My first and only experience of the Tate Modern was in 2015. I was on a River Thames tour and we passed by it with some very critical remarks being passed on by our tour guide of the so called “lovely” architecture renovated to house an art museum. I must have missed that it was originally a power factory and had assumed it was built like this to house the art museum in mind. The smokestack was what had really grabbed my attention and steered me to have an ongoing negative relationship with it. I still think to this day that the removal of the chimney structure could increase the appeal of the building, especially to the viewers on the Thames.
Delving into the history of the Tate Modern has made the idea more clear. I can see the appeal in the industrial, steel framing of the bones of this repurposed building to be used as a place to showcase modern art. One can see the possible conflict between the artists’ own pieces that may have subtext revolving around industrialism or climate change. But at the same time that allows the conversation of repurposing architecture for new, more responsible means. Not only was this space reused, but the materials were saved, and now it’s an educational experience, bringing more positive influence to locals and tourists alike than it had be neutrally providing power in the 1980s.
Still, the sarcastic comments of the tour guide and just the overall style of the building still lead me to not be a fan of this building, but it has most definitely rooted a spot in my brain for one of least appealing structures I’ve seen. Art museums are often an exhibit in themselves, and the history is there but the aesthetic appeal does not mesh with my taste. Perhaps things would have been different if I had had the time to visit its’ interior before the snide comments of ‘London’s Ugliest Outdoor Art Exhibit’.
Featured Image from: https://www.loveexploring.com/galleryextended/70841/british-landmarks-2021?page=1
Top Image from: https://arquitecturaviva.com/works/ampliacion-tate-modern-londres-8
