Arts policy
Sir: Miss Pat Gilmour's somewhat brash recital, in her article 'Money for art's sake' In your issue of 9 June, of the numerous difficulties and contradictions in arts policy Which admittedly confront the new and happily upgraded Minister for the Arts, has recourse in one instance to a personal sneer Which is the more gratuitous because it is so snide.
In mentioning (page 26) that the aPPointment of Mr Norman St John-Stevas had been widely welcomed, Miss Gilmour refers accurately to the fact that the honorary Secretary of the 'Heritage in Danger' Committee (of which I am a member) has on its behalf participated in this welcome. But she elects to impart a most unpleasant ?loss by means of the potentially libellous insinuation that support in this capacity for the Minister's policies from Mr Hugh Leggatt (who is also a much respected member of the art trade) may be assumed to betoken an anticipation on the part of Mr Leggatt and his fellow art dealers of 'a glorious bonanza for art dealing'. In other words, she allows your readers to infer that the bona fides of Mr Leggatt's commitment to certain causes may be discounted as motivated by What is claimed by implication to be enhanced prospects of professional gain. How you, Sir, and your editorial colleagues, who are sufficiently well acquainted with Mr Leggatt to realise that any such imputation is completely without foundation, omitted to represent this in no uncertain terms to your contributor cannot easily be understood; no doubt, however, you will be seeking to rectify the oversight by printing an unambiguous disclaimer in your next issue. Nevertheless, as a member of the Committee which Mr Leggatt has served so well and so conscientiously since it was constituted, I should like to take this opportunity of placing on record for the information of your readers the fact that 'Heritage in Danger' has consistently pressed for various measures which would tend actually to reduce the number of works of art which are forced onto the market by the incidence of taxation. A typical, and crucial, example of this is provided by our Committee's unequivocal opposition to the late Government's proposal (characterised by the present Minister as 'foolish') to repeal the statutory provisions for surrender to the State of works of art 'in lieu' of capital transfer tax.
Denis Mahon 33 Cadogan Square, London SW1 We regret that the reference to Mr Hugh Leggatt in an article by Pat Gilmour, 'Money for art's sake', in last week's issue has been construed as suggesting that the organisation 'Heritage in Danger', of which Mr Leggatt is secretary, operates for commercial profit. No such suggestion was intended: 'Heritage in Danger' is, in fact, a non-profit-making pressure group having no commercial connection with the art market, and we apologise to Mr Leggatt for any embarrassment caused.
Previous page
