Comparison of Tate Modern and Saatchi Gallery - Essay Example

Comparison of Tate Modern and Saatchi Gallery Introduction: Tate Modern and the Saatchi Art gallery are both examples of industrial buildings thatwere converted into edifices that served as a venue to display works of art. While Tate Modern has emerged as a successful example of such a conversion, Saatchi gallery has been floundering and shifted to two or three locations in an attempt to generate additional popularity. This report will examine the views of some experts and critics in highlighting some of the possible reasons for the respective success and failure of the two galleries. The main crux of the reasoning offered in this report is that despite Tate Modern starting out from a point where the prospect of success appeared doubtful, it succeeded because of its choice of location and the architectural modifications made. Saatchi Gallery on the other hand, failed mainly due to poor choice of locations and art displays, inadequate architectural design and conversion of former industrial buildings. Tate Modern: The Tate Modern gallery was constructed in a building that was formerly a disused power station. The designer of the original Bankside station was Sir Giles Gilbert Scott and it was built between 1947 and 1963 (www.tate.org.uk). The western half of the structure was built with a chimney in 1952, while the eastern part of the building started operations in 1963. The power station was closed in 1981 as oil prices rose, because it was no longer economical to generate electricity through this method. Tate got an option on the site in 1981, which it exercised in 1994 and during this period, the building continued to remain unoccupied. Tate however, saw the potential in the now redundant Bankside power station; it offered several advantages such as (a) an enormous building with a large amount of available space, i.e, 500 X 200 ft (b) an architecturally superior construction (c) proximity to historical sites such as St. Paul’s Cathedral and the rebuilt Globe theatre (www.tate.org.uk). The process of creating Tate Modern started in May 1994, when the Tate gallery in London Announced that it would be creating a huge new gallery for the specific purpose of exhibiting modern international works of art. As Sabbagh (2000) points out, the project appeared to be doomed, starting with the choice of location inside the old Bankside Power station in Southwark. As Rowan and Moore (2000) point out, the choice of location was puzzling to many because Tate Modern was to be one of the grand art galleries that would be in step with other architectural marvels like the Getty Center in Los Angeles and the Pompidou Centre in Paris, but it “wraps itself in a 1950s overcoat of brown brick, in the shape of a fairly well designed ex-power station by the conservative architect Giles Gilbert Scott.” (Rowan and Moore, 2000: 1). As Rowan and Moore (2000) further point out, other millennial projects on par with Tate Modern are different and in an architectural sense, they are “comprehensible at a glance.” (Rowan and Moore, 2000:1). For example, a pedestrian millennium bridge was built over the Thames river to link St. Paul’s Cathedral with the art gallery at considerable cost and was touted as being akin to an architectural marvel. But its construction was defective and with only a few walkers, it began to sway and walkers felt sea sick as they crossed it; so the bridge was closed without much dispute about whose fault it was and losses incurred, although the problems were obviously the result of a design failure (Vinten, 2001). As opposed to this, other millennium projects in London such as the Dome and the Wheel or Frank Lloyd Wright’s New York art gallery are all visible architectural marvels which are as distinctive as the works that are housed within them. But in comparing these different art galleries, as Rowan and Moore (2000) have stated further, “Tate Modern is matt, not gloss, and if the form of the original power station could not be more definite, the architectural contribution of Herzog & de Meuron is protean.” (Rowan and Moore, 2000: 1-2). The art gallery appears understated and is much in keeping with the British fondness for the preservation of heritage. It does not appear to possess the grandeur or the smooth sheen of other architectural projects. The project appeared to move further into troubled territory when the architect selected for fulfilment of the contract was a Swiss firm named Herzog and de Meuron. There was a clash between cultures, according to Sabbagh (2000), especially when Sir Norman Foster met with both Jacques Herzog and the Tate Director, Sir Nichols Serota and in essence, preached to them both about the basics of architecture. The reason for this was because the building was an industrial one which was a brick shell that was supported by an interior steel structure. The architects were however able to deal with it successfully; they provided it with a distinctive, single central chimney so that it resembled an industrial cathedral and drew public attention because the architectural improvements blended so well with the original base building.(www.tate.org.uk). Preparing the disused industrial site and re-forming it into an art gallery posed several other problems as well. For one, it was rife with pollution problems; the ground was polluted and the oil fed boiler still existed raising health and safety issues which had to be addressed. These problems were solved by stripping out all the old machinery from the turbine hall. Several of the outbuildings were demolished and the roofs of the old boiler house and the turbine were also removed and substituted with a massive light box that ran the entire length of the building to provide a superb source of lighting through the roof. Sabbagh (2000) explains how most of the old building was gutted down to deal with the problems of pollution and a large amount of new construction was added. Yet another problem that Tate Modern had to face was the greed of the contractors, which led them to make claims about costs that were not accurate, with Tate management believing them. (Sabbagh, 2000). This led to several delays in execution of the contract as prices and terms were negotiated. Tate Modern also faced opposition from members of the public and the local community who were worried about the ramifications arising out of pollution problems when the old boiler and similar infrastructure in the old power station were scrapped (Sabbagh, 2000). Despite the problems faced in the execution of the project, Tate persisted and it was nevertheless successful because of the effective blending of “crisp new work and crumbling antiquity” (Rowan and Moore, 2000:2). It is this aspect that has set it apart from other architectural marvels personified in art galleries elsewhere; the “apparent self effacement” sets it apart from the “sheer spectacle” and “splendours” of other edifices. The effective coordination of old with new, so that the integration is almost seamless, is one of the attractions of the art gallery. The architectural design of Tate Modern, which resembles an industrial cathedral, is also another distinctive element which makes it stand out and apart from other galleries, especially in combination with its light box on the roof. When the gallery was first proposed, there was some disbelief from the general population on whether a power station no longer in use could actually be transformed into an art gallery. Creating Tate Modern cost a huge sum of £135 million and took several years to be constructed (Jury, 2005). Moreover, due to the perceived cultural clashes between the English firm Tate and the Swiss architects, coupled with the apparently impossible task of converting an industrial building into an art gallery, the feasibility of the project was questioned. As Sabbagh (2000) states, this perceived incongruence sparked off the traditional British spirit of pessimism, with gloomy predictions about the outcome. The Saatchi gallery: As opposed to the final outcome of Tate Modern’s construction and architectural efforts which have ultimately proved to be successful, Saatchi gallery has suffered from a series of unsuccessful attempts to set up an art gallery. As Glover(2008) has detailed, Saatchi’s first art gallery at Boundary Road in north London did showcase some good art; however the gallery itself was dismal because the choice of location was not a good one. As Bayley (2008) states, the Saatchi art gallery was an old paint factory which was brightened up and tightened by Max Gordon, a gofted architect from New York, but locating it within St. John’s wood was not conducive to generating a steady stream of visitors. Dramatic and beautiful though the art gallery might have been, it was nevertheless located right in the middle of a lush backwater, which was difficult to market effectively. Moreover, according to Glover (2008) there was no attempt to “impose intimacy, focus or shape”, rather the space itself was a sprawling, poorly designed affair that gave a visitor the impression that the art was not contained within the space but could disappear away into the sprawling spaces at any moment. Saatchi’s next attempt was County Hall, which in turn was not very successful because the architectural features of the building interfered with the art displays, which could never be properly positioned (Glover, 2008). For example, there were several niches in the walls, containing post-war German paintings displaying violence, whereas they would have been more appropriate to set religious paintings or images. The reason why this gallery was not successful was therefore the disproportionate alignment of the architecture with the art displays. Bayley (2008) states that although the Country Hall was a more central location, it “lost credibility and energy” because it was located next to a tacky emporium and chose to exhibit Salvador Dali paintings, which impacted negatively upon its reputation, hindering its perception as a quality art institution. As Glover (2008) states, the over-sized, central chamber opened up into dingy corridors and tiny, stuffy rooms, which did not provide a visitor with a good experience. The final site is located in the former headquarters of the Duke of York, which is in Chelsea and occupies 70,000 square feet, with a book shop, educational facilities as well as a cafe and bar (www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk). The central location is also very helpful in bringing customers to the gallery and therefore, there appears to be a good chance that it will be a success. Moreover, this building does not pose issues of pollution as in the case of the Boundary road location, which were not resolved as well as Tate Modern through its installation of the light box on the roof. The structure has a neo classical architecture and is well lit and organized; moreover, the proportions of the assigned spaces also appear to be quite suitable and relevant. (Glover, 2008). But the gallery has not been able to take off quite as successfully as Tate Modern due to the inappropriate choice of artwork that is being displayed in the gallery. Conclusions: On the basis of the above, it may be concluded that both galleries have started off with the intent to convert former industrial buildings into art galleries. In general, it may also be noted that both projects were greeted with pessimism from the press and the public, especially in regard to the potential for spreading of pollution from the construction modifications that were proposed. Moreover, both the projects used excellent architects, who were drawn in after competitive bidding and both projects had adequate financial backing to carry on extensive renovations. The final outcomes however, were rather different. Despite the initial difficulties and obstructions, Tate Modern did emerge successful. The reasons for its success lay in the skilful integration of the architecture of the new additions into the original decor of the industrial building. The design of the exterior with one tall chimney gives the building the appearance of an industrial cathedral. Moreover, the incorporation of the box light roof gives the interior a bright and airy atmosphere which is conducive to a good display of the artwork exhibited there. The central location of the gallery and the patient and innovative way in which Tate management was able to weather both inflated costs from the architects and criticism and resistance from the community, were all factors that contributed to its success. Tate Modern is now a thriving art gallery which is popular and has been well received by the public. Community fears about the negative impact of pollution were also effectively addressed and Tate had an effective marketing campaign in place as well, to promote the gallery and the exhibitions held there. As opposed to this, Saatchi also started off attempting to improve an industrial building, but the final outcome was not successful. There were several factors contributing to the lack of success; one of them was the bad choice of locations. It’s only the final gallery that was located appropriately in a central London location in order to facilitate access by members of the public. Another reason for Saatchi’s failure were defects in architectural design. Thirdly, the marketing was not effective and therefore did not draw in members of the public. Hence, it may be concluded that the negative reports about the potential for success in so far as Tate Modern was concerned were not borne out; however the negative reports about the Saatchi gallery appear to be well founded and have bene proved in reality. ........2226 words References: Bayley, Stephen, 2008. “What makes the perfect art gallery?” The Observer, September 28, 2008, Retrieved December 14, 2009 from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/sep/28/saatchigallery.architecture Glover, Michael, 2008. “The verdict on Saatchi’s new gallery”, The Independent, Retrieved December 14, 2009 from: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/features/the-verdict-on-saatchis-new-gallery-953417.html Jury, Louise, 2005. “Tate modern speeds up plan to build art galleries”, The Independent, 28 January, 2005. Moore, Rowan and Ryan, Raymund, 2000. “Building Tate Modern: Herzog and De Meuron”, Tate. Sabbagh, Karl, 2000. “Power into Art: Creating the Tate Modern”, Bankside Tate Modern History. Retrieved December 14, 2009 from: http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/building/history.htm Vinten, Gerald, 2001. “Editorial”, Managerial Auditing Journal, 16 (1/2) :56 “Visitor information”, Retrieved December 14, 2009 from: http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/visitor/visitor.htm Read More