Philadelphia Museum of Art review

My trip to the Philadelphia Museum of Art was more interesting and vast with information than I originally expected it to be.  I arrived there early around ten am. The rain and fog painted a gloomy picture of a massive building or should I say, monument. Not having my morning coffee, and having my now typical feeling of exhaustion, I coward at the thought of climbing the buildings front steps, so I went up the side near the parking area. The view of the city from the top of the stairs was breathtaking. It made you feel like you were on top of the city, and important in a sense. Once I got inside the interior was just as vast and pronounced as the exterior, it was large in what I am guessing to be Roman or Greek style, with massive pillars and columns and staircases everywhere I looked. The large wall hanging rugs made me feel like I was in a temple. You can tell that when the main building was built back in 1933, it was built to be the monument that withstands the tests of time.

Once I looked at the map, I jetted up to the second floor to where I thought my favorite exhibit would be; the Arms and Armor Gallery. I am not the artsy type in the least and have little appreciation for art but ancient swords, guns, and armor were right up my ally.

This room in the gallery really changed my expectation of memory. It made me realize that time periods where there were minimal technology had the means to build things to last unlike today. The attention to detail that went into every gun, sword, and plate of armor showed you the quality in materials they used, a quality that you would not find in a product of today’s standards.

You can tell that the way some of the works were displayed was in origin order. There was one glass case where there where several of the same style of black powder rifles and you can see each one was an improvement on the one before it either in style or performance design. I liked that the museum's setup was intuitive in that sense.

Another area that showed me similar ideals in exceeding my expectations of memory was the costume and textiles gallery. The reason this gallery was interesting to me is because it displayed pieces of clothing from hundreds of years ago up to the 21^st century so it was easy to make a comparison of products made today and similar products made in the past. In every case I saw something made 150 years ago was always better than something made after 1950 (the decade of the creation of disposable products). The attention to detail in the past and quality of materials far exceeds the products of today. I even saw a 200 year old servants coat that was more beautiful and made of better material that any item of clothing I have ever owned being a middle class white American. It was very interesting that the museums display of quality goods really changed my idea (the public’s idea) of what the technologies of the past truly are. The technologies of the distant past 

 are not as elementary as we thought them to be.

While I was on the first floor I also took a look at their new exhibit gallery which was currently displaying several painting of Rembrandt van Rijn. I knew that he was a famous painter from the 1600’s but I did not know much about his work. This exhibition made me realize how important he was. I could be wrong, but I believe in some of the literature I read it said that this was the first Rembrandt exhibition in Philadelphia since 1932 and that this exhibit reunited this series of paintings for the first time since 1656. I feel that I may have interpreted something wrong about this statement because it seems monumental (how fitting). If it is truly the case that this exhibition is the first time this series of paintings has been reunited since the 1600’s then that is nuts and I am honored to be able to say that I saw it. I feel like so many interesting and important historical exhibits go unnoticed in the city of Philadelphia, so it was amazing to see something like this.

As far as the rest of the museum goes, the format of the paintings and displays were much more informative than the Wager. Almost everything in there had a plaque with a name and a date. I was able to understand what I was seeing and the importance of it, and I think that was the main goal for the museum. To help visitors to understand the artwork and the importance or significance of it, whereas the Wagner was there to display power and significance beyond the public's understanding.

The Philadelphia museum of Art exceeded my expectations and understanding of memory. It was a great trip and I wouldn’t mind paying attention more often to when there is new exhibition in town.