Letter: Tate's obligation to modern British art
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: The decision by the Tate Gallery to build a new gallery devoted to modern art is to be welcomed ('Tate sets sights on a brave new world', 16 December).
If, however, 20th-century British art is to be represented only by the works of a few masters (such as Moore, Bacon and Hockney), the overseas view that modern British art is parochial will be
reinforced.
Surely, this is an opportunity to emphasise the achievements of, for instance, the Vorticist and St Ives painters, and place them in the international context to which they belong. There should be enough in the museum's collection to allow examples to be shown in both the modern art gallery and in the British collection at the Tate.
Yours sincerely,
F. FARMAR
Fine Art Consultancy
London, SW1
16 December
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments