National Gallery‘s Expansion โคinto Modern Art โขSparks โคTurf War withโ Tate
LONDON โข – The National Gallery’s recent decision โto significantly expand its collection beyond 1900,โฃ encompassing modern and contemporary art, represents a direct challenge to the Tate’s long-held curatorial territory and has ignited a debate over the futureโฃ of Britain’sโ national art collections. Theโค move, framed as a collaborative โคeffort, is widely seen as a power play fueled by the National Gallery’s robust financial position-ยฃ375 million inโข reserves-compared to the Tate’s current deficit.
For decades, the Tate has largely defined the landscape ofโ modern art in Britain. Tate Modern, โin particular, experienced โsurging visitor numbers, largely matching Tate Modern year-on-year until the pandemic, demonstrating public appetite for both historical and contemporary works. Though, โTate Britain, focused on British โขart, has faced a sustained decline in visitor numbers,โ withโข its presentation of British art โincreasingly perceived as a critical examination of colonialism that โsome find discouraging.
The Tate’s collection evolved โfrom its 1926 inception as a showcase for French Impressionists-thenโ considered “modern foreign art”-to a post-war โฃemphasis on modern British art, often to theโข exclusion of its international counterparts.This insular approach persisted until the tenure of Nicholasโ Serota, โขwho โactively sought to broaden the collection to include European and โAmericanโ contemporary art. In 1998,โฃ Serota โoversaw aโค division of the collection, creating Tate Modern and renaming the original gallery Tate Britain, a split that ultimately proved problematic.
While Tate modern โthrived during aโ period of increasing โglobalization leading โup to Brexit, Tate Britain struggled, with โsome British artists hesitant to be categorizedโฃ as simply “British.” โฃThisโข ledโข to anโ internal questioning ofโฃ the value of prioritizing British art within a contemporary art world grappling with the legacyโ of Empire.
The National Gallery’s move signalsโ a clear ambition to become the comprehensive home forโ all art in Britain, capitalizing on the Tate’s financial vulnerabilities and a perceivedโฃ weakness โin its curatorial direction at tate โขBritain.The question of how to balance historical andโ contemporary art within โฃnational collections, and โคthe very definition of “British” versus “foreign” art, are now at the forefront of a nationalโฃ conversation.