There's been much wailing and gnashing of teeth about the acquisition funds available to British museums and galleries, particularly compared with our international competitors. The contrasts are stark. We read in the Art Fund's survey that New York's Metropolitan Museum spent £53.4m last year, and the British Museum a mere £760,000.
As a former trustee of the National Galleries of Scotland, Victoria and Albert Museum (resigned!) and British Museum over a 30-year span, I have witnessed the remarkable erosion of the buying power of British collections. Over the years, the Art Fund has done a great job, and continues to do so.
But behind the arts lobby's rhetoric there are a series of largely unexamined assumptions.
It is said - and I have parroted this in the past - that a collection that does not buy is dead. In what sense? Is the Frick Museum in New York - many people's choice as their favourite gallery - diminished by its concentration on the display and research of Frick's bequest? Is the Wallace Collection, revitalised by Rick Mather's sensitive architectural intervention, less wonderful because it cannot buy another Titian? How far do the British Museum's public reputation, astonishing cultural richness, visitor numbers, public presentation and research effort depend on acquisitions?
A high profile acquisition gives a buzz to museum directors and their boards. Success in the hunt and chase lends a special kind of excitement to curator's jobs. They exhibit, by proxy, much the same motives as voracious private collectors. I have shared in this buzz.
But looking at the bigger picture of what is needed in our museums to meet their enduring responsibilities for research and presentation, is the satisfying of collecterly urges a high priority? The larger of our collections, national and provincial, have a vast backlog of basic research to be conducted on items acquired years ago. Huge swathes of senior staff time have been diverted to administration, redundant reporting, proceduralism, low-grade clerical work and the pursuit of passing publicity.
Then there's the heritage argument. It's true that in the UK we still have incomparable artistic riches in private hands - the result of avid aristocrats and hungry money men hoovering up the continental legacy during the eras when the British had the funds and power to do so. Are we right to complain now when the Americans, Japanese and others do to us what we have done to others over the centuries?
Is an Italian painting that was obtained by a British milord in the 19th century an integral part of "British heritage"? It is part of the history of British collecting, but that is not the same thing. An example. Raphael's Madonna of the Pinks, the subject of a successful fight by the National Gallery to prevent its export to the Getty Collection in California, was purchased by Algernon, fourth Duke of Northumberland in 1853. In what sense is this "British heritage" rather than "Italian heritage", "European heritage" or the "heritage of the Catholic Church"? It was previously in France for over 200 years! It's a terrific picture to have in London, but that's a different argument. As it happens, I think the Raphael would have done more good in the Getty, which lacks a major High Renaissance Madonna.
I recall a regular succession of keepers presenting potential acquisitions to trustee boards as: "the most important work still in private hands in the UK"; "a unique and unrepeatable opportunity to buy a work of such quality"; "a major heritage item". I've listened to many hyperbolic descriptions over the years. I've nodded sagely. But the underlying assumptions are vulnerable to rigorous analysis.
The present poverty of acquisitions funds in British collections is not a good thing. However, we need to be clear-minded about our priorities and arguments. We need to define what is really meant by 'heritage'. We need to examine critically the rationale for acquisitions in our collections-rich institutions. And we need to revise our apportionment of spending appropriately.
