When I was in Britain with the Sec 3 & 4 AEP students, we visited Tate Britain, a museum featuring numerous artworks by well-known artists, both traditional & contemporary.
I hadn’t been, especially enthusiastic, at the prospect of visiting this museum – in general, I bear a negative pre-conception regarding art museums. From past experiences, art museums have been both dull and tiresome to me, having to walk amongst overwhelming masses of art, and not necessarily comprehending any of it. (I realised, this is an extremely inaccurate perception, since, 90% of the museums we visited in London/Paris turned out to be both enriching and inspiring; perhaps Singapore just needs to put in a bit more effort, in the art department.) In addition, we had signed up for The Guided Tour, a programme I cannot help but look upon with disdain – even up to now.
Yes, having somebody to explain certain artworks and draw linkages within artistic circles that you never noticed, is a good thing. However there is a limit to what they can promise and deliver – unless you’re planning to spend >24 hours in the museum, learning about every single piece of artwork and its history. Not a good idea.
That aside, this visit to Tate Britain, turned out to be unexpectedly fulfilling.
The guide was refreshing, in his manner – rather different from many other tour guides I’ve listened to. This made the tour a lot more interesting, than I’d expected it to be; he explained the artworks in a casual, layman manner, while maintaining the sense of professionalism.
One piece of work, I remember in particular, is Three Studies for Figures at the Base of A Crucifixion, by Francis Bacon – a relatively contemporary artist.

Three Studies for Figures at the Base of A Crucifixion, Francis Bacon
At first glance, this piece of artwork seems, slipshod, unappealing, and disturbing.
The garish orange background is harsh to the eyes, as are the three figures that resemble neither human nor beast.
To me, one of the most disturbing (as well as striking) features of this artwork, lies in the way nothing is very identifiable. The creatures resemble – from left to right, respectively – a vulture with its head bent in, a cooked chicken torso (and head, I guess), and a horse. They appear to have slightly, human, features, in the way they have agonized expressions, increasingly from the left to the right again. Even with these distinctions, facing this piece of work in the flesh (or, the canvas, really), I feel the need to question: what is this? What’s the painting trying to say, what relation does the title have, what role does the technical skill of the painting play? It’s neither precise, nor entirely abstract; the props in each segment seem haunting yet irrelevant.
The guide explained, how the painting is one of emotion, rather than observation – how the figures represent increasing pain, agony and trial. A crucifixion signifies suffering, like the emotions these three creatures display. What amazed me is, the way I managed to make personal commentary with SOVA-esque vocabulary; organic forms and contrasting colors! The guide linked this artwork to two others (one of which was also on display in Tate Britain): Picasso’s Guernica and George Stubb’s Horse Devoured by a Lion.

Horse Devoured by a Lion, George Stubbs

Guernica, Picasso
The horses bear, resemblance to the center figure of Bacon’s work; the linkage intrigued me, and immediately raised my personal interest in both traditional and contemporary art (I quite appreciate Francis Bacon now). Yes, the artwork still seems disturbing, but after understanding and dissecting it slowly, it actually becomes heartwarming.
The visit to Tate Britain completely changed my outlook toward museums, and, since we had the rest of the trip to visit various places, it gave a good start to the trip.


















