UK owns a "secret" collection of art worth 3.5 billion pounds Automatic translate

The UK government and local governments own artworks worth at least £ 3.5 billion, but only a small fraction of these wealth is publicly available. Such data were revealed during the study of the initiative group of the Taxpayer Alliance.

The Alliance estimates that only 3% of this collection is available to the public. For example, the local council of Carlisle in Cumbria exhibited only 0.02% of the 864,100 works belonging to him. The most expensive collection among local authorities is owned by Manchester - 46,347 items worth a total of 347 million pounds. All data for the study were obtained through the practice of free information queries.

Turbine Hall, Tate Museum (Photo: Freeimages.com)

The taxpayer alliance called on the government to rectify the situation. It may be said in an appeal that it is inappropriate to put the entire collection on public display, but it would be nice to transfer works of art to art colleges and community centers.

“No one offers government-owned art wholesalers,” said Jonathan Isaby, Alliance’s executive director. “State and local governments should make an effort to show more objects of art to ordinary people, and in addition, seriously review their views on the formation of the portfolio of these works.”

The most valuable item owned by the state can be considered the full armor of King Henry VIII, dating from 1649. Now the armor is estimated at 53.6 million pounds. The most expensive painting in the collection is Laurence Stephen Lowry’s painting “Fair in Lancashire: Good Friday, Daisy Nook” (Lancashire Fair: Good Friday, Daisy Nook). Purchased in 1947 for 120 pounds, today it is valued at 3.5 million pounds. The painting adorns the interior of the Department of Culture, Media, and Sports, but is occasionally provided for display in museums such as the Tate, Ulster and Lowry Museum, etc.

Will Gompertz, editor of the Air Force’s art department, spoke about his vision of the situation. He believes that the whole thing is in the incorrect management of the collection: if a particular work of art is not shown publicly, it must be sold, and the money put into the state treasury. However, there is one “but.” The state collection of art is also the image of the country. Arriving at the official residence of any ambassador in the world, we will see a large collection of art from his home country. These objects perform not so much a decorative function as they speak of the status and culture of the people. This gives a certain authority to the authorities, works for the good of the country.

However, a lot of art simply gathers dust in storage rooms across the country instead of being on display to the people. But art schools can only win if their modest collections are replenished at the expense of state-owned art. This will bring the same benefits as the paintings in the residence of the ambassador.

And the last thing the Taxpayer Alliance draws attention to. Between 2010 and 2015, the state acquired artworks worth 361,320 pounds, including 40,000 pounds of contemporary British painter Mel Brimfield. “At a time when we are making the necessary savings, it would be wise to ask if recent purchases are of value to taxpayers,” Jonathan Aisabi asks.

Anna Sidorova © Gallerix.ru