Victoria and Albert Museum

VICTORIA & ALBERT MUSEUM

1. The logo for the Victoria & Albert Museum is much more unique than the logos of the other museums we have visited, which then associates the museum itself with being more unique, which I did find it to be.  The font used for the museum is simple and elegant, and there is a certain artistic element to the way the ampersand sign has replaced the left part and crossbar of the “A” for Albert.  However, the logo doesn’t represent much of the content from the museum.  The museum is full of color and patterns, and this isn’t displayed as well as it could be in the sign.  Color, at the very least, could be added to the logo to be a more adequate representation of what one could find in the museum. 

2. The cast court collection at the Victoria & Albert Museum was impressive, to say the least.  It was a bit overwhelming, however, because there were so many interesting exhibits in such a small area (2 rooms).  The collection contained many important historical artifacts, and it was interesting to view which were thought to be the most important- from small, ornate figures to huge, incredible pieces as big as the wall of the museum.  There were recognizable pieces- such as the model of the sculpture David- and many pieces I had never seen before.  These rooms showed a brief overview of many important past events and objects, making it a very educational experience. 

 

3. The icons in the Isotype exhibition are much more descriptive and have much more character than the international system of signs used today.  Although they may be not as easily identifiable, I would say they provide a much more enjoyable atmosphere than the basic, bland symbols we use today for male and female (and most other symbols, as well).  However, the modern day symbols are readily identifiable for most people- which does indeed allow for communication with a broader range of individuals.  They are still, lacking, nevertheless, in an artistic sense.  For example, since coming to London, I have learned to identify the English version of the “EXIT” sign, which is much more fun, appreciable, and can still be used to communicate with all kinds of people.

4. Though the Ironwork collections still contain an attractive pattern-based style, they design they contain is much more hard, cold, and unwelcoming.  I felt overwhelmed looking at each piece seeing it all as one overpowering piece before being able to break it down into smaller, more recognizable patterns. Once the patterns had been spotted, the Ironwork was certainly filled with patterns and rhythm and an easy, flowing feel.  The textiles, however, had a completely opposite feel.  They were warm, welcoming, and it was instantly easy to describe the simple, colorful patterns.  The colors used in most textiles were warm, and complimenting.  They had an inviting element, which makes sense as to why ironwork would be seen more outside a home and the textiles more inside a home.

5. The underground sign is much more distinct and easily located.  The underground sign is shown at all stops for the underground with a large, simple, and recognizable symbol which is associated with all London public transportation.  The ease and simplicity of London public transportation (for the most part) is easily remembered when viewing the simple design and color scheme, which fit together much better than that of the Madison Metro symbol.  The Madison yellow, orange, and blue stripes are not complimenting colors, and the difficulty and frustration associated with riding Madison public transportation is easily associated with the logo. It is also not as readily identifiable, and at many bus stops the Madison Metro sign isn’t even present. The mapping of the underground can be followed with one simple line, depending on which line you are riding, and the lines often will not overlap for extended periods of time, causing confusion, which is often the case with Madison’s confusing mapping system containing colors all running together, and lines that run in circles. 

6. I really enjoyed the cartoon exhibit.  The paintings were remarkable, not to mention the fact that they date back to the 16^th century, and were painted by the famous artist Raphael.  The paintings were commissioned by Pope Leo X to be hung in the Sistine Chapel and Vatican Palace- right beneath a ceiling painted by Michelangelo.  The paintings showed acts from the bible and apostles, and were very intricate and easily identifiable. My favorite was of Christ's Charge to Peter from 1515, which had a label discussing the colors used in the painting.  They discussed how Christ’s robe was originally lavender but had faded to an ivory color; a fact which I thought was interesting to point out. I wish I was able to take photos of these exquisite paintings, but photos are strictly forbidden (as I found on my first attempt to take a photo…).  I would return to these paintings to have more time to appreciate them, as I was a little rushed through this exhibit.