What's the opposite of stolen art?

Free to a good home? The Burghers of Calais

The Art Newspaper reports that Rodin's monumental Burghers of Calais, standing near the Houses of Parliament, does not have a legal owner - or at least not one who'll admit to it.

While most people would probably be quite keen to own a sculpture valued in the millions, the candidates for owning for this one are denying everything.

The statues tell a story from the Hundred Years War, when Edward III besieged Calais. Edward declared that if six citizens of Calais would come out to give him their keys and their lives, he would spare the rest of the city. Rodin's six Burghers are represented on their way to meet the king, expecting to be beheaded.

Bought in 1911 by the National Art Collections Fund and donated to the nation, the statues now stand in Victoria Tower Gardens. The gardens are run by Royal Parks, and they are responsible for looking after the Rodin, but they say it's not actually theirs - even though when the Burghers were lent to exhibitions in years past, Royal Parks were credited as the lender. The Parliamentary Art Committee likewise disclaims ownership. The Art Fund notes the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) as owner, but the DCMS thinks otherwise.

The story was the same with another sculpture nearby - Henry Moore's Knife Edge Two Piece. It was also donated to the nation, this time by the artist himself in 1967. The Telegraph reports that the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the DCMS, English Heritage, the Government Art Collection, Westminster Council and the Greater London Authority have all confirmed it isn't theirs.

The Henry Moore Foundation recently announced that Knife Edge, in urgent need of restoration, was to be adopted by the House of Commons. Conservation is due to begin in early 2012.

As for the Burghers, anyone with house space for six life size Rodins may want to put their hand up now.

Read more in the Art Newspaper here and here.
Read more in the Telegraph.

Arts Council cuts: part 2

Following on from Jeremy’s recent post, and from earlier posts here and here, the Arts Council also suffered last week following the release of a report by the Commons’ select committee on culture, media and sport on the Funding of the arts and heritage which lambasted the Counsel for “spending far too much on itself”, as well as “wasting” public money.

The report, released on 28 March 2011, reviews the costs of the Arts Council, the Council’s funding decisions and numerous other issues to be considered by arts and heritage organisations in light of the recent cuts in public spending, including the Arts Council Collection.

The Arts Council Collection is currently the largest loan collection of publicly owned modern and contemporary British art in the world, and includes fine examples of work by the UK’s most prominent artists. It is the most widely circulated of all of Britain’s national collections and can be seen in exhibitions in museums and galleries across the UK and abroad. The collection contains over 7,500 artworks and its acquisitions policy is said to have always been characterised by a spirit of risk-taking combined with an informed appraisal of current practice. In 2008/2009, the Arts Council spent £180,000 on acquisitions for the collection, and, as at 31 March 2010, the ACC was valued by its curator at £96.9 million. Works from the collection have never been sold before.

The Report notes, however, that the collection “states that at any one time 25-30% of its works are on show somewhere in the country and that this figure is high in comparison to most public collections, which typically have around 10% of their work on show at any one time. Nonetheless, this means that up to 75% of the collection is not on show at any one time.” Accordingly, the report calls upon the Arts Council to review its policy of never selling artworks from its collection top make the collection self-sustaining and mitigate the impact of the budget cuts, as well as advising that the Council aim to have at least 50% of the Collection works out on loan at any one time.

Unfortunately, the Arts Council is therefore in another difficult position – while it would clearly be able to use the money from selling works from the collection to make up for the shortfall in public funding, it does seem like the Council would also be paying a price in the compromise of the collection’s policy and value.

A piece from the collection: Composite Picture 3 (Diversified Cultural Worker), 2008, Iain Hetherington

The full report can been found here.

Source: The Guardian, The Financial Times 28 March 2011