that said, I think this is a nice piece of work, and appropriate to the setting - an open-air car park. Parking lots are overwhelmingly ugly places so anything that brings in some life and color is nice. The color blocking is interesting, it reminds me of a quote about typography, that it is designing the space around the letters. 

I found this piece off Brick Lane but it's been spotted other places in the area. I think it's a really nicely executed piece with lovely shading and a funny jab at the neighborhood. Since graffiti becomes part of its surroundings it's important for it to be relevant to the setting and/or site-specific, and this piece does that well. The way the woman in bending over it is pretty clear she is riding a road bike - a major hipster trend and ubiquitous to that area. The piece is pretty simple but the artistry of it rejuvenates this particular wall which was previously full of basically mindless tags.

A

B

A. This spray-painted stencil was on a wall closing off a construction site and I have to say I don't care for it. Visually, there is nothing exciting or new about the typography or imagery; philosophically, the same is true, nothing new - which is ok - but the words do not even make sense it's just a vague hippie-licious statement as far as I'm concerned. I can see how it is trying to reconnect with the past in a new medium but I think it falls short; the red wall would've been better off without it, and I'm guessing soon will be.

B. This black and white piece caught my eye as I converged with Brick Lane, without stopping I glanced at it and continued on my way. Then I remembered "Oh! Graffiti!" Such was the awful power of this piece, so bad I didn't even think it deserved a spot in my graffiti photoshoot. And so I'm not quite sure what to say about it, mostly cause I can't tell what it is. This is often a component of graffiti, decipher-ability, like abstracted text but in this case the text is legible and the imagery is not. Perhaps a lighthouse? Microscope? Fist? Thumb, with wings..? While there might be some cache to creating difficult to interpret work I think this piece is crossing the line. I assume it is sort of Space Invader inspired but it's much less interesting and has less interesting figure-ground than the professional.

Museum Time

It's 3:16, "Perfect, plenty of time." Standing at the base of another equine monument to a hero of some sort I gaze up at the threatening sky and the treacherous roads that surround me. "Goddammit, when will everyone get off the Rocky steps?" I wonder to myself and begin pacing in circles around the anonymous brass man on horseback, who is held in the air by a mish mash of animalia and goddesses and a sad fountain at the base. I do a lap, look up, do another lap, still a a father and son posing for pictures so I can't get my coveted 'devoid of people' photo. It's 3:23, "Screw this."

I cross the road brimming with sedans and quickly ascend the stairs Rocky famously defeated; silent mental cheers at the top. The Philadelphia Museum of Art dwarfs me yet invites me in, with it's familiar neoclassical architecture and promise of impressive artworks. Stepping inside the door the security guard tells me that the galleries will start closing in about half an hour. I look at my watch again and it's infallible military-inspired face whispers to me that this man is exaggerating the museum doesn't close for more than an hour at 5 p.m... Conflicted I tell the man that's fine, and yes you can check my bag. The blond cutie behind the ticket desk is equally hurried telling me since I'm entering rather late I can return tomorrow for free, I explain I can't, "I'm just here for the day from New York."

Two nights ago back in Manhattan our family friend Bonnie helps me buy my Megabus ticket to Philly, and her neighbor and working artist Joe gives me some info about the Philadelphia Museum of Art. He tells me a couple must-see works like Burning of the Houses of Lords and Commons by J.M.W. Turner and especially Christ on the Cross by Roger van der Weyden. These recommendations resurface when Blond Ticket Man asks "Are there are works in particular you want to see?" Two rooms circled on my map I start up the grand central staircase, sidestepping rowdy youths waiting to leave, and giving the clearly not-mature-enough-for-her-age white girl funny looks.

At the top I leave the juveniles and the juvenile in me behind and focus on the map; "Burning of the Houses of Lords, I definitely want to see that, soooo... To the right!" I hurry through the empty galleries and reach the smaller room with the Turner, which is suddenly looking me in the face, and it feels like the first familiar thing I've seen all day. I'm in Philadelphia for the first time via New York City where I'm briefly staying following my first semester abroad in Florence. My art history class studied this Turner so I had a strong mental image of the piece and am surprised to see it's smaller than I anticipated. But I feel like I know the vivid brushstrokes and colors. I step close to it, inspecting the textures, I step back, I look at my trusty watch - 3:35, you have plenty of time it says soothing my nerves. Sitting on the lacquered wood bench perpendicular to the painting I devote all my attention to Turner, absorbing it's feeling, admiring the way the flames lick the buildings and sky.

3:39, better get to the other piece just in case. I flee the right wing for the left. Passing the stairs I see the teens have left. A couple rooms in and I can see the van der Weyden in the distance on the last wall. As I dodge a medieval fountain and continue I'm stopped by a guard telling me they are closing off the rooms and I can't go any further. I say okay and look at my watch and it reassures me that these people are really overzealous with this closing business and I telepath back "I know, right?" So I sort of peer over the guard and try to look at Christ on the Cross about 30 feet away. I'm ignoring the guard who probably expected me to just turn right around so I have about 30 seconds this way before he repeats "this area is closing, please move along." I huff and with a final glance at the unique flatness of the piece race downstairs to the modern painting section. I make it a little further here, spotting works by Degas, [watch check, 3:42], Van Gogh, and Monet before being approached by a female guard who is closing this wing ushering me out as my eyes cling to painting after painting like Wile E. Coyote clinging to a cliff, foiled again by the Road Runner.

Dejectedly crossing the threshold back outside a mere 20 minutes later, I look at my watch, baffled, but it says nothing except 3:46. After a few moments leaning against one of the tan columns I surrender and head to the subway to get to the Megabus pick-up. On my way I see a super electronic tall bank sign and I watch in fear as it tells the time, 4:52. WHAT? My watch tries to hide in my pocket but I take it out and realize my whole day has been a sham and my careful timing to leave the art museum to the end has been foiled by my own Road Runner, my Timex.

As silly as this experience was, I did get a taste of some of the fabulous artworks the Philadelphia Museum of Art has to offer. It has also encouraged me to revisit Philadelphia to recover from this embarrassment, and further consider moving there after graduating. I also learned not to try and outsmart museums, just start your day there because they could be great and you won't know if they're closing around you.

National Portrait Gallery

LOGO

The National Portrait Gallery is an interesting fusion of historical and modern portraits, and this dichotomy is represented in the interior architecture of the building, but fails to be shown in the logo and branding. As with the National Gallery the justification of the lettering places a lot of emphasis on the final word, "Gallery," when this is probably not the most important word of the bunch/does not deserve this attention. I do think this logo is slightly more effective than it's brother - the typeface has a little personality and playfulness to it - but it has the same essential flaw: it just feels arbitrary. First, although this typeface does have more personality I don't see much if any connection to the collection, I would again use the word arbitrary. Second, I might suggest to give some sort of hierarchy to the words through size or color. Last, I might consider an approach like the Tate to have a few variations of the same system; perhaps incorporating imagery relating to portraiture. One of the things I think of are the frames we put portraits in, so there could be three styles of frame that relate to different eras of the collection that are rotated in branding use. Another image that comes to mind is the human profile which could be incorporated as a background image.


SELF PORTRAIT

ARIEL


Andre Deutsch by Leonard Rosoman captures a certain essence of my personality. In a sort of Cindy Sherman way I can see myself in Andre's shoes, representing the masculine parts of me, and in his boss 1980's suit. The sketchy style of the rendering feels a little uncertain or perhaps not capture-able, like there is more than meets the eye (as hopefully there is). The figure does not dominate the scene, and the surrounding seems like a further reflection of the sitter. He doesn't seem to be hiding anything, letting you look into his life while the look in his eyes seems to look back into the viewers' life. I was particularly drawn to the messy desk, I imagine my home might look like that someday. A final connection is that Andre works as a publisher which is a field I have contemplated pursuing.

STUDY ABROAD FRIENDS


ETHAN


Laurence Sterne by Joshua Reynolds is a bold and wily-looking fellow, with a dominant brow bone and a strong nose. He has a physical likeness to Ethan, but a clear personality likeness as well. Laurence looks very confident in his opinions and not afraid to share them and defend them if necessary, this is the first element of Ethan's personality that strikes me. The dramatic black robes and red curtain recall his interest and participation in theater and his intellectuality, rooted in classical learning.

CLARE


Bryan Organ painted this portrait Diana, Princess of Wales during her engagement to Prince Charles so it is set in Buckingham Palace; the interior design is reminiscent of Clare, in color palate - gold, navy, white, touches of pattern - and traditional style - wainscoting, four panel door. The same is true of Diana, her incredibly classic style is the same as Clare's, more navy and white, and hair perfectly done. Diana has a pretty serious face in the portrait, just as Clare can put on her game face and get things done, though I have replaced it with her recognizable smile and dimples, just as Diana was usually seen smiling, though she had her serious side as well.

SARA W


Emma, Lady Hamilton painted by George Romney brings to mind Sara Waller most immediately in the pose. Lady Hamilton was a mistress to several men, this is not meant to make any implications about Sara but she has a certain casual sensuality about her, like Lady Hamilton who looks at ease and enticing. The Lady was popular at parties, like Sara, and looks innocent but we know there is some mischief inside. They also share slender faces and curly hair. The scarf around Lady Hamilton's head brings what we would interpret as a 1970's vibe, and Sara's style has some hippie flair with loose floral tops and long necklaces.

SARAH S

This comparison can be summed up in one word: fashion. This portrait of Anna Wintour, famous editor-in-chief of American Vogue makes me think of Sarah because of their clear shared interest in fashion and culture. There is also a similarity of taste, both have penchants for luxurious and modern clothes often with no accessories save for fur in Anna's case and a big scarf in Sarah's. Both are certainly very smart and savvy women with passions for the written word. Oh and really shiny hair.