Conference Review

Saving Art for the Nation: A Valid Approach to 21st Century Collecting?
Co-organised by the National Art Collections Fund and The Art Newspaper
11-12 November 2003
London

Saving Art for the Nation was an international conference held in London as part of the centenary celebrations of the National Art Collections Fund (The Art Fund). The Art Fund is a private charitable foundation that has helped to fund purchases for numerous national and regional museums in the UK since 1903. The prestige of the sponsoring organisation and the current interest in the art market, definitions of cultural patrimony and the ethics of cultural restitution, ensured attendance by a distinguished audience of national and international museum directors and curators, funders, dealers and policy-makers, including the UK's Minister of State for the Arts, Estelle Morris.

In her opening address, the Minister was broadly sympathetic to the plight of UK institutions, whose funds for purchases have dwindled to almost nothing over the past decade. She made it clear, nevertheless, that there would be no significant increase in public monies for the foreseeable future. She also raised the idea of shared purchase and ownership of works of art not only between UK public institutions - as Canova's Three Graces is jointly owned by the Victoria and Albert Museum and National Galleries of Scotland - but between British museums and those in other countries. The latter may indeed be the final fate in store for Raphael's Madonna of the Pinks, if the capital tax issues surrounding the counter offer to that of the Getty Museum made by the National Gallery with funds provided by the Art Fund and the Heritage Lottery Fund cannot be resolved.

These fundamental questions of national pride and of money were brought into sharp focus in a widely - if misleadingly - reported speech by Sir Nicholas Serota, Director of the Tate. The broadsheet press chose to interpret Sir Nicholas's speech as a thinly veiled attack on the spending of large amounts of lottery money to keep old master paintings in the UK for no more pressing reason than that they are already there. He appeared to be arguing that these funds would be better spent on the purchase of modern and contemporary art.

Lost in the subsequent art world furore was a more interesting argument: that the paucity of direct budgets for acquisitions available to UK public institutions and the emphasis on stopping works of art from leaving the country has led to an entirely reactive and unimaginative approach to collecting. Why not switch the substantial discretionary funds available for emergencies to an active, strategic and nationally integrated acquisitions policy, with museums mandated to go out into the international art market? This policy would be driven by a conscious decision to fill significant gaps in the national collections. Of course, one of the most glaring gaps is in the UK's holdings of modern art - mainly the result of the parochial stance of the trustees and directors of the Tate Gallery between the two world wars.

Chauvinism, according to some speakers, or a high regard for the national patrimony, according to others, is the driving force of the defensive laws regarding the export of works of art written into French and Italian legislation. Compared with these, the UK's arrangements are relatively liberal and recognize the rights of private owners to realize the value of their assets and the general economic benefits of allowing the art market to flourish. Patrice Marandel of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art brought this out in a survey of different jurisdictions that preceded a debate on the nature of ownership and guardianship of works of art, during which William Proby of Elton Hall articulated the responsibilities and the concerns of the many asset rich but cash poor private guardians of the UK's patrimony. Such voices are not always sufficiently attended to in arguments about the UK's patrimony.

British curators seemed to think that for both financial and ethical reasons the age of the universal museum was over, and to be willing to contemplate shared international ownership of works of art. It was noticeable, however, that their US-based counterparts in the persons of Marandel and George Goldner of the Metropolitan Museum, New York, adhered to a more traditional view of the museum's task to build representative collections of outstanding quality. This was a view later reinforced by Ted Pillsbury of the Meadows Museum, Dallas in a robust defence of de-accessioning as a means of achieving balance and quality. There were those who wondered privately if this not only reflected the greater financial muscle of American institutions, but also demonstrated a greater degree of focus and self-confidence in the job of curatorship.

Widening access to and understanding of cultural assets held publicly are rightly part of current UK government policy. But insistent strains of post-colonial blame and guilt, as well as regional self-doubt, dominated the discussion of 'What Nation?' so that disappointingly little new was added to the debate on the question of whose patrimony is being defended by British museums and galleries. It might be a more productive and pragmatic line of argument to assume that collections of objects are in and of themselves ethically neutral. It is the way in which they are displayed and interpreted that adds meaning. Thus, the rich collections of objects representing the material culture of former Imperial territories held in British museums can be freshly interpreted for the significant groups of Britons whose forebears came from Asia and Africa, and be used to generate understanding of and admiration for that heritage. 

Nevertheless, Liz Forgan, Chair of the Heritage Lottery Fund, set out with clarity the liberal and inclusive position of the primary funder of purchases of heritage assets in the UK. David Fleming, Director of National Museums, Liverpool made a plea for a wider distribution of such assets, the best of which, he argued, gravitate to London institutions. The most obvious instance of such a distributive system - that of the Réunion des Musées Nationaux in France - relies, however, on a highly centralized bureaucracy to make it work, something that would clearly undermine the freedom valued by regional museums and absorb scarce funds in administration.

In the end, money is the key determinant in the flow of works of art between collections and nations. It says much for the enquiring spirit in which the conference was organised that the commercial art market had its say from the platform in the person of Anthony Browne, Chairman of the British Art Market Federation. But most attention from delegates was focused on the explanation by Eric Garandeau of the French Ministry of Culture and Communication of a new scheme of tax relief to encourage firms and wealthy individuals to purchase cultural artifacts designated as part of the French national patrimony. With relief offered on such acquisitions at 90% of the value of the work, it is likely to have a significant impact on the retention of works within France's borders. It was not clear, however, from Garandeau's remarks, what public obligations were to be imposed on private owners in receipt of such an astonishing douceur from the state. It was noteworthy, though, that Nicholas Goodison, former Chairman of the London Stock Exchange and of the Art Fund, who has been commissioned by the UK Treasury to produce a consultation document on the tax situation relating to works of art, - (with a view to the possible liberalization of the regime) was seen to be writing furiously in his notebook.

Marc Jordan
mjordan@aeaconsulting.com

AEA Consulting LLC

© AEA Consulting 2000 - 2004

| PLATFORM | SERVICES | ABOUT AEA | CONTACT AEA |