Wednesday 23 February 2011

National Portrait Gallery

From: Museums: Branding and History.
The National Portrait Gallery's logo is extremely plain and boring.  The font is unoriginal and lacks any animation or color.  Many of the paintings within the gallery are unique and amusing.  The logo is not representative of the works within the museum.  The logo could illustrate some of the works within the museum by replacing some of the letters with works of art.  For example, the 'o' in national and portrait could be a picture of someone featured within the gallery.  The gallery could also use the logo to display famous works within the museum like Andy Warhol's Queen Elizabeth II behind the letters.  That particular piece is extremely famous and would add a lot of color to the logo, which would grab people's attention.

From: www.npg.org.uk
 I chose Flora Macdonald mainly because I liked her setting.  I am from California and love the beach and she is sitting with the beach in the background.   I have always wanted to dress up in old dresses with corsets on the top and huge skirts on the bottom so this was my chance to do that in a way.  I also admire her confidence.


From: www.npg.org.uk
I chose Anne of Denmark for Katharine solely because she has a 'fro.  Katharine refers to the wisps of hair that escape her ponytail as her 'fro.  As I was walking through the museum I was hoping to find someone that represented Katharine and when I saw Anne of Denmark, I immediately knew I had to choose her.  Anne of Denmark also made social and cultural contributions to life at court through entertainment, which reminded me of Katharine's bubbly personality.

From: www.npg.org.uk

I chose Dame Anna Neagle for Anna because of her strong, yet feminine stance.  Anna Neagle seemed to illustrate Anna's giggly and confident personality perfectly.  Dame Anna Neagle was also an actress and I think Anna would make a perfect actress since she is often the center of attention.

From: www.npg.org.uk 
Normally I would not associate Alaura with a religious and violent woman.  However, on the subway to the National Portrait Gallery, Alaura explained to me that she felt combative that day but did not know why.  I thought that Mary, Queen of Scots would portray Alaura's anger and aggression.  Alaura always wears her signature red coat, which reminds me of Bloody Mary.

From: www.npg.org.uk
I chose Pandit Ram Gopal for Stephanie because the painting was so colorful and whimsical.  I always associate Stephanie with movement and dance.  The colors in the painting and the movement of Gopal's clothing made me think of Stephanie's colorful and flowing wardrobe.  Gopal was also a dance choreographer and teacher, which reminded me of Stephanie's ice skating routines.

Sunday 20 February 2011

The National Gallery

From: Museums: Branding and History
The logo is extremely plain compared to the contents of the museum.  The logo uses a generic serif font in plain black.  The museum houses famous artists, such as van Gogh, and the logo does not reflect any of these collections.  The logo is just a typeface and is extremely boring.  The museum should take inspiration from its collections to create a more unique typeface and a logo that includes a symbol.  The museum should include the symbol on all of its promotional material and banners.  Eventually the symbol can stand alone and will become representative of The National Gallery without always displaying the title of the museum.  The new logo should include an interesting, artistic font and vibrant colors.  An art museum is one of the few entities that can be creative with their logo without it looking cheesy or unnecessary.  The logo should elegantly reflect collections and mimic colors and lines; it should not be a generic font in black.

From: nationalgallery.org.uk
From: nationalgallery.org.uk
I think the van Gogh paintings live up to their position in art history.  They are all so detailed, with slight variations in colors used to create depth.  For example, "Long Grass with Butterflies" appears as though it is jumping off the canvas.  Van Gogh uses many different types of greens to create the colors in the grass.  The painting displays each blade of grass separately, which illustrates van Gogh's effort in producing the painting.  The butterflies are small and delicate, requiring the viewer to search for them within the painting even though they are in the title of the work.  Van Gogh's importance is evident in his ability to paint a wide range of subject matter.  "Long Grass with Butterflies" is happy and serene, using bright colors to display a landscape.  "Van Gogh's Chair" uses darker colors, such as dull blues and golds, and is haunting.  The painting uses extreme detail in the seat of the chair's fibers and the tiles on the floor.  The pipe left on the chair indicates a loneliness in the painting as though someone got up and left the room without bothering to take the pipe with them.  It is interesting that two of his paintings can evoke such different emotions.

From: nationalgallery.org.uk
My object of desire is Henri Rousseau's "Surprised!"  I chose this painting because it made me laugh when I first saw it.  The tiger looks as though it is smiling and has complete control of the jungle around it.  The tiger seems like it knows something others around it does not and is going to prove it to them.  I also like how cheesy it is.  It is a huge painting of a jungle with a massive lightning bolt in the background and a weird looking tiger in the foreground.  I would love to put it over the fireplace in my cottage.  I think having a crackling fire under the painting and looking up to see the jungle and tiger would create an amusing combination that would make people ask why I want this painting.

The bright colors of the walls in The National Gallery both enhance and distract from the art.  In certain rooms that include paintings of religious imagery with huge, ornate frames, the colors of the walls help pick up colors in the painting.  This makes these religious paintings seem even more important and beautiful.  For example in one room, the wall color was a deep purple and many of the paintings had purple in them.  This helped pick out the details in the painting and make the painting seem crisper.  But in rooms that have simpler paintings of delicate flowers and landscapes, I think the wall colors are distracting.  In these rooms, white walls would have been more appropriate because the colors distract from the subtleties in the paintings.

I don't think creating merchandise that includes pictures of famous artworks diminishes the art.  Although people can see the art on the merchandise, it is not as impressive as seeing the artwork in real life.  If people want to carry around a bag with van Gogh's paintings on it, there is no reason they should not be able to enjoy the work of art even when they are not inside a museum.  In addition, the Internet allows people to see almost anything when they are sitting at home on their computer.  Since people can see the paintings out of the museum on their computer, it is the same as seeing the painting on an umbrella or tote bag.  I think postcards and posters do the work of art more justice, since they best recreate the original work of art.  Postcards and posters are flat and often depict the entire work, whereas an umbrella will distort the work and may only portray part of it. 

From: nationalgallery.org.uk

I think one of the most beautiful paintings in the museum is Dosso Dossi's "The Adoration of the Kings" painted during the late 1520s. I think the rich colors in it are beautiful and the contrast of the night and the rising sun in the background add to the richness.  The delicate crowns that the mother, father and baby are wearing are very interesting and do not look like traditional royal crowns.  The painting is whimsical, but depicts a strange scene.  There is a contrast between the crowns and relaxation of the father figure with the worried expression on the mother's and baby's face.  It looks as though the family is hiding from something and is worried they might be found.  There is a castle in the distance, but I am not sure whether the family is heading toward it or running from it.

Saturday 12 February 2011

Tate Modern

The variations in the Tate Modern logo do add an artistic touch that helps connect the logo with the art, but I find it distracting.  I think a logo should be a static symbol of a particular place or company and should help illustrate the company's mission and brand.  When a logo is changing constantly, I think it makes it harder for people to identify with the logo and recognize it.  Even though it is only a slight change, I believe it's confusing when people see variations of a logo.  From a branding standpoint, I don't think it's a smart decision to alter a museum's logo, even if it is only slight changes.  However, from an artistic point of view, I think it is an interesting touch.  The variations may catch people's attention because they will notice the difference and associate it with an art museum.  But similarly with the Tate Britain, I don't think the logo font for the word "Tate" works for either the Tate Britain or the Tate Modern because it reminds me of a horror film title font.

It's great that museums are free in London.  In the U.S. many museums charge a lot of money.  I don't think museums should be for the rich, but that is how they are designed in the U.S.  I think people aren't as community driven in the U.S.  America has become polarized between the rich and the poor classes.  Many Americans no longer believe in helping others and prefer the lifestyle of every man for himself.  However, this leads to polarization in education as well because poorer people cannot afford to visit museums.  Another option is that museums cannot survive solely based off of donations in America or do not have the sponsor money to keep them open.  I think it is a shame that America doesn't have free museums because it discourages a lot of people from going.  There are certainly museums here that I would not visit if I had to pay 10 or 15 pounds to get in.  But because they are free, I am more likely to see them and I often drop in a pound or two as a donation.  America should move toward making more museums free.

I enjoyed this exhibit because it reflects how many individuals can get together to make an impact.  Each piece is only a tiny porcelain sunflower seed, but when they are laid out all together they take up a huge amount of space.  I think the installation illustrates the power of the masses and lessens the impact of the individual.  Since the exhibit only shows all of the sunflowers together, it is hard to focus on each one individually or decipher what being an individual means.  According to the exhibit, the masses are powerful and overbearing.  If the exhibit only contained a few sunflower seeds it would not be as impressive.  This illustrates that individuals are more powerful when they work together. I don't think the exhibit is meaning to say anything negative about the individual or that the individual could not have an impact.  I believe the exhibit is illustrating that the individual may have to work harder to be heard because the masses by nature will garner more attention.

The white walls in all of the galleries help patrons focus on the art.  I think the white enables people to pick out colors in the art and see certain details without being distracted by colored walls.  The white walls also reflect the natural light that pours into the galleries during the day, making the paintings even easier to examine.  The white galleries also make the museum seem more airy and open, adding a neutral, inviting tone to the galleries.  I do think that the white can get boring and monotonous, but the designers did a good job with making the areas between galleries very exciting.  The wall with artistists' signatures linking the two sides of the museum is very interesting and the picture above of the "Under 5's Zone" shows bright blues, greens and pinks as well as red and gray.  In these areas people can take a break from the bright white walls and let their eyes follow the spots of color.  Then when people go back into the galleries, they can start focusing again on the art without being distracted by crazy colors.


My impression of the outside of the building was that it looked like an old factory.  It seemed quite expansive and the brick made it seem old, but special.  It seems weird to put an art gallery in an old power station, but I think it works.  Before going inside my initial thoughts were that the building seemed huge and was right on the water.  I think these are two positive points for an art gallery.  Since the building is so big, it can house a lot of artwork and pieces.  It's size is also an advantage because the higher floors are not blocked by other buildings, allowing natural light to flow into many of the galleries making them brighter.  Having the museum right on the water makes for a picturesque scene that is inviting and comforting to many visitors.  On the inside, the building is much more industrial than most museums.  The entryway has a huge corridor with columns and wires on each side and overhead.  I think the interior lends itself well to a modern art museum because it is very clean and simple.  It doesn't have a lot of special stone or glass that would detract from the art.  It is basically a huge frame of a building with white walls.  It is a perfect space for keeping modern art and allowing the art to shine and gather attention while the building goes almost unnoticed.  I also think the fact that it wasn't initially built to be a modern art museum makes the building more interesting and adds character to the museum.


This piece is called The Annunciation by René Magritte from 1930.  In the painting there appears to be a deserted landscape and dark clouds.  In the center of the painting is a metal wall that may have some sort of bells on it.  
I liked this painting a lot because it reminded me of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.  The wall with bells didn't appear to me like that.  Instead I saw the white lattice as a door that could lead behind the wall.  The wall I see as only one side of a secret building in the middle of a clearing high up on some mountain.  This scene seemed like it was pulled out of a storybook fantasy land.  Because of the incongruity between all of the shapes and items in the painting, it looked like Willy Wonka's factory.  The painting immediately caught my attention and I would love to jump right into it and see what is behind the metal wall.

Tuesday 1 February 2011

Tate Britain

The logo for the Tate Britain uses sans serif font.  Both words are in all capital letters.  The font for Tate is thicker and sporadic.  It does not have clean cut lines and looks fleeting and ghostly.  The font for Britain is clean and simple with thin, even letters.  The word Britain is off-center and to the top right of the word Tate.  I like the logo.  I think it is interesting because it looks like a font for a horror movie.  I would not expect the font for an art museum to be ghostly, uneven, thick and hard to read.  But because it is unexpected, it catches my attention.  I think the logo reflects much of the art in the museum by being unique and initially hard to discern, requiring further inspection.  The logo adds to the mystery and intrigue of what one may find in the museum.

From "Museums: Branding and History"
Ophelia's death in John Everett Millais' painting is tranquil and beautiful.  Ophelia is wearing a gown and is holding a flower in her hand.  She looks as though she is sleeping, floating on the water and allowing the current to carry her away.  She is surrounded by lush vegetation, including flowers, grasses and trees.  She does not appear crazy or under duress.  In the painting, there is no indication that Ophelia has been harmed or is even dead.  The top of the painting has rounded corners, adding to the tranquility of the scene. 
 On the other hand, in Director Nicholas Hytner's Hamlet, Ophelia went mad before she died.  She is not wearing a fine dress, in fact, she isn't even wearing a complete outfit.  She dances around on stage without a shirt and singing.  Ophelia is eventually brutally dragged off by the police and murdered.  When she is dragged away, she begins screaming and is extremely frightened.  The painting does not in any way depict the scene from Hytner's Hamlet. 
 It is possible this is the most popular painting in the collection because people like happy endings.  They enjoy thinking about and seeing the painting's interpretation over facing the reality of the scene.



The first two pictures are of the modern art gallery and the third illustrates salon style hanging.  The modern gallery had white walls and minimalist paintings.  It was cold and boring.  A huge room only held seven pieces because there was two to three painting spaces between each work.  The room with the modern art had hardwood floors and a plain ceiling.  The lights were simple bulbs with silver casings and were lined up in a row on the ceiling.  Each painting only contained a few muted colors including yellow, brown and beige.  The brown benches in the center of the modern gallery were slightly more ornate in style, but were still boring featuring dark wood and dark brown leather.  The ropes keeping people away from the paintings were thin white ropes stretched between a thin silver stand. 
 The salon style gallery had a warmer feel.  All of the paintings were clustered together on blue walls.  There was more lighting in the room and thick moldings along the floor.  When I peeked into the salon style room, I didn't know where to look.  My eyes kept darting from the ceiling to the molding and then to the paintings.  In the minimalist gallery, I ran out of items to look at.  The paintings in the salon style room contained portraits.  The frames on the paintings were ornate and thick, adding to the chaos of the room.  Because the paintings were so close together it was almost impossible to look at only one at a time.  Instead, I viewed them more by clusters.  I thought the salon style gallery was more interesting and inviting.

"The Coral Reef" by Mike Nelson was an interesting exhibit because it wasn't traditional painting or sculpture.  It was a series of rooms, many of which had multiple doors, that depicted scenes devoid of any human life.  One room contained two televisions displaying static, giving the illusion they had been left in a hurry or something had gone wrong.  Another room had a lamp and a couch.  The exhibit was creepy and haunting.  It felt as though I was walking through a disaster zone or the aftermath of some terrible disaster.  I felt like I shouldn't be there and I should be escaping as well.  Many of the rooms smelled like old wood and felt dirty and damp.  The doors to many of the rooms creaked and slammed shut behind me.  It was hard to find my way through the exhibit because I kept returning to rooms I had already seen or hallways I recognized.  However, I found the exhibit very interesting.  I had never before experienced something like that.  I think the exhibit is art because it is an artist's interpretation and subsequent illustration of that message.  It expresses the artist's feelings about a particular topic.  On the plaque outside the exhibit, Nelson states that he wants people to feel "lost in a world of lost people" and I definitely felt lost inside the exhibit.

I liked the Tate Britain more than the V&A because I found the exhibits more interesting.  The Tate Britain surprised me with every subsequent room.  The art was unique and unexpected.  There were a few expected paintings of landscapes or people, but many of the paintings were abstract and depicted unique scenes.  The works of art at the Tate Britain were filled with bright colors and weird shapes, whereas much of the art in the V&A was stone or iron.  At the V&A, although many of the objects were impressive, they were what I expected to see when I was told I was seeing cast courts or ironworks.  But at the Tate Britain, I did not know what I would see in the next room.  However, I found the building and the architecture of the V&A more impressive than the Tate Britain.  The outside of the V&A was larger and grander and the lobby featured a gorgeous Chihuly sculpture.  The outside and inside of the Tate Britain was more understated and plain.  But I felt like this allowed visitors to focus more on the objects inside the museum without being distracted by the surrounding building.  I also felt that the Tate Britain was easier to navigate.  The rooms on the map were numbered and the exhibits I visited were all on one level.  The galleries were open and generally rectangular.  The V&A had a lot of twists and turns and I had to take specific staircases to reach certain exhibits.  I thought the Tate Britain was overall a more interesting experience.


The third portion

A face from the fourth portion
This painting is called "The Autobiography of an Embryo" by Eileen Agar from 1933-4.  The painting is split into four parts.  I thought it was interesting because without knowing the title, I would have had no idea what this painting depicted.  But after reading the title, I was able to start to see the different stages of embryonic development loosely portrayed in the painting.  The painting mixes abstract shapes with discernible figures and fiction with reality. The first portion of the painting has alien-like figures, fish and a circular motif running through many of the objects in the first portion.  I believe the alien-like figure symbolizes the inability to recognize a human form in the initial stages of development and the fish stands for the water surrounding human embryos.  The second portion features multiple figures of people, which could be illustrating the possibility that this embryo could become any type of person.  The third portion has birds, horns, a headdress, a womb with a baby inside and mummies.  This could be the preparation for birth and a new life mirrored with death:  the circle of life.  The fourth portion is brighter and facial expressions and eyes can be seen on some of the figures' faces.  There are also explosion-like images and shapes, which could represent the birth. 
 I enjoyed this work of art because it was fun to try and imagine what Agar was thinking while painting the work.  Because it was partly abstract and contained four parts, it held my attention for a long time and each second I found something I had not seen a second before.