Tate Modern/ London
 

Can the regulars on this board tell me a little more about Tate Modern? I'm not that keen on art, but I was told the last time I was over there that the museum has a viewing spot that overlooks the river. Is that the restaurant, or is there a sitting lounge where I could relax? And there's a couple of nights a week that the museum is open late, right? Thanks.

The Tate modern is well worth a trip. It is huge with many exhibits. I am a bit of a philistine when it comes to art, and have to admit that I "popped in" while passing, just to see what it was like. I was surprised to find I really enjoyed it, and spent a few hours there. I seem to remember that it is free (Except any "special" exhibitions. There are certainly area where you can sit, and get an excellent view of the Thames. I believe there is a fairly good, if expensive restaurant as well.

The restaurant at the top's a bit pricey and the one at the bottom can get crowded, and has a not so good view.

Unless you're a member of the Friends (which gets you into the special exhibitions free - including the ones in Liverpool - and gets you access to the best river viewing areas), seats in a lot of the river viewing spots can fill up quickly.

So pick up a viewing stool from levels 3, 4 or 5. The galleries have a lot of windows with unexpected views over the river. Just plonk your stool down and contemplate at your leisure.

Open till 2115 Fridays and Saturdays.

BTW, did you know the building was originally designed by Giles Gilbert Scott - the bloke responsible for Liverpool's Anglican Cathedral?

<Is that the restaurant, or is there a sitting lounge where I could relax? >

Yes and Yes.

The restaurant on the top floor has a great view on the Thames. If you do go, make sure you either go right when it opens, or call ahead to reserve a window-side table. I was there for lunch in Jan, and was lucky to get a table by the window without a reservation(I arrived 5 minutes before it opened). Before I was seated, I was asked to be done within 1 hour as the table was reserved for 1pm. My lunch was £21.

On the lower floors, in the middle section of the galleries are sitting areas (with sofas, coffee tables, and museum books) where one can also see the Thames.

Tate Modern is a wonderful museum of visit. Go if you have time.

And while that restaurant may indeed be a bit pricey, the food is really excellent. Considering the view and the quality of the food and service -- I've done far worse at a lot of far less exciting places in town.

And while most modern art simply makes me chuckle, there was a grand piano suspended upside down from a ceiling. Classical music played from it, then suddently the entire piano would fall apart, held together by strings. After a few minutes in that postion, all the strings would pull it back together again and it would continue playing. It made me more than chuckle.

If you're anywhere on the South Bank (there's a lovely wide riverside promenade), or across the river at St. Paul's (walk over the Millennium Footbridge), I'd say definitely stop in.
The building is fantastic (I think), and the definition of "modern" encompasses pretty much the the beginning of the 20th century to the present, so you can poke your nose in until you find a gallery you find a moderately interesting place to spend 15 minutes.
There's also a display of items found in the mud at the Bankside site, if that's your thing.
The cheapest way to enjoy the view is from some tucked-away galleries, which have sofas and chairs situated for viewing. CotswoldScouser says they're on 3,4,5.
They might fill up, but turnover can be high, and I've often found them completely empty.
Or on one of the middle floors there's a little self-service cafeteria with tea/coffee juice, sandwiches, pastries etc, which you can take over to sofas and tables turned to give you a view of the river and beyond.
So, in short, there are many viewing spots.

Like Neopolitan we just loved that piano !!! Actually we hated the entire museum (not into that kind of art) but still laugh over that piano.

Cotswold Scouser is NOT saying the sofas are on 3, 4 and 5.

What I'm saying is that there are viewing stools available on 3,4 and 5. For those unfamiliar, these are the things that look like folded up chairs, usually hanging on a rail, that you can pick up and carry round. When you want to spend an hour or two contemplating a detail, or sketching, you unfold them and sit on them.

The less artistic among us use them to plonk ourselves by a window and stare out.

Actually, Cotswold Scouser, I think it is the MORE artistic among us who do that.

I'm a huge lover of museums and modern art, and I quite dislike Tate Modern -- whose best feature is indeed the windows that afford a view out the window so you don't have to look at the art collection. The power plant itself is genuienly awesome, and since it's free, if you are in the neighborhood it makes sense to stick your head in, then go straight up to the windows and views.

Much more rewarding to my mind is the Globe theater. Its restaurant --which is surprisingly affordable if you stick to the set menu -- has a really peachy view of St. Paul's and the Thames. And participating in a performance if they are going on while you are there, can be a terrific experience, depending on what's on. The tickets are among the most inexpensive in London.

As I recall, there is also a Pizza Express across the alleayway from the Globe that has floor-to-ceiling windows overlooking the Thames.

At least thanks to the UK Lottery funds the Tate Modern and many other London museums are free so you can take a quick look without forking over the usual $10 or major museum entry fee. I'm not an art aficiando but i thoroughly enjoyed the Tate Modern, in a revamped Power Plant on the Thames.

"At least thanks to the UK Lottery funds ...many London museums are free"

Sadly not. Lottery funds subsidise only capital projects, and not running costs. Our incomprehensible subsidy of affluent foreigners' holidays comes from general taxation.

"Our incomprehensible subsidy of affluent foreigners' holidays comes from general taxation."

I know what you mean, Cotswold, and your "offspring" Canada always amazes me by giving US tourists back the money they spent on tax for hotels. Here in the US, we soak the tourists for extra taxes on hotels and in many places those funds go to special coffers for funding special tourist related projects or impact projects from the "wear" caused by the tourists themselves. I think that makes so much more sense.

By the way, I've noticed that with the free museums, the special exhibits have gotten more and more pricey, presumably to make up the difference.

I was interested in an exhibition of photographs by Cecil Beaton at London's National Gallery, until I did a quick tally in my head and realized this exhibit alone was going to cost something like $45 for the two of us. I didn't want to see the photographs that badly!

Neo:
Surely the dollar hasn't devalued that much?

If it's the 2004 show at the NPG you're talking about, my credit card statement says tickets were £7. Which even someone as allergic to the old poseur and his grisly subjects as I am was happy to shell out.

Special exhibitions are getting a bit of a scam. But few have yet got over a tenner.

I'm not a big fan of Tate Modern. I visited last August because I wanted to see their special Frida Kahlo exhibit (admission was not free). The exhibit was great and I liked the restaurant too.

Cotswold, what am I missing here? I said that figure from memory, but I just looked in my journal where I wrote, "we discovered the tickets were 12 pounds each and decided not to go". As I recall the show was just opening -- was that a special price or something -- or some special opening? May of 2004.

Might there have been some combination ticket with another exhibition? Or are you double-converting?

I don't know. But I doubt we'd have passed on it if it was 7 pounds each.

We did a quick (too short) visit to the Tate Modern before we went to see a play at the Globe.

It was an odd time of day -- too late for lunch, too early for dinner. But we did manage to score a table with a view and enjoy a memorable light supper of white bean soup with truffle oil, and a nice glass of wine. Sadly, we were then (politely) shooed out to make way for some big-deal party that evening. But it for sure cost us less than a full-fledged dinner! ;-)

Even if you are not that "into" art, the Tate Modern does great one hour docent led free tours of the gallery with different themes such as "nature", "the human body" and others which we enjoyed immensely.

Ohhh, I knew I could count on you guys! Your descriptions are wonderful, and yes, CotswoldScouser, it's heartening to know that the Tate Modern was designed by the same fellow who did the magnificent Anglican Cathedral in Liverpool. I always enjoy walking the Southbank, and the Tate sounds like a wonderful spot to see the view, and maybe have a snack or a meal. I might even look at the art! :)

God, I love London.

CotswoldScouser was correct, the ticket prices for the Cecil Beaton exhibition were only £7.

http://www.npg.org.uk/live/beaton.asp

Perhaps Neopolitan you were thinking of another exhbition...

Wow. That is an interesting link. I started reading and decided I must have just made a mistake, but then I continued down.

According to my journal, the day we went was Friday, May 21. The sign at the entrance I thought said 12 pounds. But
according to that website, that was a special "conference/lecture" day with tickets at 25 and 15 pounds. I was not aware anything was special about that day, just the day we happened to go. I do remember a sort of hand written sign posted on a fence where some sidewalk work was being done. This was the entrance on the side of the building where St. Martins and Charing Cross come together. After we saw the sign, we didn't even go up to the door.

Now the question is, why was it only 12 pounds instead of the 25 and 15 pound prices it says? I'll never know. Were there tickets left and this was a special price they were offering that morning to fill it up? But frankly I'm sorry I brought it up. All I know is that I wrote in my journal that the tickets were 12 (which is what I THOUGHT I saw on a sign on May 21) and so we chose not to go.

CotswoldScouser,
So sorry to misdirect.
I fouled my antecedant. I itended "they" to modify only the viewing areas, not the sofas.

"Our incomprehensible subsidy of affluent foreigners' holidays comes from general taxation."

Then again, it might be a smart marketing move, rather like the 'loss leader' items that supermarkets, say, post prominently in their windows in order to lure shoppers in. Once in, the shoppers quickly spend enough on other, non-discounted items, to more than offset the 'loss' incurred by the 'leaders.'

For as you say, the tourists are affluent, or at least affluent enough to spring for London lodging, transportation, souvenirs/clothing items, and food. Almost all of which expenditures, of course, incur nonrefundable VAT at 17.5 per cent.

Hey, it works for supermarkets....

Sue,

I agree. Especially after reading this thread. I've never seen so many who say they don't like art or museums or modern art in particular say they liked Tate Modern.

And then there are the royals, too.

"Hey, it works for supermarkets...."

Only those run by amateurs. Any competent retailer these days makes sure promotional prices are fully funded by suppliers - unless they're lumbered with socialist-style laws controlling the agreements traders make with each other of course. And successful supermarkets compete on range, quality, and everyday low prices: '10c off' is SO 1960s.

Our iniquitous policy of getting the poor nationwide to pay for the cultural indulgences of the London rich has nothing to do with attracting tourists.

It was a bone thrown to the arts lobby by this utterly wretched government. It's clearly done nothing to stimulate tourism: our market share compared to France and Italy hasn't shifted since the stunt was launched. And wasn't meant to shift.

The museums' cashflow has, of course, been affected. Visitor counts are up, while income's gone down. So money that should go to conservation and acquisition is being directed to security and crowd control. More space that should be used for permanent displays is going to shops, bars and overpriced special exhibitions. And galleries are being temporarily closed.

Interesting concept of how letting people in free makes money in other ways. Meanwhile I'm curious what the statistics are for how much the average museum visitor spends in the bookstore or gift shop. Those are invariably the busiest sections in the museum and people go out carrying bundles of stuff. Maybe there's a real method to their madness -- "we got in free so we can really afford to spend some money in the gift shop".

Well, Cotswold, I guess my career in supermarket retail is a bust before it even began... :)

Still, every time we swing through London en route to or from Europe, I manage to persuade spouse to spend an extra night or two in London, a city not exactly known for its everyday low prices (!) on the grounds that our sightseeing won't cost us that much. (I do my best to erase his memory banks of such things as our last trip through the British Museum, which saw us dropping £ 60 plus on guided tours, lunch in the restaurant, and gift shop stuff.....) True, the free admission policy wouldn't affect our decision to visit the country as a whole, but it does encourage us to spend a little longer in London.

Of course, it's possible that foreign tourists represent a negligible percentage of the visitor total, such that none of this makes a difference. Not to mention I see your point about a country being taxed nationwide for stuff generally accessible only to those who live in London. But that's the lament of every nation - the capital becomes a showcase that most of its citizens never get to see.

Sorry, Merseyheart, got us a bit off topic...

I really like the idea of tax-supported libraries and believe art museums should fall into the same category.

Gosh, all foreigners aren't affluent, often they have scrimped and saved to come to London (as mentioned, not exactly the cheapest city on earth). Sorry you feel it is a ridiculous subsidy. Perhaps the school children in England also enjoy the free admission?

Tate Modern is interesting, although frankly I am glad I didn't pay admission..not that fond of the exhibits.

C'mon over to DC sometime and enjoy the free admission to the Smithsonian museums.

Is Pizza Express related to the Hong Kong chain of the same name?

Hmm, 21 pounds for lunch. I don't know, I didn't go to the trendy resto on top of the Pompidou either.

The restaurant does have a pleasant view, and it is convenient, but it's not the sort of place where one can really relax. Then again, in my opinon, the only places worth lounging in, in London are hotel bars, and lobbies. Sadly, there is not one decent hotel (in my opinon) near to the Tate Modern.

However, you are going there for the art. I think it's a very good collection, some of it is perhaps a touch (it's not very by a longshot) conceptual for some people's tastes, but so what? Form your own opinions on it, that's what art is about. Rather like a songwriter/lyricist has his own ideas and thoughts about a song he's written, and it takes a skilled singer to actually sing what he's written and not sing over what he's written.

i don't accept the assumption that free museums don't help london tourism. it's difficult to look at market share of tourism or volume of tourists because the last few years have been very challenging for tourism. new destinations are becoming more popular (eg eastern europe, asia, etc). competition is fierce for tourists' money. for example, foreign tourism to the US is down 35% over the last few years.

london has its own challenges - poor weather (or at least the reputation of it), expense, strong currency, terrorism (not just 7/7 - the last IRA blast was as recent as 2001 if i remember correctly), well publicised increase in crime, etc.

tourist destinations must reinvent themselves and their image if they want to stay competitive. the whole royal thing is wearing thin. i'm not saying that people necessarily visit london to see "royal things" but it is part of the image of london...the atmosphere that make many want to visit. it's seems visitors will tire of this outdated image. many of the people with money and time to travel (eg 50+) have been to london when travel became cheap and easy in the 70's. they've seen all these things...shrugged their shoulders at the changing of the guard,etc. the image of the city needs to be smartened up in order to continue being a top tourist destination.

london has built new museums, renovated old ones and opened most of the best ones to the public for free. this is unusual for a large city and is giving london the reputation as a city of great museums. i'm not saying that people visit only because of free museums...i'm saying that the whole strategy put together is greatly enhancing london's reputation as a tourist destination. the museums would be great whether free or not, however the accessibility of them is greatly helping this reputation.

I so much agree with you, walkinaround. I lived in London some years ago, and returned for the first time recently, and the pleasures of the city had increased so dramatically and visibly, I can't wait to go back. The investment London has made in itself is really paying off. (I wouldn't have done that Eye, mind you, but apparently that's a hit, too.)

Pizza Express is definitely a chain, although I don't know who owns it. I reiterate it's got one of the best views of the Thames and St. Paul's, and might even have better decor than Tate Modern. I only spotted it from a neighboring restaurant and made a mental note under the heading "cheap great view." It's on New Globe Walk.

Pizza Express in Hong Kong is not cheap eats despite the name. The decor is nice and you can easily spend more than $30 per person for a very simple meal.

Nessundorma,

I'm puzzled, too, by the number who say they don't like art/art museums but like the Tate. I like art and always start visits to London by walking through the National Portrait Gallery to brush up on English history. However, I went to the Tate Modern on my last trip and came away with a renewed conviction that British 20th century art doesn't compare well to what was going on elsewhere at the same time: France, Germany, US, etc. However, the piano didn't fall apart when I was there (sounds cool) and the building is impressive.

scrb,

In London you can easily spend $30 for a simple meal, too, just about anywhere. I didn't eat in Pizza Express, although it looked pretty informal from where I was sitting.

Joe,

I think the building is what gets'em. It's a great people watching space, sort of a piazza for London.

I agree with you about the National Portrait Gallery. It's one of the most enjoyable museums going I think.

I also happen to like many other galleries in London, and I'm a huge fan of modern art. Tate Modern's collection and presentation, however, just wasn't my cuppa.

Well, the topic is art, so that's okay by me. I do love that walk down the Southbank, and I've got to say that the fact the Tate Modern is free will encourage me to stop in, look at some art, and have a meal while I soak in the view. As someone else pointed out, the high cost of living in London can be a deterrent to tourism. I'm glad to find any spot that is cheap/free, and lets me watch people and the scene.