It would be easy to provide a thoughtful, all-encompassing understanding of museums in London. I have tried to give some idea of the sprawling elegance of the National Gallery and National Portrait Gallery, the comparative edge provided by the Tate Modern, and the gaping expanse filled by the British Museum. All inspire and churn the mind (or stomach) in different ways. Yet it would be foolhardy to say you can provide an \u201ceasy\u201d nor \u201call-encompassing\u201d understanding of museums in London (not that anyone has, necessarily). A double-threat stands in your way\u2014The Victoria and Albert Museum and the Sir John Soane\u2019s Museum.<\/p>\n
I walked away from both of these buildings baffled. It took much effort not to dismiss the V&A as immediately nonsensical, so I settled on \u201ceclectic\u201d as the best way to describe it. The V&A has been described in previous posts as an enjoyable hodgepodge of items without ties to anything distinctly British and breaking from any sort of natural organization. I agree with these perceptions of the museum, though it did, admittedly, take some time for me to reach this conclusion. I enjoyed the individual displays, but I got caught up with the confusing flow of the individual displays and the building as a whole. The display<\/a> dedicated to Japan, for instance, did not contain a natural progression of Japanese art; a piece of art from the 21st<\/sup> century rested in the same case as centuries-old clothing. How does this make sense? Is the purpose to jolt the accepted model for museums? I have asked others and myself these questions and have come to appreciate the fresh perspective held by the V&A. It purposefully provides a jolt, but it takes varying amounts of time to recover, reflect, and, ultimately, revisit.<\/p>\n That in mind, I have yet to recover from the Sir John Soane\u2019s Museum.<\/p>\n