Letters to the editor
NATIONAL ART COLLECTIONS
SIR,—I read the leader in your issue of Decem- ber 25th, on the subject of the National Art Collections, as well as Mr. Denis Mahon's letter in the issue of January 1st, with great interest. The greatest danger of the proposed legislation lies undoubtedly in the supposition that the judgement of the Trustees of today should be regarded as absolute and infallible. If there is one thing that the intensive study of the history of art that has been carried on during the last sixty years or so has shown, it is that no canons of judgement are final, and that tastes change in the most surprising fashion. Any legislation that supports a definitive disposal of works of art in the National Collections, whether by sale or by permanent cession to another Government department, is thus extremely dangerous and is unquestionably to be deprecated.
Mr. Mahon advocates a more extensive use of the ground floor of the National Gallery so that a greater number of pictures can be put on permanent display; this would be valuable. But even more important would be an extension of the system of circularisa- tion outside London. The Victoria and Albert Museum boasts a special Department for this objective alone, and the National Gallery should follow its example. It is, from the point of view of the very large percentage of Britain's population that does not live in London, wrong that everything should be centralised in the capital. And further, there are numerous works of art of secondary importance which are not required in the main galleries, but which are nevertheless good examples of their schools. Many of these, indeed, would not only be of real value to the provinces, but would also gain a new lustre for themselves by being shown on their own, away from the more illustrious examples.
Previous page
