Page 59 - Studio International - April 1973

we shall be wrong, and it will have been going to happen next. We don't know whether the change in sensibility, certainly, but the artists always
ephemeral. And these things we shall — as we have artist will continue developing this particular style, end up producing an entity of some sort. It takes all
done in the past— regret, not too solemnly, and go whether he'll change his style completely, whether sorts of different forms, and it seems to me crucially
on, I guess. he'll get much better or whether he.ll die tomorrow. important that, as the national collection of art
RM: It'll still have a value as being the sort of art And sometimes we buy something which we developing from traditions of painting and sculpture,
which was very much the taste of the time. afterwards think was bought a little too early, and we we should continue to represent the entities which
MC: But the taste of the time does in fact identify wish we'd held on a little bit longer and bought from the artists ideritify as being the works of art
what is great art. because even retrospectively if one the following exhibition. which was a more mature themselves. So I think there is a tremendous
considers what is the great art of any particular statement of the same idea. difference between mere documentation of a work of
moment — say 1530 — it's the mere fact that that was MC: How often do we think we've bought a little bit art and the work of art itself. Although sometimes,
known and appreciated at the time which late? obviously, the work of art itself takes the form of
determined the art of 1540, 1550 and so on ; RA: And sometimes this works the other way, yes. actual documentary material. if you look at it in a
because art is above all a cumulative experience. RC: It is noticeable that your new Report scarcely non-art way. We've just got to follow, as we always
Therefore I personally think that we should be includes any acquisitions from the conceptual or have done in the past, the decisions of the artists
involved in the art of the moment somewhat more, post-object generation ; and yet this kind of art is themselves as to what the art they're producing is.
not only for educational reasons but also for other important and well-established enough now to merit And I don't think it poses very big problems
reasons : it does continually redefine the art of the generous representation in the Tate. Why have you physically or in any other way to us. I know there are
past. Certainly my notion of what artists like hung back so far, and what do you intend to do about many points of view on this, and I think it's important
Mondrian, Mirò and so on were about in the works which fall outside the classifications of that they should all be aired as fully as possible.
thirties has been radically changed in the last 10 painting and sculpture in the future ? After all, you N R: I don't entirely agree with you that one is bound
years by what artists have done since. have recently widened the collection to embrace to accept things as art because the artist says so. If
RC: So would there be any feeling that in terms of prints and drawings, and your new Report justifies you did that, it might be argued that you would
modern purchases there could be two kinds of this move by stating : 'In a national gallery of British accept anything that an artist says.
acquisitions —the permanent acquisitions which and modern art all significant contributions, RM : It's a question of whether we think the art is
we've been talking about, and the more one-off acts whatever their medium, should ideally be included. good or not. Obviously, we're thinking, as we always
of patronage rather like the Arts Council buying ? Otherwise many artists are inadequately have done, on the basis of a judgement of the
MC: The Arts Council already exists, and I don't represented, if at all. and an unnecessarily restricted significance of their work.
think we can buy —1 mean, it would be invidious for view is given of the history of art.' RA: I think I.m right in saying that, as part of this
us to say, we're buying this thing for the future and NR : Well. I wish I could give you a neat answer. In exercise I mentioned, a list was compiled of about
that thing to keep you alive, wouldn't it ? fact, this seems to me the most pressing subject of 10 or 11 British artists of this tendency who seem
NR: At various times it has been suggested that debate inside the Gallery, and one which hasn't yet particularly significant, and roughly the same number
there should be two categories : those things which been fully discussed. And perhaps it's partly because of foreign artists. We thought that this would serve
you buy for a permanent collection, and those things of my own caution in approaching it. But perhaps the as a sort of basis for representation of this whole
which you buy for a period of five years. and if they action we've taken so far doesn't match up to the movemerit, and Anne and Richard have been trying
don't work out you can sell them. Well. on balance it interest that there is here in this field, and I think to find out what is available by each of these.
was thought that this was in fact— to use your word — particularly as represented by Anne and by Richard. AS: Yes, to a certain extent this does represent our
so invidious to the artist concerned that it would I.d like them to say what they feel we should do beginning. I think possibly to the outsider
probably be more damaging to them than anything about this, because this is very much part of the very —yourself—we've appeared to be dilatory, possibly
else. moment of discussion. because we have a rather cumbersome purchasing
RA: It's not only that. but it is not permitted at the RA: Can I just as an introduction to this say that policy which involves, probably for good reasons.
moment by Act of Parliament... I asked Richard and Anne between them to do some consulting large numbers of people : the Director,
NR: No, but these things can be changed, and if it research into this particular problem, and discuss the trustees, whoever it may be. So we have to
was sufficiently strongly felt one could change the what artists should be represented and to find out prepare our material in a rather more detailed way
rules. what works are available, and to draw up some sort than perhaps might be the case in some other
RA: From time to time we have discussed amongst of list of proposals which we can all discuss together. museums, who have the power to go out and buy on
ourselves, and even with the trustees, the RC : This is a list of artists and works, is it? spec.
possibility of getting a greater freedom. NR : Yes. I must say we are speaking about RC: Do you think the Tate's policy is too
MC: But the whole meaning of the collection would something which has not been fully discussed, so it.s cumbersome?
change if we could freely alienate things. After all, very open and unconsidered. AS: It's probably at times too cumbersome, because
we are that particular collection, and there are many MC: By the trustees . . . it prevents your taking advantage of things rapidly.
people — private collectors, dealers, and even NR Oh. certainly not by the trustees, and not even At other times, obviously, it saves you from making
some museums —who buy and sell. But this by us. mistakes. We have learnt a lot by the whole exercise
museum is like a sort of archaeological deposit; AS: It has been the subject of fairly general which we have been undertaking.
and although there may be something cynical in discussion ever since 1970. both with the director NR: In fairness to the system — not that I wish to
that notion, that art is somehow dead the minute and amongst ourselves. deferid it, because obviously it's capable of
it.s produced . . NR : The sort of question I ask myself. and which improvement— it can be overlooked to this degree :
RA: It's a very, very dangerous privilege to have the I pose to the staff of the modern side—and in a that the Trustees have given me a limited authority to
possibility of sale. Certainly foreign museums have sense, if Ronald will allow me to say so, particularly buy on my own. But it was never intended to be used
made disastrous mistakes : I see that the Metropolitan to Anne and to Richard, who are most deeply in the way which I have in fact used it from time to
Museum has been criticized recently for disposing of involved and perhaps most sympathetic towards time. It was meant really to enable us to buy at
a jungle picture by the douanier Rousseau, for this— is to what degree do we need physically to auctions and to enable me to buy abroad when speed
instance, and the Rhode Island Museum sold possess examples of all these manifestations, and to was a factor. For instance, in the end I bought the
Picasso's La Vie or exchanged it for something else. what degree could we as a collection represent them Gilbert and George photopiece withouttaking it to
N R: Yes, I don't really long for the power to sell, in by having all the necessary documentation ? This is the Board. But as things are set up at the moment,
the sense that it's far better to have to live with your something I want to know more about, because there there's a clear limit that one can take this permission
mistakes. Although it.s a little inhibiting, I think. are many things it seems to me that one doesn't need to. In other words, if I went out and spent £50,000 in
MC: If one was selling, one's grant would be to possess : you don't need to have every Duchamp one month, say, even though I didn.t exceed the
certainly reduced. The Treasury would undoubtedly to get the significance of Duchamp. In a sense you individual limit, obviously the trustees would be
tot up the income of the thing. only need to be aware that it happened. and have a unhappy, because you can imagine that the one
NR : We would have pressure put on us to sell those photograph of it. I know my colleagues disagree . . . thing they enjoy above all is the act of buying things.
things which we appear to have in abundance. RC: It depends on the Duchamp. They do lots of dull business, but what they really
Many, many times it has been said to me : why can't NR: Yes, exactly. I was talking really about the enjoy is the sense of involvement in making the
you sell some of your Turners ? And this is the sort of objets trouvées' He himself demonstrated their lack of collection. So that over this permission, although it's
thing which would happen politically. uniqueness when Yale lost the Snow Shovel and he been very generously regarded in relation to what
RA: On the other hand it would be an advantage so said : 'Go and buy another one.' we've done in the past, I.m always a little cautious.
far as the modern collection is concerned to have RM: I think it's very easy to exaggerate the difference AS: And also we have got a problem here in that
some very limited power to sell or exchange works, between traditional forms of art that are obviously we're dealing with a large number of foreign artists,
because we as a museum of contemporary art are sculptures or painting, and the new forms of whose works are in inaccessible places. We have to
very often buying things straight off the easel, and post-object and conceptual art that began to emerge begin with photographs, and work through to the
we are in the position of simply not knowing what is six or seven years ago. There has been a certain actual work. Which takes time.
185