Paul Brown probes some neglected controversies regarding the Scottish National Galleries and access to the visual arts in Scotland.
Fundamentally the National Galleries have avoided being the subject of much debate primarily because of the very strong commitment of Edinburgh-based opinion-formers to the Galleries as they are, as well as for the obvious reason that they are generally highly successful, popular, and well run. They are not in crisis. Scottish Government money has generally been made available as and when necessary and there is no reason to think that is going to change.
A left observer, however, it seems to me, needs to examine the history of the National Galleries (NG) and to question some of the fundamentals. Why are they all in Edinburgh? One aspect of the answer is the jaundiced observation that Edinburgh is the Capital and seems inclined to get the best of everything. Other issues include who the visitors are, who benefits, and how successful the NGs are at delivering their vision. Which is where I intend starting.
The NGs’ vision cannot be faulted. Their annual review comments that given stress and worries caused by political strife, the trustees:
“Remain convinced that access to great art and culture remains important and can make a real difference to people’s lives … [W]e are passionate about the power of art and we are determined to engage creatively and provide positive experiences for the widest possible public.”
Elsewhere the Annual Review makes reference to the importance of, basically, ensuring the galleries are a place to hang out (my words not theirs). The organisation as a whole is proud that a commitment to free entry enables this. A secure, creative public space is a wonder and one of the main things the NGs provide. This seems to be largely a UK phenomenon as elsewhere most galleries charge an entry fee. With around 2.5 million visits a year the NGs are plainly going some way to meeting their objectives (which are certainly appreciated by me – at least 10 of those visits must have been mine!).
Visitor numbers are being bolstered by the startling expansion of the NG estate over the past generation which started off with the gallery on the mound in central Edinburgh and the portrait gallery as well as a small but attractive modern art gallery in the Edinburgh Botanic Gardens. The latter gallery was replaced by the huge bulk of Moderns I and II though in the inimitable way of Edinburgh the Botanic Garden gallery has now been turned into another publicly funded gallery with a different funding stream. Moderns I and II are large and also have vast grounds. The NGs also own the Royal Scottish Academy building on the Mound and they recently managed to raise well over 30 million pounds to build a huge extension (for the second time) to their main gallery on the Mound. This displays recent Scottish pre-1940 art, although as the portrait gallery does this too, its unique role is not so clear. The NGs also own a new storage facility in Granton – on the edge of Edinburgh – for their hundred thousand plus objects. All of the buildings have been beautifully restored, particularly the portrait gallery. If you haven’t seen it, you need to do so.
The trustees’ objective to provide hanging out space is bolstered by their four restaurants, two cafes, a number of shops and access to a terrace with wonderful views. There are also three educational spaces. Don’t worry that these facilities open free to all are getting too crowded, as there are plenty of other great publicly funded galleries in Edinburgh also generally with cafes or restaurants. These include the very large Edinburgh City Art Gallery, the recently extended Fruit Market Gallery, the Talbot Rice Art Gallery and the Collective Gallery. The latter two have also recently been refurbished or indeed constructed. HRH King Charles also has a gallery at Holyrood Palace. It charges an entry fee so not withstanding its large cafe, it doesn’t count as proper “hanging out space”. And whilst not an art gallery and not part of the NGs, the National Museum of Scotland trumps them all for sheer size and hanging out space and attracts a staggering 1.5 million visitors a year.
I do not know how many of the visitors to all these attractions are from Edinburgh itself. However, as 2.3 million overseas tourists visit Edinburgh every year (spending over 1,100 million pounds) a significant portion of the visits to the NGs must be from overseas visitors. The Museums Association reckons in general that about a quarter of all visitors to museums are local. I’d reckon it would be considerably higher in Scotland. In summary, not only do all the art spaces in Edinburgh provide a wonderful resource for the people of Edinburgh, but they also help to bring plenty of high spending tourists that support the economy of the capital.
Quite whether Edinburgh really needs so many publicly funded galleries is a matter of discussion. A regular theme of complaints is that at least during the summer Edinburgh is seriously over touristed. One wonders why the business isn’t better spread around: Glasgow for instance, a city with huge potential, only makes a little over £400 million a year from overseas tourists.
This picture fits in with the figures generally. On almost all counts Edinburgh is booming: if anything too much. House prices average £100,000 more than the rest of Scotland and domestic rentals are amongst the most expensive in the UK. Edinburgh also seems to have no difficulty in attracting large amounts of office developments. In short, Edinburgh is turning into Scotland’s London: unless you have hunks of capital, an average salary will not enable you to actually afford to live there.
Is all the recent expansion of the national galleries really what is best for Scotland? Should it not be more spread around?
The National Galleries state in their Review that equality, diversity and inclusion are important strategic policies. Great. It is however obvious that there is no point in having such objectives unless they are real and translated into concrete policies in a transparent fashion. Watering these ideas down by supplying services that only a small proportion of the population can access simply disillusions people. Does it risk a backlash and a potential opening for a McTrump? How can the NGs keep their objectives real? It is always going to be a process and the NGs have to keep on saying how they are going to reach these high ideals.
Every now and again senior staff recognise the problems occasioned by the huge concentration of assets in the capital city. Back in the 80s selling the portrait gallery and using the funds to build a Scottish art gallery in Glasgow was mooted. Not unsurprisingly this was very unpopular with Edinburgh opinion formers. There were public meetings and a wild debate in the House of Lords. Net result – no new Scottish art gallery in Glasgow, and instead the portrait gallery was wonderfully restored. Another recent effort to open something in Glasgow’s former Transport Museum seems to have got nowhere. Why, I do not know.
Interestingly, one of the strongest arguments against the proposed new Scottish art gallery in Glasgow was that it would ghettoise Scottish art. We have heard no more of this argument now that the new space on the mound has opened. Bar one picture – The Monarch of the Glen, painted in St John’s Wood London – the new extension consists entirely of Scottish art, with at least fourteen of the images being of Edinburgh itself.
By contrast, what about recent developments in Glasgow? Glasgow Gallery of Modern Art, Kelvingrove Art Gallery, and the Hunterian are booming, but with only partial funding from the Scottish Government. The very fine Burrell Collection has of course re-opened, largely funded by Glasgow City Council. This however has been accompanied by the closure of the Lighthouse and the impending indefinite closure of the Centre of Contemporary Arts. One hopes it opens again and does not disappear like the Collins Gallery in Strathclyde University did ten years ago.
The city centre is of course reeling from the impact of the indefinite closure of the Mackintosh Building, other fires, and the mass disappearance of many shops and offices. Glasgow deserves more, and I fail to see how the NGs’ objective of “inclusion” can be achieved given the huge disparity between the cities. They need to do something in Glasgow.
This sort of discussion will not get anywhere without an artistic justification. So what are the gaps in access to art in Scotland? The most obvious is there is no gallery in Scotland with a substantial permanent display of more recent Scottish work, whether photography, architecture, sculpture, pottery or painting and drawing. The best one gets every now and again is a snapshot. The notion is that local work needs to be immersed in a world context which ends up dominating at least as regards to more recent activities.
My suggestion is that there should be a new national gallery of recent and contemporary art in the broadest sense in Glasgow, and it should cover all the visual arts. Its collection would not need to be overly costly as the NGs have a vast amount of work in store already. Rather than the sometimes middle aged and middle classed taste catered for by the NGs and their Friends’ activities an effort should be made to spread the new gallery’s net wider. If the McLellan Galleries were used the cost would be controlled. It was once used successfully by Kelvingrove Art Gallery and presumably the basic arrangements remain in fair order. Of course, the McClellan galleries are ideally placed in the middle of Sauchiehall Street, near the Macintosh Building which will eventually reopen.
To end with a challenge. For inclusion to be real the NGs need to do more for more people throughout Scotland. Diversity means they need to make sure young people of all sorts from all of Scotland’s diverse communities not only can access the facilities but actually do so. Equality and fairness means ensuring that central government expenditure is not used just to bolster an overheated tourist economy in the Capital. Art, including that contained within the NGs, can indeed make a difference to people’s lives and we need to make sure as few as possible miss out on this.
Paul Brown is a climate, human rights and community activist. He is chair of Scottish Legal Action Group and spent most of his career as a solicitor at Legal Services Agency. He author is a Friend of the National Galleries, writing in a personal capacity. He gratefully acknowledges the input of Jamie Burroughs who contributed many of the ideas.