The Mond Bequest and the Barnes Collection: shall the dead hand rule?

Apollo, Oct, 2006 by Selby Whittingham, Joan Tecosky

Trollope's Sir Abraham Haphazard cynically argued that 'the altered circumstances in which we live' do not admit of adherence to the wishes of a donor who has been dead for a while. But that cannot apply, as you suggest (APOLLO, Editorial, July 2006), to the case of the Mond Bequest. Mond declared that he wanted his pictures shown together, and the National Gallery, while he was still alive, opposed that. In honesty it should either have accepted the condition or refused the proposed gift.

What is additionally shameful is that the issue was well known. In 1850 Sir Charles Eastlake said that, if a collection was sufficiently important, it should be accepted even with the inconvenient condition of exhibiting it together. The Vernon and Turner galleries were accepted on that understanding, which was buttressed by a House of Lords Select Committee in 1861. But the National Gallery reneged on that. In 1907 it was simultaneously seeking ways of getting round both Turner's and Mond's conditions, though the new National Gallery booklet on the Mond Bequest makes no mention of that, and indeed ignores the whole context of the dispute (although the art historical argument about the display of the pictures is all about context!).

It has however in the past boasted that it fulfils Turner's condition that two of his pictures should hang with two by Claude. This is curious, as that involves just the mixing of periods and schools to which objection has been made in the case of Mond's wishes. Turner was writing his will at a time when schools and periods were mixed at the National Gallery, so that in his case you could say that circumstances have changed. The logic of the National Gallery escapes me.

To argue that the wishes of the living should rule is to adopt a dangerous principle. It offers carte blanche to the iconoclasts of the future. Moreover you demonstrate its inadequacy, when you take the case of the Barnes Collection. The living conflict with the living as much as with the dead in that case as in so many others. It is not the living who triumph, but those momentarily with power and influence, and those are often the conventional and philistine.

Dr Selby Whittingham

Turner House, London SW5

You leave out salient facts about the movement of Barnes Collection (APOLLO, Editorial, July 2006). It is to be moved en masse and displayed in its current state. It will be in its own building, not mixed into any other collection. Barnes stipulated in his will that his art (and all art) should be for the edification and enjoyment of all, as opposed to any particular segment of society. The Barnes Collection is located in a suburb of Philadelphia that is certainly not easily accessible. It is located in a residential neighbourhood that has incrementally tightened the restrictions for public viewing of the collection. The museum is rarely opened to the general public.

Surely it will refresh the spirit of Barnes' original philosophy as well as the coffers of the museum to let the people in.

Joan Tecosky

Philadelphia, PA