Our tour guide insisted that the National Portrait Gallery wasn't an art museum and that it should be taken more as a history museum. Well, I hate history.
But I really loved the National Portrait Gallery. There's always going to be history represented in art, especially when depicting people and true events. But there's so much more to be appreciated and gathered from the art. To so strongly say that it's not an art museum is almost offensive. Especially when she took us around and had us using many of the same techniques for viewing art that you would use in a *real* art museum. What kinds of symbols are represented? How does the color scheme affect the mood? Do the brush strokes seem contemplated or quick? Was is it a large or small brush? Why? What does the angle of the portrait tell about the person? Their expression?
These aren't aspects of history, but art. In fact, most of the history is not learned from these portraits if you didn't already have a background in the issue. While Kennedy's portrait was drastically different from the rest, no one would ever go up to it and say "Oh, this must have been this way because JFK didn't like sitting for portraits. " You would say "The hurried, large brush strokes, cool colors and relaxed pose maybe indicate he was not as uptight and stuck on tradition." I was really taken aback by how many times she wanted to wipe the belief that this was an art museum. It was one of the coolest art museums I've been to yet in DC.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Good point. I wonder what the plaques said, though! We didn't have much time to read them below the works of art. Did they have an art or history focus? Perhaps they provide some insight into the life of the individuals portrayed and thus grant the historical perspective.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree. That definitely wasn't a history museum because I hate history and I love art. She even said that originally it was going to be just a bunch of 100 year old dead people but now they've added a whole variety of portraits. Each one was different and the only history about them was the fact that they were grouped into different themes. I honestly would have had to read each blurb to even know the history behind the portraits. I loved that museum as an ART museum, not for its history
ReplyDeleteYet again you have another person who totally agrees with you. All of that history that our tour guide was pulling out of the portraits was only understandable because she had a background in art. Almost none of the history that she talked about would have been visible to someone who has no background in art. I found that the idea that the museum was only a history museum actually took a lot away from the art. The history is enriched by the art and if you leave out the interpreting art aspects you lose so much.
ReplyDelete