Page 57 - Studio International - April 1973

occasions without debate. Since we became NR : The question of the remainder, so to speak, of another collection having another. There will
independent in 1954 there has been no case other our holding is interesting because during the last probably be some central body which will provide
than the transfer of the Seurat, which was removal of impressionist works from the Tate — funds, and things will get bought which need to be
foreshadowed by Samuel Courtauld when he gave indeed, the post-impressionist works as well —we bought regardless of whether they belong to the
it so that we couldn't in fact dispute it. But beyond did ask the National Gallery to take the whole lot National Gallery, the Tate or whatever.
that date they've made no demands on us. It hasn't rather than to take part of it. This is really the nub of RC: But the whole question is very blurred at the
of course prevented them from buying forward, in our difference with them so far as the modern moment. Put it this way : there is no intrinsic reason
the sense that they've bought a Cézanne, a Monet collection goes. Here we are trying to build up a why the Cézanne Baigneuses shouldn't be here, and
and a Rousseau. representative modern collection, and when this why your Bonnard holdings, say, shouldn't be in the
RA: The Rousseau is pre-1900, just. transfers to the National Gallery, they're only National Gallery.
NR : Yes, but it's really a 20th-century orientation, I interested in the top 5 or 10%. So our and their aims, MC: Well, it's not that important, really — I mean, it's
would have thought. And if they want to spend their to that extent, are different. Whether they should be quite important...
money like that, I think that's fine, because it so is another matter—we perhaps think not. We RC: But surely it's very important to the Tate, to
increases the total representation of the 20th century. were, therefore, left with a group of things which have a really coherent modern collection ?
But for the moment they've left us in peace, and didn't perhaps make a great deal of sense in MC: It is important, but then any division is going
they have no longer any absolute right of removal — themselves, but acted as a somewhat inadequate to be a nonsense, isn't it? Whatever the division is,
they must discuss it with us. And the criterion which introduction to the 20th century or to modern it's going to be a nonsense.
is supposed to be the deciding factor as to where a painting. Now I would weep no tears personally if RC: But what I'm really asking I suppose is about
picture should be is : where they are to the greatest the remainder of the Impressionists were handed the best way out of the nonsense.
public benefit. But I think it's significant that if the over to the National Gallery ; but one would like to MC: The division between British and foreign is a
two Boards in discussion became deadlocked, think that they would make good use of them. There nonsense, the division between one section and
there is always the ubiquitous Treasury chairman are, after all, very interesting impressionist paintings another is a nonsense.
who will decide. And this we fear, because goodness here, which are available to the public. The reason NR : Richard must realize, as I'm sure he does, that
knows who he would be, or what his standards the National Gallery didn't take them was that they we have inherited a lot of nonsensical situations
would be in making his decision. knew perfectly well that if they went there, they because of the way in which the collection has
RC: Is this laid down in a Treasury minute ? wouldn't go into what they call the 'secondary' grown. There's not only that, there's also the deposit
NR : Yes. But so far as the older British works are collection. So there's a certain logic in it from that of Constable at the Victoria and Albert Museum,
concerned, it's far more difficult for us. Because we point of view, although from the point of view of which is there because the Tate didn't exist at the
are frankly rather discontented that, if there is a work possession it would have been much more sensible time. And they held onto it because, well, they like
of superlative quality like Gainsborough's Mr and if that entire group had gone as a complete period. the pictures anyway.
Mrs Andrews—which was in fact offered initially to RC: But where do you think a modern art collection MC: Not to mention the subdivisions of the
the National Gallery and they were quite within their should ideally begin ? collections of prints and drawings, which is a
rights to negotiate for that without telling us about it NR : I don't see it as being a particular date in time. lunatic anomaly.
—this obviously picks the eyes out of what is RC: But given the whole impossible premise... RC: Between the British Museum and the Victoria
entitled the National Collection of British Painting. RA: I don't think Norman mentioned that the and Albert Museum and here ?
It's an unhappy situation, I think, the basis being trustees resolved that the Tate would no longer buy MC: Yes.
partly national pride and partly a feeling that there any foreign paintings executed before 1900. NR : If you had a real dictator of art, he could set
is a certain richness in our holdings. Which in some NR : That's true. This is a slight throwback to the about rationalizing the Tate or the National Gallery,
fields is true, like Turner— obviously we can afford former situation, where we knew perfectly well that and there's no saying it might not be to the great
to lend a group of Turners to the National Gallery. our earlier works were liable to removal. So the advantage of the public in general. Including things
But with most other artists this is not by any means trustees said to themselves, and informed the like the Mantegna cartoons and so on.
the case. National Gallery, that they would not by and large RA: That's the Royal collection.
RA: Our experience tells us it is far more difficult to be reckoning in future to buy works made before NR: I know it is, but we're thinking in national terms.
get a special grant from the government fora 20th- 1900 ; and they would now regard that as lying in the MC: My personal prejudice, for what it's worth, is
century work than it is for an old master painting. National Gallery's field as they were so soon going to for extreme rationalization. But the fact is, judging
We've either been turned down completely time inherit them. from my quite long experience in trying to convince
after time, or else offered very small sums indeed, MC: The various acts and Treasury minutes don't the general public to take an interest in art, that it is
or perhaps only an advance on next year's purchase actually define the thing literally, but they tend to the idiosyncrasies which give them a toehold into
grant. refer to The Hundred Years. the culture or whatever it is. It's the
NR: This is because I understand that special NR: This used to be a sort of general guiding-line, disproportionate showing of Turner, particular
grants can be debated in the House of Commons. so that anything a hundred years old —that is, about pictures or sculpture which have some quite
And I remember one occasion some years ago when 1870 now—would be regarded as on the border- factitious character, that give the public a bite into
we had three paintings at very modest prices — a line for the possibility of transfer, roughly speaking. the thing. I'm sure it's the same with you, if you were
Braque, a Picasso and one other thing—we got the MB: We do not accept that every so often things to enter into some discipline which you perhaps are
Chancellor to come down. He was very should go because they're 100 years old. We've totally ignorant of : shall we say economics. It might
sympathetic. He arrived one evening, looked at more or less formally said that next time they want be a sudden announcement that 99 per cent of the
these things, and said : 'They're marvellous pictures, something from us, the discussion should start right wealth was in the hands of two people, or
but politically they're impossible.' And that was from the beginning : it should not be just a question something like that, some outrageous statistic that
that! of 'these pictures are now 100 years old'. The gives you an entrée into that subject. And I think it's
MC: This accounts for the existence of trustees National Gallery will have to make a case, and we the same with art: while taken together the National
altogether. If you analyse the grants at the Victoria will have to agree to a case, or it will have to be Gallery, the Tate Gallery, the Victoria and Albert
and Albert Museum, for example, where the decision referred to somebody else. Museum, the British Museum and the various
is entirely within the Civil Service as against those of NR : Yes, I was asked not so very long ago by a municipal galleries have a group holding which is
the trustee museums, you'll find that, proportionate trustee of the National Gallery : 'what would you more or less accessible to people in Britain. A certain
to the areas which they control, we get rather bigger think if the National Gallery were negotiating for a degree of irrationality is a foothold for people. From
grants. And this is because the Minister does in tact painting by Matisse ?' And I said :I would think you outside, the character of the Tate is now to a great
avoid having to answer questions in Parliament and were poaching.' And while I'm not unduly possessive, extent set by the disproportionate Turners, by the
being personally responsible for decisions of any I think they've got such a large field to look after Pre-Raphaelites, Blake, Moore, and certain 20th-
kind. anyway, that I think they should pay attention to century works which are seen almost as people, as
NR : There is the other factor that, by and large, the their own garden before they start digging in ours. individuals.
things the Victoria and Albert Museum buys are less MC: Somewhere around 1890 or 1905 is a MB: Even more the combination of British painting
likely to be politically contentious. reasonable threshold at the moment. Almost since the 16th century and modern art.
MC: Yes, the Tate is the only gallery which is really everything that is distinguishable, at any rate by me, Richard Morphet: With regard to the cutting-
contentious. in the art of the moment is lineally descended from point between the Tate and the National Gallery over
RC: To judge by the new Report, it is presumably that period around 1905, or 1912-13. modern foreign art, I think that to the man in the
true to say that you no longer try to acquire anything RA: But you can trace any movement back further street most of 20th-century foreign art is largely
from the Impressionist or Post-Impressionist and further, of course. incomprehensible. It seems to me that a very logical
generations. When will you cede your holdings from Anne Seymour: I think that probably in the future starting-point for our collection is some sort of art
this period to the National Gallery, and where do you we shall have to consider it in an educational kind of which, while important in itself, is more or less
think a modern art collection should ideally begin ? way, rather than one collection having one thing and acceptable to him, and one can then trace it from

183