The Burlington on the National Gallery's new collecting plan.
January 7 2026
Picture: The Burlington Magazine
Posted by Bendor Grosvenor:
This month's editorial in The Burlington is a welcome change from most of those of the last couple of years, in that it actually has something interesting to say. The subject is the National Gallery's decision to change its traditional collecting plan, which saw it stop acquiring works made (roughly) after the First World War. The idea had been to leave modern art more or less up to to Tate. But now the National Gallery wants to collect works made up to present day.
The Burlington welcomes the National Gallery's decision, and says those wary of such a change must not be so backward looking:
The National Gallery has given the title ‘Project Domani’ to its new scheme; those voicing opposition should be wary of becoming the champions of a ‘Project Ieri’.
The Burlington's main argument is that concerns over how the National Gallery might impinge on Tate's collecting are misplaced. It should instead be a case of the more the merrier. The Burlington points to New York as an example, where a new wing for modern art at the Metropolitan Museum is not seen as a challenge to other New York museums:
There is no evidence to suggest that this development is perceived in any way as a challenge to the other great collections of modern and contemporary art in the city, at, for example, the Museum of Modern Art or the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum. Rather, the development is perceived as a new and welcome addition to New York’s art ecosystem and the reasons for visiting. The same measured and positive view should be taken about plans evolving at Trafalgar Square.
All of which would make sense, if the funding environment in London was anything like that of New York. But it isn't. And for that reason we have to work with what we've got: a government wanting to reduce the amount of public funding to museums; an economy which is not growing as much as we'd like; a tax system which does not incentivise philanthropy as much the US does; and collapsing provision for arts funding outside London.
In this kind of environment, having one extremely wealthy, prestigious institution draw away donations and acquisitions from other institutions is something we should probably be cautious about.
To be fair, The Burlington does raise the funding point:
The key questions are not whether national collections, such as those of the National Gallery and Tate, should overlap but rather whether they are properly resourced, where the appropriate expertise resides, and how it can be shared and supported. Equally important, are there monies to fund ambitious collection growth of works of appropriate quality?
And yet The Burlington must surely know that the answer to these questions will, for some time at least, always be 'no'. We may wish it weren't the case, but there just isn't the money. The National Gallery and Tate, say, are unlikely ever to both be rich enough to compete for the same Gustav Klimt. As I wrote in The Art Newspaper, for both institutions to 'sink hundreds of millions of pounds into collecting and displaying similar art within a few miles of each other in central London' feels like an extravagance, especially when we should be thinking more about arts provision outside London.
The fact is, our acquisitions landscape tends to be a blend of donation and state involvement. If acquisitions come as a result of schemes like Acceptance-in-Lieu or the Cultural Giving Scheme, then there is a role for government in making sure artworks are properly distributed across institutions, and the whole country. And this, it seems to me, is why clear demarcation lines between institutions are useful.
As ever on AHN, we welcome your thoughts!
