This week I made a visit to the Tate Modern Art Museum. I’ve never been very interested in modern or abstract art but i figured with its free admission I should still definitely stop in for a quick look. At first glance I liked the exterior of the building it looked like the architect put a museum within the shell of an old manufacturing facility. The large smoke stack and the lack of windows give the building a very unique look and its location on the Thames is great. Unfortunately, for me appreciation for the building’s contents was not the same that day. I observed all of the free galleries and came across a few pieces that seemed unique and required skill to create. The Picasso’s that I saw were interesting most depicting nude women, but overall majority of what i saw did not speak to me as pieces of art, but rather culminations of random objects put together or canvases with paint splattered on them. For instance one piece that really puzzled me was a plain beige canvas with a slice down the middle as if someone cut it with a knife. The plaque on the wall described the piece as a representation of creation rather than destruction. I asked myself should great pieces of art need an explanation of their meaning or shouldn’t they provoke appreciation and thought by merely their appearance. Now my opinion does not carry much weight in the art field, but this is just simply a observation that I made. I would definitely say go to the museum you cannot beat free admission and it is one of the best in the world. While there try to think about what gives pieces of work the title of art. If a few well known artists agree that a piece is worthy enough to be put in a museum, does that necessarily make it art?