On my senior trip to London, the tour guide gave us the option to choose a museum to go to on our own, and I chose the Victoria and Albert museum. My experience at this museum was different from my experience at so many other art and design museums because of the diversity of art it had in its walls.
The museum is divided into five categories: Exhibitions, Asia, Materials & Techniques, Europe, and Modern. Within each of the five main categories, there is overlap between some of the subcategories. For instance, in Materials and Techniques, there are multiple galleries dedicated to “Sculpture,” and a separate “Sculpture” subcategory under the European category. The division among the categories is different for each. For instance, in Asia, the art is divided by religious ties or the region it was created in. The Europe category’s division is a bit more complex, where it is divided by time period and region or art form, such as “Europe and America 1800-1900.” I find this interesting in that it seems to highlight the art that would be considered important for the time.
The Materials and Techniques category is my favorite. Its subcategories are simple to understand: they were categorized by the art form they feature. Beyond that, though, it highlights art that many other art museums never feature. For instance, in the “Theater and Performance” there is a mix of media, including play posters, performance photography, and costumes, all presenting theater as an art form, and I’ve yet to see museums pay respect to theater in this way outside of an exhibition. This category, Materials and Techniques, is the largest and most diverse, with seemingly no art form left unrepresented. In highlighting so many art forms, it almost controls the way the visitor defines what is art and helps them see art in new ways. For example, oftentimes people might not view a simple housedress as a piece of art, but in the fashion gallery, you can see these iconic pieces of clothing on display in the same way you would see any piece of art in a museum displayed, making the museum attendee see it as a work of art worthy of critique.
I think the Materials and Techniques category is why I love the V&A Museum so much, so if I were to change the categorization, I would marry all of the regional differences under the Materials and Techniques subcategories and focus on appreciating the art forms themselves. Then, within the galleries I would group them regionally so people could compare, say, the ceramics of the various regions of the world.
I enjoyed reading your post and could really feel the passion and enthusiasm you have for the Materials and Techniques category, it makes me want to visit the V&A Museum and see the exhibit for myself. When you were describing the way that the museum categorizes each section I found myself getting lost and confused. I definitely think that grouping each section regionally would bring the museum together more cohesively and allow visitors to compare each regions types of art in all styles.
Your appreciation of the collection and the museum’s attempt at transforming visitors’ concept of art is very clear. I would say that this is a rather generic categorization, aside from the Materials and Techniques category, and possibly the exhibitions. Looking at the map, it seems that there is some disjoint placement of the galleries, where the flow is interrupted, as they intersect with other categories. As for the categories, I think I would prefer if they grouped things by their art form and time period, rather than simply by region. It would be very interesting to see the different artistic styles popular in different regions, during the same time periods.