Image via Wikipedia

“ Art history has totally failed to come to terms with the problem of the relationship between the outstanding work and the average work” states John Berger in his acclaimed Ways of Seeing, “On the walls of galleries…third-rate works surround an outstanding work without any recognition”. This idea, that galleries do not differentiate between the amazing and mundane of their collections, is something the general audience don’t consider; we generally agree different people will see ‘amazing’ in different pieces. Looking at works in three galleries, the Tate Modern, Tate Britain and National Gallery, I plan to explore this idea though concentration on some of the better known of these “outstanding works”; how are they presented, are they separated from lesser known (though not necessarily less amazing) works?

The Tate Modern has plain white walls and wooden floors splattered with occasional small dots of paint giving a blank canvas for the works and a reminder perhaps that the paint we see on the canvases is itself new. In most rooms there are a number of artworks, however in one room, only Mitchell’s Number 12, Pollack’s Summertime Number 9A and Monet’s Water Lilies are seen. In the centre of the room lies a bench in view of all three artworks.

Number 12 is the first painting the visitor sees in the room and despite its dull, grey colours, the eye gets somewhat drawn to it. The Frame, from which the canvas protrudes has a margin of circa four inches around the piece and is white in colour. Combined with three spotlights positioned at various angles, shadows on the frame are created making it appear to stand out from the wall.

Arguably the best known piece in the gallery, Water Lilies hangs lit by six spotlights (most paintings being lit by only two). Unlike the majority of black and white framed pictures, it is bordered with a wide gold frame which, when combined with the strong lighting, gives an almost sublime appearance.

 Frame of Water Lilies

Again, the visitor is told that Summertime Number 9A is a great work; “The Bigger Picture”, an extra piece of text by Professor Richard Taylor, talks about the resonance of the work. These three pieces are thus segregated from others; barriers, both physical and psychological, are created giving them an instant superiority and anyone ignorant of the names of the artists can tell these are highly respected works.

If we look at, in contrast, the lesser-known 3 Aktionsskizzen (action sketches) by Gunter Brus in the same gallery, placed in a corner of a dimly lit room, no barrier stops the viewer from looking at them and the text we are given is simply descriptive. A visitor could easily miss the sketches, the presentation does not warrant attention unlike the aforementioned public favourites which would be impossible to miss.

Caravaggio’s The Supper at Emmaus is a well known piece at the National Gallery. The room in which it stands is grand with green textured wall coverings and the piece’s protruding copper frame, reaching out further than any other frame in the room, gives grandeur to the piece. However it spite of this, one could easily miss it; the room is full of paintings of a similar nature. The galleries of the National Gallery are organised in time order so Caravaggio’s piece is surrounded by pieces of a similar style and content due to the trend of the time.

Furthermore, while Monet is given a divine appearance in the Tate Modern, the visitor viewing “Irises” in the National Gallery is greeted by grey un-patterned walls and bombarded with other paintings, many other works by Monet. The work is mixed in with other artists and hung with mere inches between it and its neighbour, one side of the room is landscape paintings and the other, portraits. The names mixed in the room are some well known, like Manet and Renoir, and some lesser known to most. Though there is a logical sense to this presentation- the artists are all impressionists- the sheer quantity of these images has the complete opposite effect of the Tate Modern.  We have been told throughout our lives that Monet is a great artist by others but mixed in with other works, we are able to achieve our own opinion on the work itself rather than the reputation.

The Tate Britain is perhaps the mediator between the two; it presents classical and some modern and despite being obviously affiliated with the Tate Modern, its ethos for presentation in regards to the famous works seems somewhat closer to the National Gallery. John William Waterhouse’s The Lady of Shalott is arguably the most popular piece in the gallery and most people visiting would know of its existence. It has a large frame which is the deepest in the room, but surrounded by other pieces above and to the sides, the subtle suggestion makes hardly any difference, one could never ascertain the idea that its reputation is from the gallery’s display. Lighting is the same in every room and a bench is situated not in front of the piece like the Tate modern but to neighbouring Albert Moore’s “A Garden” inviting the visitor to sit and appreciate a new piece, not the one they know.

The Lady of Shalott                                                                                                                                                   A Garden

Karl M Birkmeyer in his journal Observations on the Tour of German Masterpieces argues that a gallery has a responsibility to make people like the work they are displaying, one way being as Berger mentions, publicity. Modern and classical art have different clientele; though many people appreciate both forms it could be fair to say that as classical galleries have the largest proportion of famous works, lots of people go there to view them while modern galleries have newer works that have not got the same scale of fame so visitors going there want to see something new. Working on Birkmeyer’s concept, the classical gallery wants visitors there only for famous works to appreciate the lesser known too; combining the pieces breaks that divide between famous and non famous.  Some who appreciate new work, however, feel when a piece becomes famous, it becomes somewhat clichéd. In presenting the pieces so favourably, the contemporary gallery wants the viewer to be able to look at them and see the reason why they are so popular. This theory of course has flaws in it, not every gallery will go about the same way, but looking at this small sample we can see that different institutions need to adapt their way of presenting work to appeal to their different audiences.