Digital Editions
Newsletters
Subscribe
Digital Editions
Newsletters
Art market
Museums & heritage
Exhibitions
Books
Podcasts
Columns
Technology
Adventures with Van Gogh
Art market
Museums & heritage
Exhibitions
Books
Podcasts
Columns
Technology
Adventures with Van Gogh
Letters
comment

Letters to the editor, March 2016

The Art Newspaper readers
1 March 2016
Share

Export licence system still fit for purpose As a long-time supporter of both the Art Fund and the Tate, I would like to disagree respectfully with the views of Stephan Deuchar and Nicholas Serota on public fundraising campaigns. (“Tate director backs Art Fund’s call for UK export licence reform after Rembrandt fiasco,” The Art Newspaper, February 2016, p8).

The purpose of the export licence system is to see that works judged to fall within the Waverley criteria do not leave the UK. It does not specify whether they must remain here as either public or private property; the objective is simply to retain them within our geographical borders. This objective is achieved if an owner, after applying for an export licence, decides to withdraw the application and keep the work in the UK, as is their undoubted right; in fact, it could be argued that this is an ideal solution to the problem as it makes unnecessary the use of public or private funds to retain the work.

Of course, it is frustrating for anyone who has started to raise or to put aside funds to buy the work of art to find that their efforts have been wasted, but exactly the same is true for anyone who has been an underbidder at an auction, failed to buy a house because the owner decides to take it off the market, or launched an unsuccessful bid for a company. Life is full of such frustrations and people can and do change their minds.

The further down the path the potential purchaser has gone, the more intense the frustration, and I sympathise with the Art Fund or the Tate when they have reached the point of a public appeal, usually the penultimate stage of the acquisition process, and find that the owner is no longer willing to sell. However, even that does not create an insoluble problem as long as it is made clear to all donors that no donation under a level of, say, £5,000 will be returned to the donor even if the acquisition fails, but will be applied by the charity or museum to their usual objectives, particularly to another acquisition in the future.

The Waverley system has worked well and fairly over some 60 years and is the envy of the rest of the world in maintaining a balance between the different parties involved. Rather than attempting to change it, I would like to see the Art Fund moving away from the concept of “saving for the nation”, which seems increasingly anachronistic in a globalised world, and moving towards supporting those enterprising directors who seek out for their museums desirable and important acquisitions wherever and whenever they may be found.

—Julian Agnew, dealer, London

LettersComment
Share
Subscribe to The Art Newspaper’s digital newsletter for your daily digest of essential news, views and analysis from the international art world delivered directly to your inbox.
Newsletter sign-up
Information
About
Contact
Cookie policy
Data protection
Privacy policy
Frequently Asked Questions
Subscription T&Cs
Terms and conditions
Advertise
Sister Papers
Sponsorship policy
Follow us
Instagram
Bluesky
LinkedIn
Facebook
TikTok
YouTube
© The Art Newspaper

Related content

Tate Modernarchive
30 April 2000

Funding the Tate: A £134 million achievement

With £6m a year to raise, the budget of Tate Modern will require constant effort

The Art Newspaper
Comment
27 November 2015

Public museums need a new way of working with collectors

State institutions shouldn’t collaborate with those who don’t understand their wider aims

Chris Dercon
Tatearchive
1 November 1999

How to raise £166 million for the Tate: “Money follows energy”

The museum’s low-profile fundraising has achieved the biggest capital sum ever for a UK museum, but who is to pay for the running costs?

Martin Bailey