Art and thrust
From William Packer Sir: I am surprised to find Professor Paul Huxley so anxious to defend himself against charges that were never laid (Letters, 2 October). At no point in my article on the Royal Academy of the previous week did 1 impute any impropriety either
to him personally, or to the president, the secretary or her staff, in the matter of the account opened by Professor Brendan Neiland for the RA Schools. Nor did I call into question at all the practical necessity to investigate and regularise it, once it again became an issue this summer. That the money in the account was raised by Professor Neiland himself on behalf of the Schools is, 1 see, not disputed.
As for the 'main thrust', as he puts it, of my article, I was accusing no one of anything, but merely asking some rather obvious questions which the manner of the handling of the Neiland affair had raised — questions in particular about the relative authority of the various offices within the RA, and the way in which it was being claimed and exercised. It is hardly 'an erroneous and destructive falsehood' to have asked whether certain changes to the RA's historic disposition — mooted apparently by Simon Robertson of the RA Trust and the secretary, Mrs Fitt — had indeed been put forward. Professor Huxley himself tells us in his letter that their views on constitutional change are to be given active consideration.
What he says, from his close personal experience, of the valuable contribution that Mr Robertson and Mrs Fitt bring to the life and work of the Academy 1, of course, accept. I am also more than happy to accept his assurance that power in the affairs of the RA will always remain in the hands of the Academicians themselves. That for me was the 'main thrust'.
William Packer
Unidon SW4
Previous page
