BRITISH ART AND THE EMPIRE. [To Tam EDITOR 01 , ms
" SPECTATOR.1 Slit,---The recent correspondence in your columns on the Architectural Museum at Tutton. Street, Westminster, has served to bring out the following facts : (1) The collection is of great interest and value, and is fairly representative of the medieval traditions of British art; (2) The museum is not very well known to the public ; and (3) The Architectural Association has been unable, for lack of accommodation and money, to arrange and catalogue the collection quite as .well as it deserves.
I venture to intrude upon your valuable space to point out other deficiencies in this connexion. When it is borne in mind that this collection is the only one we have of a nationalistic character in the architectural field, and that it consists for the most part of mere snippets of medieval ornament, and is quite inadequate in its presentation of post.. renaissance traditions, the feeling is engendered that things are not quite as they ought to be. When it is discovered that casts of objects in this nationalistic collection cannot be obtained except by special private arrangement and at excessive cost, we have to confess ourselves in this matter half a century behind the times. It is this question of the absence of facilitiee for obtaining reproductions of British architectural detail and sculpture anywhere to which I would draw your attention. Such facilities exist in connexion with the State museums of nearly every European country, with the result that reproduc- tions in plaster and photographs of examples of their several national traditions in the arts of design are readily obtainable at moderate cost.
The Museums of Science and Art (South Kensington and
Edinburgh), profiting by continental enterprise, have been filled to overflowing with these casts of foreign examples (to the utter bewilderment of those who study therein, by the way), regardless of the fact that it is cheaper for the student of design to travel on the continent than at home for the study of holy originals. Foreign museums have, on the other hand, had no chance of reciprocating this compliment. The division for British art at the Trocadero Museum in Paris is a disgrace, not to that splendid institution, but to the British Government department concerned. At the doors of the Victoria and Albert Museum reproductions in plaster, and photographs of works of art in most European countries, can be bought or ordered, while information as to where to purchase photographs of British monuments can only be obtained in rare cases and as a personal favour. When the problem presents itself of providing for the departments of architecture and sculpture in our museums throughout the Empire the continuance of this state of affairs becomes a public scandal.
Take the case of Canada alone, with its new museums at Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, and Winnipeg. Collections of casts to illustrate the traditions of art from the Babylonian to the Byzantine, and throughout the French, Italian, and Teutonic periods are easily obtained at moderate cost, while never a reproduction of a shrine, or tomb, or figure can be had from the rich store of British art, except by private and
special arrangement, and then only at prohibitive cost. The most worthy examples, moreover, are beyond the reach of any private arrangement as to reproduction. The Advisory Arts Council of the Dominion has already allocated space in the National Gallery section of the Victoria Memorial Museum at Ottawa, and has the funds at command to provide for a type collection of British art to set side by side with the adequate collection of French art already installed. Classic and Italian art are also fairly represented. When this gallery is formally opened next month by H.R.H. the Governor-General, the rooms set apart for British art will be vacant. The inference that the Canadian public will make is obvious, and not flattering to those who feel that there is as vital a character in EnglisTart as in English literature. The fault will not be with the Canadian authorities. The officials at South Kensington have been approached again and again on this subject, and they have received a tentative list of about one hundred of selected objects indicating the scope (though not necessarily the actual material) of the collection desired. It has been shown by voluminous correspondence that a real demand for such reproductions exists among museums throughout the Empire, the United States, and in Europe. All the most important schools of architecture in the United States have given assurances of support. In a word, it has been proved that the thing can be done well without loss if carried out in a businesslike way. To all this the only answer has been the bland non possumus of those who preside over the destinies of what was inaugurated as a national, if not an Imperial, educational museum. The late Sir Charles Dilke and the late Sir Caspar Purdon Clarke were fully alive to this problem, and gave valuable advice when the question was first raised from this side of the Atlantic.
, The common practice of civilized nations with regard to publications in plaster from their national monuments can surely be followed by us without danger to what is left of our constitution. The Trocadero Museum in Paris, with its studio for reproductions, is the model on which our National Museum of Architecture ought to be based. This is not a question of charity to the Colonies, it is a co-operative busi- ness proposition from one point of view, and an Imperial duty from another. Can any of your readers suggest what further steps might lead to its accomplishment ?—I am, Sir, Ix.,
Previous page
