Talk:Tate Modern

Architecture High‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Museums Top‑importance

	museums portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Mid‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Image links

There are two broken links in the image gallery. I'm not sure how to fix them, or if they should be deleted. Tyrenius 19:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox picture

Does someone have a better picture than the one in there at the moment? It's focus is more on the foreground than the Tate in the background. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThirteenthGreg (talk • contribs) .

I disagree, it shows very nicely the gallery and its relationship to the River Thames - Adrian Pingstone 16:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tate is a notoriously difficult building to photograph well, mostly because its northern side has the best aspect but is so often deep in shadow. The photograph with the bridge and the boat is an excellent one. I took one from much the same spot a couple of weeks ago and my best effort (right) doesn't begin to compare. Keep the photo in the article. Cherish it. --Surgeonsmate 21:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surgeonsmate, I've added your photo to the gallery — looks good to me. jareha ^(comments) 23:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. On looking at the gallery, there's some great shots in there. --Surgeonsmate 00:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put the gallery photos in order of approach to the museum. Not sure anyone else would catch that — just saying. :) jareha ^(comments) 00:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the current 2003 photo is now out of date, as the 2016-built Switch House is conspicuously absent. I can't see any replacement photos on Commons however. --Gapfall (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Director

Vicente Todoli is Director of Tate Modern. Serota is Director of the Tate Gallery that includes Tate Modern.

Vincent Todoli actually resigned in the summer of last year. [1][2]citizen^dio 18:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turbine hall

A bunch of IP editors are adding a non-notable art stunt to the list of Turbine Hall exhibitions in the Unilever series. I am removing this as spam and vandalism. The table is only for official exhibitions. Even if the stunt was notable (i.e. covered by RS sources not just by a few blogs) it would only merit a footnote and not inclusion in the table. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extension

Are the western block and the tower the same thing? They're under different headings and perhaps need merging. Also the location of the section about the chimney suggests it's part of the extension whereas I thought it was original. (I don't know nearly enough about Tate Modern to edit the article directly.) Rb (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The western block is an area of space that used to be part of the original building but was never used by Tate as EDF had electric equipment there. It has been mostly demolished and rebult. It will link to the new tower extension and could be regarded as part of it. It should be noted that the whole of Tate Modern will be a single enlarged building once it is complete, not a campus of separate buildings. There is still some sense in grouping the three extension parts separately but maybe not with separate section headings.

I agree that the chimney probably does not belong in this section as I am not aware of any plan to alter it or extend the gallery into it. I am not sure what, if anything, it is currently used for. I suspect it is not conducive to use. The description of the chimney would be better moved to another section. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Floor numbers

I put back the bit about the floors getting renumbered because I remember it happening but it is unsourced, and we should try to source it if we are going to keep it. The reason it is possibly worth keeping is that sources before and after the renumbering will refer to the floors differently and that could be confusing without saying what happened. I don't have source, although I guess it could be inferred by comparing visitor maps from before and after the change. I very much doubt that they put out a press release about it. I think I remember this happening about the time The Tanks were open. I guess the idea was to make them sound more subterranean by calling that level "level 0". There is some sense to it. The main entrance takes you down a slope to level 0 but all the other entrances put you on level 1. I'm not sure about the new building but I expect it will also have level 1 as its entrance level. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I agree it should stay in if possible - it certainly would be good if someone can find a source. Dormskirk (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New terminology and displays

I just received the booklet for the opening of the new building. The way they talk about the building is changing and I think we should adopt the new terminology:

The original building is now called "The Boiler House".
The new building is now called "The Switch House" and seems to encompass both The Tower and what we have been calling The Western Block.
The Turbine Hall and The Tanks are still called "The Turbine Hall" and "The Tanks".

The new names seem to have slipped out without much notice a while ago. Here is an example we can use as a reference while waiting for the flood of coverage once it opens: [3].

The chimney does not seem to feature in the extension work at all and we should probably move that out of the Extension Project section although it should be included somewhere.

There is also going to be a complete rehang in both buildings. I guess we want to update the article to cover that. It would be nice to keep a little info about what the old sections were, briefly tracking how they changed since 2000, but the focus should be on the very soon to be current arrangement.

Here is what I can gather about the rehang, taken from the new Members booklet although we won't really be able to say much about what a lot of this stuff actually is until the press get to review it:

Boiler House - "Four Approaches to Modern Art":

Level 2
- Start Display
- Artist and Society
- In The Studio
Level 4
- Materials and Objects
- Media Networks

Switch House "How Art Became Active":

Level 2: Between Object and Architecture
Level 3: Performer and Particiapant
Level 4: Living Cities

--DanielRigal (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am a bit overexcited about the preview day tomorrow but I have been unusually WP:BOLD for a major article and done quite a lot restructuring. I have moved the extension project into the history and recast it in the past tense. I am sure that it is far from perfect and that there is a lot more work to do but I'm going to let the dust settle and see if everybody is happy with what I have done. I'll probably have a go at the galleries section once I get my hands on the new visitor map. Of course if anybody wants to jump in before me, or just clean up whatever mess I have made, then that's absolutely fine. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A suggested todo list

History: Need coverage of the opening in 2000. I remember very mixed reviews. People were expecting a chronological survey of modern art and they didn't get that. Many suggested that the Tate collection of modern art was not up to international standards.
Need coverage of the unexpected success and increases in visitor numbers.
Galleries: Need to restructure this. It needs to be more concise and clearer.
Impact: I feel we should say something about the effect Tate Modern has had on the redevelopment of the area. Between Tate, The Globe and the Millennium Bridge the net effect has been to turn what was basically an utter shithole into a thriving cultural and tourist area. (Probably best not to use the phrase "utter shithole" in the article though. ;-) )
History: Need coverage of the extension opening this month. I'm sure there will be tons of RS coverage.
Need some coverage of the admissions policy with free entry to the collection displays.
Maybe some mention of Artist Rooms as they always seem to have something from that collection.

--DanielRigal (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tate Modern. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130104215031/http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/display/structure-and-clarity to http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/display/structure-and-clarity

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Electric

To whoever looks after this page.

I have a note here in the Centenary Brochure of Hillier Parker May & Rowden, surveyors, published 1998. It says, Hillier Parker's involvement was:

"Nuclear Electric Plc (now Magnox Electric Plc.) Planning advice leading to a change of use of Bankside Power Station to facilitate the new Tate Gallery of Modern Art."

It looks like this means that before it was taken over as an art gallery, it used to belong to Nuclear Electric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philjones573 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exhibition Coverage

To would be helpful to include some coverage of notable exhibitions at the Tate Modern, eg. Major Retrospectives, with citations to reviews. They are always reviewed national newspapers and sometimes internationally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerulean Air (talk • contribs) 17:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tate Modern. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reverts

Could anyone watching this page please read through the "Turbine Hall" section in this version and then this version. The first is much clearer, right?

I recently rearranged some of the text so that everything about the "Unilever series" is explained and mentioned first, before the table. I don't even particularly care about this article, but the reason I went to the effort to try and improve it is that the section was poorly arranged: it reeked of different editors disjointedly adding things over several years. I also fixed the images so that they vertically follow each other and fill the white space next to the table. @Coldcreation: has reverted me twice - the first without any explanation at all, and the second saying vaguely "Clearer before. Restored multiple image". I'd love to know how you think the previous version was clearer. Did you actually read the two versions?

Sorry to come on a bit aggressive but this sort of action on WP really annoys me. I'm almost sure it's because it's assumed I'm just a pointless, useless IP editor. As it happens, I used to be a regular here and have even written FAs, but for this reason I also know how IPs are treated like crap. If I was just a new, naive editor, clearly trying to help and with good intentions, this reverting would have been incredibly off-putting. Coldcreation, keep that in mind. You need to clarify with editors who are making an effort - any editors - what your issues are without practically edit-warring.

I admit I didn't put an edit summary myself, I should have, but that doesn't mean it deserved a blanker revert as if I were a vandal.

Edit restored. I expect not to be reverted again as there's been plenty of time to discuss.

References

The two footnoted links I clicked (#28 & 29, currently), in search of a list of past exhibitions, are both broken. 2603:6080:6440:D2E:38A8:64B3:A606:7177 (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note - fixed with archived versions. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting information

1)- The Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling, determined the Tate Modern (Blavatnik Building) had violated privacy and nuisance laws. In 2022 there were 3.88 million visitors to the gallery. Lawyers for the Neo Bankside residents claimed a "near constant surveillance" state and "unusually intense visual scrutiny." The court ruled for the plaintiff's and remanded the case for further action. It was covered by The Standard, Sky News,The New York Times, NPR, Art News, Financial Times, BBC News, Pinsent Masons, The Law Society Gazette, and others.

2)- Ethan Hunt chased a bad guy to the top of the tower in Mission: Impossible - Fallout but he escaped.

Otr500 (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]