At just over £4.9 million was the Blue Rigi worth the cost and effort? 
We’re delighted to announce that, thanks to the extraordinary response from the public to our appeal, the National Heritage Memorial Fund has agreed to underwrite the remaining money needed to a maximum of £1.95m, so Turner’s Blue Rigi is guaranteed to be saved for Tate.
Earlier this year The Art Fund launched the public appeal to help Tate acquire The Blue Rigi, a watercolour by the great British artist JMW Turner.
The watercolour, formerly in a private collection, was sold in the summer to a private collector abroad, but its export has been delayed by the government to allow a gallery in this country time to raise the money to buy it. It is considered not only a technical and aesthetic masterpiece, but also a piece with enormous educational value. We had until 20 March 2007 to raise the necessary funds to save this painting. At just over £4.9 million was the Blue Rigi worth the cost and effort?
Was the painting, as Tate director Stephen Deuchar suggested, simply too good to overlook? Would the export of the Blue Rigi really have been a missed opportunity?
Turner was a prolific artist. The Tate already has many fine examples of his work. Perhaps we are being selfish: should we not allow those abroad to experience the brilliance of Turner? On the other hand, while the Tate boasts a vast collection, there were no finished late works by Turner – a gap that will be filled with the purchase of the Blue Rigi.
Is the art market like any other – should works be traded freely? Are we really ‘losing’ these paintings if they were in private collections anyway?
Brian Sewell, writing in the Evening Standard, argued that ‘if we must have The Blue Rigi for the nation, then we should seriously consider paying for it by the selling the dross from the Turner bequest’. Is this a sensible idea? Should Tate have been free to trade in some Turners?
Add your voice to the debate...
Topic posted: 1 March 2007.
To post comments please login or register.