Leading article: Art for whose sake?

Thursday 28 August 2008 19:00 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

The Duke of Sutherland's decision to sell off his collection of old masters will set in motion the biggest fundraising effort in Britain's public gallery sector since the National Gallery set about acquiring The Madonna of the Pinks six years ago. London's National Gallery is involved again, along with the National Galleries of Scotland. They have joined forces in an effort to buy two sublime works by Titian for £100m.

But should the Government get involved and use public money to help acquire the works for the nation? It is a more finely balanced argument than many cheerleaders for the acquisition are prepared to admit. We should not underestimate the inspirational power of great art in national collections. Hundreds of thousands of Britons have been able to enjoy these two paintings for free because they have been on long-term loan to the National Gallery of Scotland. It would be a grave loss indeed if future generations were to be denied that opportunity. And, unlike The Madonna of the Pinks, the Titians in question are indisputably first-rate examples of the artist's work.

Yet there are also counter-arguments to using public money in this way. One is that great art moves around the world much more than ever. "Blockbuster" shows, themed around a single master's work, are greatly in vogue among the world's premier galleries and museums. There is a growing likelihood that great works sold abroad will come back on tour at some stage. There is also something distasteful about a wealthy aristocrat such as the Duke of Sutherland effectively forcing the taxpayer to stump up millions for such works; especially as their market value has often been vastly boosted by their long-term display in public galleries. The duke claims these two works are being offered to the nation for considerably less than he could expect on the open market. But when one considers the tax he would have to pay if he sold them to a private bidder, the offer begins to look rather less generous.

In the end, the outcome of this appeal will depend largely on how much cash can be extracted from the heritage charity sector. The Treasury is not going to stump up all the cash on its own. But ministers might look at whether the tax regime might be further reformed to make it less easy (or desirable) for the holders of these great collections periodically to hold the nation to ransom in the name of art.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in