Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Stuart Bonar

GET UPDATES FROM Stuart Bonar
 

Cash-Strapped UK Government Should Sell Not Buy Artwork

Posted: 14/11/11 00:00 GMT

The last government started buying up works of art in the style of the spoiled wife of some Russian oligarch desperate for her Mayfair mansion to rival the likes of the Louvre.

As the end of Labour's time in power approached, spending on the Government Art Collection really started to escalate. In 2008/09, for example, those running the collection spent just over £250,000 on buying artwork, with other parts of the government buying a further £154,000 worth. A further £160,000 was spent commissioning new works of art from scratch. By 2007/08 this meant almost 100 pieces were being added each year, as a Minister confirmed at the time.

We are not discussing here the artwork that hangs in our great museums and art galleries. The items in the Government Art Collection are primarily used in ministerial offices, government buildings, embassies and ambassadors' residencies around the globe.

I like that the Coalition Government seems intent on enabling more people to see items from the collection, but more importantly it is good to see that they are taking a scythe to this spending, introducing a two-year moratorium on the purchase of any further artwork.

Where I part company with the Coalition is that I would maintain that moratorium beyond the current planned two-year period. I would cancel the pencilled-in budget of £114,000 to be spent on buying artwork in 2013/14 and the £119,000 planned for the year after.

This spending on new art for the collection is unnecessary, not least because, as the culture secretary confirmed last month, a third of all the works of art are currently just sitting, gathering dust in storage.

Even without buying any new works, the taxpayer will still pay out £347,000 this year alone just to maintain the collection, no doubt much of it spent on a 15-strong workforce. According to a statement made by a minister last month, since last year's General Election almost £204,000 had been spent on framing works of art in the collection, and a further £13,136 hanging them. The cost of delivering and installing the specific pieces of art chosen by ministers for their offices (you can find out who wanted what HERE) is estimated at £22,246.

In fact, I'd go further. Given that well over 4,000 pieces are in storage - a third of the total - I'd sell a good number of them, perhaps as many as 2,000. Sure, whilst the standard line is that the collection is not valued, it has been confirmed in the past that in-house experts know which pieces are the best ones. Indeed, an example of the value of some is given by the reported theft, in 2001, of five paintings worth a combined £240,000 (or an average of £48,000 each). Added to that, even the average pieces are worth a bob or two; the more modest, average value of each of the 719 pieces of art bought for the Government Art Collection in the decade from 1998/99 to 2007/08 was just over £3,000.

I was criticised after I suggested a similar course of action for the museum and art gallery in my home city of Plymouth, but modest asset sales like this have their place. It won't eliminate the budget deficit, that's for sure, but it'll help, and right now we need all the help we can get.

 

Follow Stuart Bonar on Twitter: www.twitter.com/stuartbonar

 
 
  • Comments
  • 11
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Mickey Mouse 1
There are no lies or deceit on a chess board.
12:55 PM on 11/15/2011
I said years ago that the government art collection should be valued and sold off to help pay off our debts run up by Labour.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mrld20
02:46 AM on 11/15/2011
Congrats you sound like a true Tea Party Republican!!!
11:16 PM on 11/15/2011
And you make this accusation, which I reject and resent by the way, because I call for Britain not to waste limited public money on buying artwork that it doesn't need. Thank goodness your lot aren't in power right now.
03:33 PM on 11/14/2011
Of course when we flood the market with all this art, the value will plummet and the govt will no doubt receive less than it paid. But that will just give Labour and the LidDems something to complain about in a few years time when the prices go back up. Just like the sale of UK gold back under Gordon Brown
06:50 PM on 11/14/2011
In which case sell them slowly and over time so that doesn't happen.
11:59 AM on 11/14/2011
The issue isn't just confirmed to the government, but to the much wider local and national civil service offices and agencies. FSA (Financial Services Authority) not only buys fine art for their offices in Canary Wharf, they even have at least one art critic retained on the payroll to advise on such purchases. OK, the FSA is privately funded, but the principle is the same. This is a massive and inappropriate waste of resources and no government office or agency should be spending money in this way at the moment.
06:51 PM on 11/14/2011
You make a similar point to LondonDavid. I will try to look into this. I also understand the MoD has its own separate collection, although I need to check that. Thanks.
04:25 AM on 11/14/2011
You've got this completely upside down. Although I share your ire at pointless expense in the benefit of a tiny audience (QED the Tate Britain's public funds), the true horror in the faux-tragedy of arts cuts is the unbelievable (literally) vastness of the collections of art held in bunkers and basements of the major galleries and museums in the UK, especially London.

When a friend of mine explained just how many billions of pounds worth of art sits UNDER the National Gallery I was disgusted, considering this institution was bemoaning its loss of funding. There are pictures in the NG that haven't seen the light of day since they were first bought. There are literally tens of thousands of art works between the British Museum and the National Gallery which a few, select "experts" get to tool about with even though we pay for these things.

As Waldemar Januszczak bravely pointed out, if the National Gallery sold off just two of the renaissance pieces in storage that haven't been on show in decades they'd have enough money for another 50 years.
11:10 AM on 11/14/2011
Hi. Thanks - this is more an extension of what I have written about than a contradiction, I think. Definitely something I will try to find out more about. Some if not all of those institutions are, I believe, subject to the FOI Act.
10:31 PM on 11/14/2011
Hi Stuart. You're right, my apologies - it is just an extension of what you wrote about.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the National tries to fob people off with the FOI; the last thing they'd want is to have the public know the extent of what a rarefied world the gallery lives in!

If you can find Waldemar Januszczak's email I'm sure he'd send you a copy of his article about groups who dishonestly moaned about funding cuts.

But to read that the Government is still basically buying rubbish using our money is revealing and worrying. Thanks for the article!

David.
12:26 AM on 11/14/2011
This is a crisis. We need action now.