Tate Britain
Posted by: Steeve on 22 January 2008
Went to Tate Britain in London yesterday which was fab.
I really like going round art galleries, despite really knowing anything properly about art. I always feel, though, it would be a very different experience if I were just looking at the works in a peopleless room. I'm sure I would still get enjoyment from the art itself, but there is definitely something fascinating about watching people in an art gallery as well - students sketching, school trips being questioned by teachers and people's reactions. It's almost as if the people and the art together make a new piece of art! Has anyone else had the same experience?
Also it was interesting reading about the origins of the gallery and the self-questioning display about whether its existence was in some part due to the exploitation of Third World workers.
Steeve
I really like going round art galleries, despite really knowing anything properly about art. I always feel, though, it would be a very different experience if I were just looking at the works in a peopleless room. I'm sure I would still get enjoyment from the art itself, but there is definitely something fascinating about watching people in an art gallery as well - students sketching, school trips being questioned by teachers and people's reactions. It's almost as if the people and the art together make a new piece of art! Has anyone else had the same experience?
Also it was interesting reading about the origins of the gallery and the self-questioning display about whether its existence was in some part due to the exploitation of Third World workers.
Steeve
Posted on: 22 January 2008 by Bruce Woodhouse
quote:students sketching, school trips being questioned by teachers and people's reactions. It's almost as if the people and the art together make a new piece of art! Has anyone else had the same experience?
I visit galleries frequently, in Britain and abroad. A year or so ago we went to the Guggenhiem in Venice, a delightful small modern art collection in an oasis of calm beside the Grand Canal.
My wife and I were struck by the school trip visiting at the same time. They were plonked in front of a pretty challenging abstract that most adults would have struggled with and yet the fantastic teacher had them absolutely rapt. The kids (probably about 10-12years old) were volunteering all sorts of ideas and thoughts on the picture and appreciating it on a surprisingly sophisticated level.
Made me think of my own school experience. 'Art' was something you did with a pencil or paintbrush. I was hopeless and bored (my last school report says 'this is Bruce's last term of art, I am not sure who is more grateful'). If only somebody had taken me to see great art so I could learn to look, appreciate and enjoy it rather than just be forced to make it(badly) myself.
I hope the education of kids does now use some of the excellent galleries we have around the UK and helps them to appreciate creative arts at an early age in a way that my education so spectacularly failed to achieve.
Something I feel quite passionate about!
Bruce
Posted on: 22 January 2008 by Malky
The experience of seeing original art in a gallery is breathtaking, especially when you have only ever before seen prints and facsimiles of works. The impact of the works are qualitatively different. In fact, I don't think you can never truly appreciate a work until you have seen the original. Whether this is the sheer scale of a Pollock or the intricacy of Rembrandt or a William Blake plate.
Of course, the Tate fortune was founded on slavery but complicity and agreement are two different issues. Anyway,I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Of course, the Tate fortune was founded on slavery but complicity and agreement are two different issues. Anyway,I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Posted on: 22 January 2008 by Steeve
quote:Originally posted by Bruce Woodhouse:
yet the fantastic teacher had them absolutely rapt. The kids (probably about 10-12years old)
I don't know about the kids, but I was rapt! I must have the mind of a 10-year old!
Steeve
Posted on: 22 January 2008 by Bob McC
I've never seen signs in the Louvre or the Musee D'Orsay apologising for an imperialistic past. Thank God.
Posted on: 22 January 2008 by 555
It's a great place & well worth the effort.
I strongly rec' taking children with you if you can. I went with my five & seven year olds. Their comments, observations, & that they generally weren't intimidated made it all the better
I strongly rec' taking children with you if you can. I went with my five & seven year olds. Their comments, observations, & that they generally weren't intimidated made it all the better
Posted on: 23 January 2008 by Rockingdoc
Been a Tate Member for the past few years, and it has been great for encouraging me to visit more. It means I can go anytime to any of the Tates' special exhibitions, so I can visit the good ones many times, or quickly walk out of the poor ones without resenting the entrance fee. I also get to use the members' rooms, which I recommend. The members' magazine is great too.
I really love Tate Modern, and can often be found having a (good) coffee in that Members' room.
I really love Tate Modern, and can often be found having a (good) coffee in that Members' room.
Posted on: 23 January 2008 by BigH47
I visit quite often, we usually take a stroll and end up there. I love to have a good laugh at what some people call art.
Posted on: 23 January 2008 by Bob McC
Tate modern is in a tatty building though.
Posted on: 23 January 2008 by BigH47
But beautifully designed. It did what it said on the tin IMO.
Posted on: 23 January 2008 by Derek Wright
The Art Fund is a useful device to getting into special exhibitions at reduced price and into some galleries free when others have to pay.
However it will only appeal to people who freely enjoy art, but it is good value to people that live out of town (London) and would not benefit so much from being a member of say the Tate.
Talking of out of town experience The Pallant House Gallery in Chichester is well worth a diversion if not an excursion as the Michelin Guide would say.
However it will only appeal to people who freely enjoy art, but it is good value to people that live out of town (London) and would not benefit so much from being a member of say the Tate.
Talking of out of town experience The Pallant House Gallery in Chichester is well worth a diversion if not an excursion as the Michelin Guide would say.
Posted on: 23 January 2008 by Mick P
Chaps
Mrs Mick and I spent a few hours going around the Tate Modern in London several years ago and we both agreed that the bulk of the stuff on display was just a load of prententious junk.
A pile of bricks comemerated something or other and the daftest thing was a film loop of a naked and bearded man jumping up and down so that his penis flopped up and down in sequence with his jumping. How that can be called art is beyond me.
Sorry but calling that stuff art is self delusion.
Regards
Mick
Mrs Mick and I spent a few hours going around the Tate Modern in London several years ago and we both agreed that the bulk of the stuff on display was just a load of prententious junk.
A pile of bricks comemerated something or other and the daftest thing was a film loop of a naked and bearded man jumping up and down so that his penis flopped up and down in sequence with his jumping. How that can be called art is beyond me.
Sorry but calling that stuff art is self delusion.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 23 January 2008 by 555
What is art? 
Posted on: 23 January 2008 by Bob McC
quote:a film loop of a naked and bearded man jumping up and down so that his penis flopped up and down in sequence with his jumping.
Now if it didn't that would be something!
Posted on: 23 January 2008 by Bob McC
As for Tate Modern what I should have said was it may have been superb as a power station but the conversion to an art gallery is tatty.
Posted on: 23 January 2008 by Steeve
Bob,
I wouldn't have said it was really an apology for an imperialist past as it didn't really come from that angle, but I thought it right and proper that there was at least a small acknowledgment of where the money came from, although of course Lord Tate could have blown it all on loose women and drink if he'd chosen to. See below..
Malky,
Yes I agree that "complicity and agreement are two different issues" and, in any case, I am very glad places like Tate Britain exist.
Mick,
Art comes in many different forms and depending on how you define the word "art" maybe the word isn't strictly applicable to everything in Tate Modern. But that's another issue.
I have to confess that I often don't see the value in some modern art, but then I could say the same about some more traditional art as well. Having walked around an art gallery in Venice and witnessed hundreds of "Madonna and Child" paintings and portraits of bishops, it was so refreshing to go to the Guggenheimer Modern Art museum in the same city (yes Bruce, I've been there as well many years ago and was very impressed) and see things which showed a bit more imagination.
As for the technical side of things, most modern artists could "paint properly" if they chose to. But in any case, to use a musical analogy, The Clash may be less musically talented than Mozart but I know which one means the most to me. I have every respect and admiration for a lot of classical music though. I even enjoy some of it! But it still doesn't really move me in the same way other music does.
In the same way I went to see a Tracy Emin 10-year retrospective at the Stedlijk Museum in Amsterdam a few years ago when I was living there and was totally fascinated by most of the works as many of them were social commentaries which I could relate to. It was also quite auto-biographical. Would you not say a well-written autobiography was a form of art, or at least worthwhile?
In Tate Britain I have to say my preferences were split pretty evenly between the modern and more traditional with stuff I liked and didn't get in both camps. I haven't been to Tate Modern yet, but I am planning to sometime soon so it will be interesting what my reactions will be.
It's very easy for anyone to make the comment "I could do that" when looking at some modern art but the bottom line is they didn't.
Steeve
I wouldn't have said it was really an apology for an imperialist past as it didn't really come from that angle, but I thought it right and proper that there was at least a small acknowledgment of where the money came from, although of course Lord Tate could have blown it all on loose women and drink if he'd chosen to. See below..
Malky,
Yes I agree that "complicity and agreement are two different issues" and, in any case, I am very glad places like Tate Britain exist.
Mick,
Art comes in many different forms and depending on how you define the word "art" maybe the word isn't strictly applicable to everything in Tate Modern. But that's another issue.
I have to confess that I often don't see the value in some modern art, but then I could say the same about some more traditional art as well. Having walked around an art gallery in Venice and witnessed hundreds of "Madonna and Child" paintings and portraits of bishops, it was so refreshing to go to the Guggenheimer Modern Art museum in the same city (yes Bruce, I've been there as well many years ago and was very impressed) and see things which showed a bit more imagination.
As for the technical side of things, most modern artists could "paint properly" if they chose to. But in any case, to use a musical analogy, The Clash may be less musically talented than Mozart but I know which one means the most to me. I have every respect and admiration for a lot of classical music though. I even enjoy some of it! But it still doesn't really move me in the same way other music does.
In the same way I went to see a Tracy Emin 10-year retrospective at the Stedlijk Museum in Amsterdam a few years ago when I was living there and was totally fascinated by most of the works as many of them were social commentaries which I could relate to. It was also quite auto-biographical. Would you not say a well-written autobiography was a form of art, or at least worthwhile?
In Tate Britain I have to say my preferences were split pretty evenly between the modern and more traditional with stuff I liked and didn't get in both camps. I haven't been to Tate Modern yet, but I am planning to sometime soon so it will be interesting what my reactions will be.
It's very easy for anyone to make the comment "I could do that" when looking at some modern art but the bottom line is they didn't.
Steeve
Posted on: 23 January 2008 by David Dever
Managed to get in the Howard Hodgkin show at TateB last time in the U.K. (June 2006), for which my oil-painter wife was quite jealous–let alone the Louise Bourgeois sculpture in TateM (one of my most favorite spaces, spatially speaking).
Posted on: 23 January 2008 by Bruce Woodhouse
quote:Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Chaps
Mrs Mick and I spent a few hours going around the Tate Modern in London several years ago and we both agreed that the bulk of the stuff on display was just a load of prententious junk.
A pile of bricks comemerated something or other and the daftest thing was a film loop of a naked and bearded man jumping up and down so that his penis flopped up and down in sequence with his jumping. How that can be called art is beyond me.
Sorry but calling that stuff art is self delusion.
Regards
Mick
Mick, fair enough. One man's meat (if you'll forgive the analogy!) is another one's poison. The art you enjoy and are interested it is an individual choice, but then so it is with music. You'd (hopefully) not lump all of one age or genres of music as one and just say 'I hate jazz'; and so it is with modern art. Perhaps just one or two things in a gallery really interest you but that may still make it worthwhile-don't be blinded by the stuff you hate.
You are not supposed to like it all.
Whilst we are talking about lesser known galleries can I suggest Aboott Hall Gallery in Kendal. if you are going to The Lakes then a quick diversion is well worth it. A great little collection of modern work (Freud/Rego/Bacon/Auerbach/Riley/Kitaj and others) plus a selection of sublime (and contrasting) watercolours by Turner and Ruskin especially. Often excellent temporary exhibitions too in a very attractive and quiet setting.
Last year we bought a picture we'd originally seen exhibited there. It has made us enormously happy ever since. Mick would hate it!
Bruce
Posted on: 24 January 2008 by Steeve
I think that's pretty much what I was trying to say Bruce, but you have said it much better!
Steeve
Steeve