Hello and welcome to my weekly podcast, a 5 minutes commentary on art & architecture in the news. My name is Roby and this is Art Tours with a Theme – ART wiT, where we explore art and architecture in London and in the world.

Today we discuss about religious art in museums. How to best enjoy it? For many reasons this art cannot be displayed in the churches or other sites it was meant to be. The news is that director of the Uffizi Gallery in Florence would like to return part of the religious art the gallery has to the churches from which it was removed and never returned. The removal took place in 1940’s and during WWII to protect art against potential damages. Or it has been removed because the original location was destroyed. So technically it still belongs to the religious institution.

The director of the Uffizi feels sacred can only be fully appreciated in its original context. It was not meant to be art as we mean it today, but it had devotional and spiritual significance only a church can provide. As an example, the director of the Uffizi is suggesting to give the “Madonna Rucellai”, painted by Duccio more than 700 hundreds years ago in 1285, back to the church of Santa Maria Novella in Florence, from which it was removed in 1948.

This is opening up an interesting debate and I would like to hear your thoughts. Can sacred, religious art be appreciated in a museum? How many times did you look at a Madonna painting or a religious sculpture in a museum? Did you have religious feelings? Perhaps you have admired the artist’s technical skills and the beauty of the forms, but struggled to connect with the religious message. Instead if you enter a church and see a Madonna then you may feel something more profound. This means the context for sacred art could be as important as the art itself. It provides the necessary environment to give this art back its spiritual significance.

What is sacred art, what was it used for? In the Christian world, sacred art was typically commissioned by religious organizations and placed inside a church. It would have been instrumental to better explain the religious message in times where literacy was low and people could not read the Bible. It was also instrumental to show the Church’s power and wealth. And finally it had a devotional purpose, so a church is the main context.

But there are examples where religious art was not meant to be in a church. For example, art with biblical themes was in the past also commissioned by wealthy individuals, patrons who were trying to ensure their final salvation or they simply wanted to have a devotional image at home, in their palazzo.  Maybe this form of sacred art can still be appreciated in museums.

Also in Italy you can find sacred art placed outdoors, up at the corners of simple residential houses. Religious images in terracotta were at some point produced in series by dedicated workshops, they were not expensive, they were bought by normal people and placed outdoors, meant to bless and protect the house inhabitants, the street passers-by, as in those times plagues and wars were quite common. In this case sacred art cannot maybe be placed back, as the original context is very different today.

And what about sacred art in non-Christian religions? Can they be fully appreciated in museums and what was their original context?

Following last week podcast, what is a museum, I ask again this question today. What is a museum when religious art is involved? Is religious art more powerful than secular art? Does it always need to inspire a spiritual feeling?

Let me know your thoughts, get in touch in my in FB and Instagram! This is Robi from Art Tours with a Theme, I hope you enjoyed my podcast, and if you like it, please share it with your friends. Thank you for listening and go to see religious art! Bye!

Hello and welcome to my weekly podcast, a 5 minutes commentary on art & architecture in the news. My name is Robi and this is Art Tours with a Theme – ART wiT, where we explore art and architecture in London and beyond.

Today we discuss what is a museum. What do you think a museum should offer you, why should you pay a ticket to see an exhibition and why should a council sponsor museums with public money? Do museums still make sense as a physical experience? Are they still relevant today, do they represent our values, our identity in 2020? This episode is inspired by The New York Times, which has recently published an article discussing this topic. In the article it is explained that museums are having an identity crisis today with no solution in sight.

Maybe you are not aware, but there is a no-profit organization in Paris that aims to represent all museums in the world, called International Council of Museums. Recently some board members have resigned. Infact, the question “what is a museum” is currently very controversial and divisive.

On one side, some people say museums should exhibit artefacts and engage in an educational and entertaining way. On the other side, other people would like for museums to engage the audience around political and social issues too. For example, how should museums represent artists never included before? Some artists have never been represented in museums because they were different, coming from an ethnic minority (the black, the non-European), a different sexual orientation (LGBT) or they were women. Or they have been represented but as “oriental”, “exotic”, something not belonging to the prevailing and dominant culture.

We have also recently witnessed furious reactions against public statues portraying leaders of the past. Those statues have been vandalised, broken, removed. It has been suggested that those statues instead should be put in museums to create the right historical context, the full explanation on why they were created, what sort of values and society was there at that time. This would provide education as well as social and political challenge for the audience, but how?

Another reason of the museum crisis today is how to represent art made by the new media, or art that requires interaction with the public.

It is the first time since the 1970s that the definition of what is a museum is widely discussed. Four years ago in 2016 the International Council of Museums started to engage its 40 thousands museum members worldwide to reach a more up to date definition, to agree a better vision and purpose for global museums. It received 269 proposed definitions and we now understand why the discussion is so difficult.

The English "museum" word comes from the ancient Greek Μουσεῖον (Mouseion), which denotes a place or temple dedicated to the Muses the goddesses of the arts in Greek mythology, so a museum is building set apart for study and the arts. Today it is ideally a place where we reflect on our life and values through their representation in objects. It is at the same time a personal and a collective experience.

What is a museum for you? Is the online vision enough? Is it s a place for confrontation and challenge? Is it an opportunity for shopping, dining, meeting up? Let me know your thoughts! This is Robi from Art Tours with a Theme, you can find me in FB and Instagram. I hope you enjoyed my podcast, follow me on Spotify and other platforms and share my blogs with your friends. Thank you for listening and visit a museum! Bye!

Hello and welcome to the third episode of my weekly pod-cast, a commentary on art&architecture in the news.  

Today we talk about a piece of news from an Italian museum, but relevant for any museum in the world. A visitor damaged a statue, sitting on it for a selfie, breaking the artwork's foot and leaving it without few toes! This looks quite ridiculous, but instead it's dramatic, opening questions such as: how do we look at art? What is our responsibility in visiting a museum? To what extent museums should allow visitors to interact with artwork?

The audience of the statue was meant to be private, the Borghese family as well as their visitors and there was a rotating mechanism hidden in the sculpture, allowing it to be seen from different perspectives. The plaster instead, was meant to remain with the artist, that’s why it is in the Canova museum.

The sculpture is so well done, as it is its plaster, and so realistic, that maybe Paolina’s chair looked comfortable to the tourist who decided to sit on it…..but instead sat on Paolina's foot! Ooch!

In this third episode we talk about a piece of news from an Italian museum, but relevant for any museum in the world. A visitor damaged a statue, sitting on it for a selfie, breaking the artwork's foot and leaving it without few toes! This looks quite ridiculous, but instead it's dramatic, opening questions such as: how do we look at art? What is our responsibility in visiting a museum? To what extent museums should allow visitors to interact with artwork?

The museum in the news is dedicated to the master of Neoclassicism, the sculptor Antonio Canova, lived between the second half of 1700 up to 1822. He was the preferred artist of Napoleon who hired him several times to portray himself and his family. The damaged artwork was made 1805-1808 and it is actually the plaster of the white marble sculpture portraying Napoleon's sister, Paolina, completely naked on a reclining sofa-chair and represented as Venus, the Greek goddess of beauty. The statue was commissioned to Canova by Paolina’s husband, the Roman Camillo Borghese, for their marriage, and it was meant to be placed in their Roman mansion Palazzo Borghese, which is now a museum where the statue can be still seen today. So the statue is in Rome in Palazzo Borghese, the damaged plaster is in the Canova museum in North Italy, the Veneto region, where Canova was from. The audience of the statue was meant to be private, the Borghese family as well as their visitors and there was a rotating mechanism hidden in the sculpture, allowing it to be seen from different perspectives. The plaster instead, was meant to remain with the artist, that’s why it is in the Canova museum.

The sculpture is so well done, as it is its plaster, and so realistic, that maybe Paolina’s chair looked comfortable to the tourist who decided to sit on it…..but instead sat on Paolina's foot! Ooch!

Any thoughts, do you agree? Share your opinions on my FB page (artwitlondon) or Instagram (artwit_london).  This is Robi from Art Tours with a Theme, I hope you enjoyed my podcast, follow me on Spotify, Google Podcast and other platforms and share my podcast with your friends. Thank you for listening. Bye!

Hello and welcome to my weekly pod-cast, a commentary on art&architecture in the news. 

Today I want to talk about architecture, popular buildings in London that are considered controversial. Think well, is there any building you would like to throw down, to bulldoze? A popular online magazine has recently run a survey, asking its London readers which buildings they consider so ugly to be bulldozed. As a result, 11 London buildings came up in that list, part are for residential use, part business and part for leisure and cultural activities. 

I am not surprised the list of the most hated buildings includes some residential condominiums of the 1950s-60s, typically designed under the British Modernist style called Brutalism, which made extensive use of raw concrete. People may hate them because they are very different from the idealised and traditional sub-urban houses, but also because over time their appearance has deteriorated a lot, as maintenance has not been run properly nor efficiently.

The most surprising buildings in the list to me are actually others. They have an important role in our economy and culture, and have all become important touristic attractions, so why bulldozing them?

The first one is Tate Modern, one of the biggest art museums in the world. It should not be bulldozed, but rather be preserved and for different reasons. Built after the second world war as a power station by the star architect Sir Gilbert Scott, it represents a great example of post-war industrial architecture. It should also be preserved because it is an extraordinary architectural conversion from factory-industrial structure as found, in red bricks and geometric shapes, to art and cultural space, by Swiss architects Herzon & de Meuron. Finally, it should be preserved for the experience it offers, more than how it looks outdoors, which is proving very successful. Let’s remember that since it opened as a museum exactly 20 years ago, it has attracted more than 40 million visitors, becoming one of the top three tourist attractions in the UK, and generating about £100 million per year. Let’s keep it!

Other two iconic buildings in the list of the ugly ones, should also be preserved, for the extraordinary innovative shapes and building technology they introduced The first one is the Shard is designed by top architect Renzo Piano few years ago and opened in 2013. With its 310 mt hight and its unusual glassy pyramidal shape, it reflects and plays with the light, blending in more that its dimensions and shape initially suggest. Its mixed use of office, hotel, bars, apartments, could evolve over time and, why not, maybe it could well host a museum one day. The second building is the Gherkin, designed by the star architect Foster and Partners and oned in 2004. Today, its 180mt height is not shocking any more, and instead we are still impressed by its innovative technology, where the flat glass panels it is made of are assembled to give a curved shape.

Finally the list includes the Prime Minister’s residential home, 10 Downing street. This is the most surprising building in the list, in my opinion: my question is where is the ugliness?. It is a typical Georgian house which London is full of, designed 1680’s by Sir Christopher Wren about 20 years after the London Great Fire. Wren is the same architect of St Paul’s Cathedral and I am not sure why 10 Downing St is a hated building. Maybe people confused the house with its residents, the Prime Ministers who have been living there since 1735 and perhaps the people who answered this survey do not like the house as a proxy for its current resident!!

Today I want to talk about Banksy, the graffiti artist whose real identity is kept secret! He usually makes use of stencils to quickly create his un-commissioned artwork on public spaces, and runs away before people and police realize. Then he publishes a photo of that graffiti online on his social media, which then becomes a virtual exhibition gallery space. The difference with the real space where the graffiti is made is that on social media we loose the context, the dimensions, and the personal experience.

What he has recently done, is to share his latest graffiti, which was made in a carriage of the London underground, through a video, rather than a photo, where instead of just showing the graffiti itself, it is the action of creating it that also matters. To me that is an interesting evolution of his style, do you agree?

In the video we see the artist completely covered and masked as a cleaner getting in a carriage of the London underground with few travellers around, and spraying the carriage walls, creating a graffiti representing his typical characters, the rats, wearing a face mask, taking inspiration by the Covid safety rules on public transport, where a face mask is required. And all this in front of few surprised travellers. It is reported that real cleaners of the underground washed away the graffiti, now retrospectively valued £7.5mil, even before it was made public on social media by the artist.

I have mixed feelings about this artwork. On one side I understand there is an element of fun: a masked artist, in a masked compliant environment, a quickly –created graffiti with masked rats, cleaned even more quickly by professional cleaners, I guess wearing a mask too. But apart from this element of fun, I have mixed feelings on the artwork itself.

For example: who’s the audience the artist wants to target, and what is the reaction he wants for the audience to have? And what is the actual art message? There were only few people in the carriage, so I assume the audience is meant to be online. However, I like in-person art experiences, I prefer to see art in its context, rather than online. In regards to the message, why do we need Banksy to remind ourselves to wear a mask? So honestly I am not sure his artistic message is actually relevant. But perhaps you have a different view.

Get in touch with me on my FB page, (artwitlondon) or Instagram artwit_london, to share your thoughts This is Robi from Art Tours with a Theme, I hope you enjoyed my podcast. Thank you for listening and be tuned for next Monday. Bye!