The last time I was in London, several years ago, the Tate Modern was only days away from opening. I was very disappointed not to be able to see it, so this time around, there was no way I was going to miss it. Overall, I’m very glad I went–everyone visiting London should go. But have to say that I was pretty disappointed with the collection.
Let me preface this by saying that I love art museums. I’m spoiled in that I’ve had a chance to visit: The National Gallery, the Hirshhorn, the Guggenheim, the Met, MoMA, the British National Gallery, the Dali Museum, the Van Gogh Museum, the Louvre and I happen to live in a city with it’s own great museum, The Art Institute of Chicago. So I have high museum expectations.

That said, the Tate Modern is the coolest space for an art museum. Ever. It’s an old hydro-electrical generator station along the banks of the Thames, and wow, it is an amazingly impressive space. So impressive, in fact, that it completely dwarfs and diminishes the collection inside.

The collection at the Tate isn’t laid out by artist or period, but rather by subject matter, for example, “Nude/Action/Body” or “Still Life/Object/Real Life.” I actually really like that organizational structure. It allows you to see how different artists from different periods approached similar subjects, which is very cool.
The collection has some “star” artists, there are some pieces by Picasso and Matisse, some Duchamp (yawn) and Koons. There’s a few Monet’s and a Kandinsky, but all of them are just kind of blah… with only a few exceptions, they seem to be lesser pieces from lesser periods. Not that it all has to be wildly popular to be a good museum, but the Tate just left me feeling, well, underwhelmed–at least the collection.

There were some good photographic pieces, some so-so Cindy Sherman work (stuff at MoMA is much better). There are some great Stieglitz and Weston nudes, which were almost canceled out but the awful, awful, awful Gilbert & George work. Oh, man, awful.

My two favorite things were the “Thames River Dig” and the Rothko room. The Thames Dig is a room that features found objects from a project that involved an archaeological dig along the Thames with a bunch of school children–slightly out of place for an art museum, but totally cool nonetheless.

I liked the Rothko room because it featured these massive red/mauve/grey pieces that were very abstract and atmospheric… moody. They were among the only pieces that fit the scale of the space–which I think is the major problem with the Tate. It’s this really amazing space on an immense scale which just tends to dwarf the exhibits and make the artwork fade into the background. It’s such a cool an exciting space that it really works against the collection.

Who knows, maybe the collection wouldn’t seem so dull if it were in a more traditional museum building. Maybe it would. On the whole, I’m very glad I got a chance to see it, and if you’re in London, you might as well stop by. The area has a lot going on (it’s not far from St. Paul, the Millennium Bridge, Parliament, Westminster, etc.) and the building itself is pretty damn impressive. Just don’t expect to be blown away by the art.