National Gallery hints that disputed art collection belongs to Ireland
|
Version 0 of 1. The National Gallery in London has given its clearest indication that Ireland has a moral, if not legal, right to a priceless collection of impressionist paintings that have been a cause célèbre of Irish nationalism since the 1920s. The 39 paintings, including some of the most celebrated works of the French artists Renoir, Monet and Manet, were left to the gallery by the art collector Sir Hugh Lane, who was killed on the Lusitania when it was hit by a German torpedo 100 years ago this month. In a codicil to his will, Lane made it clear that he wanted the paintings to go to Dublin, but because the amendment was unwitnessed the collection stayed in London. Since then, the works have been regarded by many in Ireland, including the poet WB Yeats, as a symbol of British colonial plunder. Now the National Gallery has expressed some sympathy for that view, in a concession welcomed by Dublin. After years of campaigning the National Gallery has agreed to a series of compromise deals involving sharing the paintings, while ownership of the best of them, including Renoir’s Les Parapluies, Manet’s Music in the Tuileries Gardens and Monet’s Lavacourt Under Snow, remained vested in London. But now the gallery has admitted this may not go far enough, a concession that could open the way for Ireland gaining a greater stake in the paintings when the sharing arrangement ends in 2019. In a lecture to mark the centenary of Lane’s death delivered at both the National Gallery and Dublin City Gallery the Hugh Lane, Roy Foster, professor of Irish history at Oxford University, called for ownership of the paintings to be transferred to Dublin as a way of righting a “long-standing historical injustice”. Introducing the lecture, Nicholas Penny, the National Gallery director, publicly acknowledged Dublin’s moral claim to the pictures. “The National Gallery claims legal ownership of the paintings bequeathed by Sir Hugh Lane, but has long conceded that Dublin has some moral claim to them,” he said. Penny added that it was a difficult but important topic because “there are so many cultural institutions which should, even if they don’t, acknowledge that some other institution or some other country, has some sort of moral claim on the works of art in their possession.” He went on: “To have reached a compromise of the kind we have is something that I’m very pleased that we can advertise. We must always welcome people who feel we haven’t gone far enough in the type of acknowledgement we have made.” Penny has refused requests by the Guardian to elaborate on his remarks, but they are being seen as an acknowledgement of the gallery’s tenuous ownership of the paintings. Barbara Dawson, director of Dublin City Gallery the Hugh Lane, said: “Nicholas Penny’s remarks are the clearest public acknowledgement of Dublin’s right to these paintings and are very welcome.” Penny’s remarks are the clearest public acknowledgement of Dublin’s right to these paintings and are very welcome She added: “They build on the legal agreement between the two institutions which allows the paintings to be shared between the two institutions and which acknowledges Dublin’s right to these works. However, as Hugh Lane bought these works with the specific purpose of building a gallery of modern art for Dublin, the Hugh Lane gallery continues to seek return of ownership. “As Dr Penny is aware, prestigious works such as those in the Sir Hugh Lane Bequest greatly benefit the institution which holds the ownership and assist in numerous ways in building and sustaining the profile of that public institution. It would be very desirable for the Hugh Lane gallery to have ownership returned so as to benefit the Hugh Lane gallery and Dublin as Hugh Lane intended.” Foster said Penny’s comments were a “welcome admission” and said he thought he was implicitly admitting that Dublin had a moral right to the paintings. The historian said no one from the gallery had previously gone as far as Penny in expressing such an “understanding line”. In his lecture, Foster described his “righteous rage” at seeing that the pictures continue to be labelled as the property of the National Gallery, London. He said returning all of the works to Dublin would be an opportunity to right a historical wrong. The lecture concluded with a plea from Foster: “By acknowledging true ownership of the Hugh Lane pictures, however belated, a long-standing injustice might actually be righted – which is a very rare thing to be able to do, and thus in time forgotten, which is surely the best way to commemorate history.” Dawson echoed these sentiments. “As Prof Foster has pointed out not many historical injustices can be righted but this injustice can,” she said. Lucy McDiarmid, author of the Irish Art of Controversy and professor of English at Montclair State University, New Jersey, said Penny’s remarks would be significant if they led to a change of ownership. “The lending agreements are evidence of the National Gallery’s acceptance of [Ireland’s] ‘moral claim’. All that’s new is Penny’s wording. The situation – the division of the collection and trading paintings back and forth – remains the same. What would be new and without precedent in the post-1961 history of the paintings would be their actual return [to Ireland].” |