Modern is not always great (Tate Modern in general)

Member Name: hulahoop

Product:	Tate Modern in general
Date:	11/09/00 (164 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Its free

Disadvantages: Not particularly enjoyable

The Tate Modern is impressive in its design and decor, but does the display of art work stand up to its look?

On approaching the building, a massive converted power station, and viewing it from across the river, you can see why such a fuss has been made over its opening. It is magnificent. Its entrance alone, a wide slope leading down to a massive sloping area, is grand and helps evoke the modern style that the curators of the Tate wish to convey. I was quite astounded by the size of the place, with balconies and walkways leading along the storeys, looking over the warehouse sized entrance, which holds two heavy iron sculptures, intended for public participation. These huge iron spider sculptures are by Louise Bourgeois, a French artist who deals a lot with family relationships in sculptures. Unfortunately when I went the queues to go up into the top of them, which apparently held large mirrors dealing with the concept of an individuals identity, was too long and so I missed out on this experience. However, I was not very impressed by the aesthetics of the sculptures, which looked like theme park attractions, or something out of the Dome.

The interior of the exhibition floors is beautiful, with chrome escalators and high design seating areas looking over the entrance ‘courtyard’. There is a cafe on the fdirst floor which is very expensively and richly furnished, which helps you to feel like you are living the high life and is nice for a rest after looking at the many many exhibits. It is a little expensive, but very nice. Unfortunately you get charged table service to be served by disgustingly beautiful foreign waitresses!!! The seats and benches around the gallery are works of art in themselves, and I felt they deserved little placards explaining them as with the mounted art. They were as much on display as everything else there.

The exhibiting rooms are average sized, and lead round the side of the building, so that you go i
n at one end of the building and come out at the other. Well designed for shunting round herds of visitors the Tate expected and received. There are several floors, each with their own themes concerning all aspects of art. I dislike this kind of categorising, although the most logical, simply because it makes it feel like all the dusty old museums I was made to visit as a child.

Even when I revisited the Tate briefly recently (I went before that in midsummer, and was drowned by tourists and screaming kids), midwinter, supposedly very few tourists or school children, the place was very busy. I found this off putting when I was trying to concentrate on some work of art and was just being moved along by the crowd or distracted. It’s quite nice being a smug art student and having some understanding of what I was looking at, as opposed to a lot of people who have just been there because they’ve seen it on the telly, or whatever the reason. One artist I have found difficult to deal with, without subsequent research, is Marcel Duchamp, who sent a sideways on, upside down urinal into an exhibition, signed with the pseudonym ‘R Mutt’, along with other such ‘readymades’ later on. This near-revolutionary act has so many very important implications on the development of art, and was a signifier for the end of the sole use of paint in art. Entitled ‘Fountain’ the original urinal went missing almost immediately after it was first exhibited, and so there are many copies dotted around the world. There is also only one photo of the original, all of which raises issues about reproduction and copies, and their significance within society. Blah blah blah!! This sort of thing seems pointless for the non-interested public to see.

Another interesting piece was a room which looked as if the decorators had been in and left all of their equipment and rubbish there. On first inspection this is all that it is. In fact almost ev
ery item in the room has been sculpted in clay and hand painted, from a pile of tarpaulins to a packet of Marlboro Lights. Everybody walked past it all and thought ‘Hmmmm’, looked no further and walked straight through. I felt this was such a clever piece, if just for pointing out how people really do not observe what is really there.

There is so much in the Tate Modern that it is hard to know what to include, but if you have ever seen a book on Pop Art you will have seen some of the art, such as Rauschenberg’s collages and Oldenburg’s sculptures. Some Sarah Lucas stuff is in there, Salvador Dali, Joseph Beuys, Mark Rothko, and so many more that it was near impossible to view it all.

In fact that was why I disliked the Tate Modern so intensely. It is so crammed full of
stuff, with seemingly minimal care, that I felt pressured to look at everything, and not
in particularly great detail. It was a waste of time for me because I realised that I could have looked closely at all the works of art I have admired for years. But the lack of time and the crowds were pushing me round the gallery. The space felt so sterile and unfriendly, and overcrowded with work and people. If it wasn’t for the fact that the Tate depends upon donations and subscriptions, I would be inclined to say that it has turned into a corporation, which is surely against the average principle in art. The massive building that once spewed out power in mass quantities is now doing the same with art and with tourists. I felt that it would have been the same if we had all sat on conveyor belts and been moved around the building.

Having visited the Tate Modern I was left feeling rather empty and bemused. I am a massive fan of modern art, particularly Rauschenberg, Allen Jones, Peter Blake, to name but a few. Perhaps I am not the best person to give an opinion of the Tate Modern, being a lover of small friendly areas, and places that detract from
the fact that they are museums. I did not enjoy being shoved around by disgruntled uninterested members of the public. I found it difficult to enjoy installments with screaming children
also trying to experience them. The unfriendly atmosphere of the gallery come storage area detracted from the art work, some of which I have been trying to see for years, and gave me the feeling that it was all packed in as tightly as possible. Various areas made me feel as if they were advertisements, in that they tempted the viewer and then forgot to show them the goods. I felt as if I was missing out on something if I didn't pay something or see something else.

Overall I was very disappointed. The transformation of the power station did not impress me as it was supposed to. In this case it was certainly not the size that counted, but what they did with it.

Summary: