ABUSES OF THE BRITISH INSTITUTION.
WE had intended to give another notice of the exhibition of the works of the great masters of painting, the last and chief attraction of the picture-season ; but, as it closes on Saturday next, the opportunity, which the cessation of the Parliamentary debates would afford us, comes too late. It unfortunately happens that the exhibitions of the silent art, and the displays of practitioners of the noisy science of oratory, are contemporaneous; and by the stern pressure of politics, the less urgent topics of Fine Arts are sometimes thrust into corners, if not altogether excluded from our columns.
The present occasion, however, serves to advert to some flagrant abuses that are reported to prevail in the management of the British Institution, and which if they exist render almost nugatory the express object of its formation—namely, "fur promoting the Fine Arts in the United Kingdom," and degrade the Institution into a jobbing picture. gallery.
It may be as well to premise, that the British Institution was founded in IRA by the munificent donations or the annual subscriptions of a number of distinguished "patrons of art," for the purpose, firstly, of furnishing the great body of artists with a galiery for the exhibition and sale of their productions, free from the disadvantages to which all but
the privileged few are subjected at Somerset House ; secondly, for giving encouragement to rising talent, by bestowing premiums annually on the most meritorious picture in the gallery ; and thirdly, for afford- ing artists opportunities of studying the finest works of the great masters, with which England abounds, but which are so scattered about in numerous private collections, that but for the annual reunions at the British Gallery, they would be scarcely known to the public. The spirit which marked the early days of the Institution has, however, sadly degenerated ; and though the annual exhibitions of modern pic- tures in the winter and of ancient ones in the summer continue, beyond these nothing is done "for the promotion of art." Premiums are no longer bestowed ; the spirit of emulation among artists that they fos- tered is dead ; and the equal rights of the exhibiters have been abro- gated. The first shock to the vitality of the Institution was given by the torpedo touch of the Royal Academy. To propitiate the favour of that body, the Directors of the Institution waived the very proper rule for the exclusion of all pictures that had been exhibited else- where, in favour of those exhibited at the Royal Acatlemy,—thus reducing the British Gallery to the condition of an appanage to the Academy. The Academicians, too, enjoy the credit of having secretly influenced the Directors to abandon the bestowal of premiums. A commencement, moreover, had been made in the formation of a collec- tion of pictures ; but the jobbing in the purchase of the pictures since presented to the National Gallery, put a termination to thi.
But there exist, we are told, other less apparent but more flagrant violations of the spirit in which the British Institution was founded. We have only hinted at their existence before, but we now feel it a duty to allude to them more pointedly. A trivial circumstance that occurred a short time since in the business department of this journal Las thrown sonic light on the nature of the proceedings said to be going on secretly in the management of this Institution. The circum- stance was this. Au advertisement of the exhibition found its way, for the first time, to the Spectator-Office, and was duly inserted. The appearance in our advertising columns of the name of the Bri- tish Institution, caused us a momentary surprise ; but we thought no more about it, until the other day our Publisher complained to us, that on applying in the usual course for the payment of its insertion, to Mr. BARNARD, the Keeper of the Gallery, he met with a very rude reception, and was informed that the advertisement was left in mis- take; and this functionary was moreover pleased to add, " that he should certainly not think of sending any advertisement of the Insti- tution to the Spectator." The Publisher (Mr. CLAYTON, a civil and obliging man, but spirited withal, and not apt to brook an affront from any body) inquired of us if any cause existed for the exclusion of the Spectator from a share, in common with other papers, of the adver- tisements of the British Institution. At first we were as much at a 08S to divine a cause as he was. Other journals, to be sure, may have devoted more space to the subject of Fine Arts than ourselves, and have done more to call public attention to meritorious pictures, and to remarkable talent in the world of painting, than the Spectator such may be the case, though we do not happen to be aware of the fact. Be this as it may, we paid no more regard to the absence of advertisements from the British Institution, than of any from the Royal Academy : but this insolent intimation of our being individually excepted, called for investigation ; and on referring back to our notices of the exhibitions of modern pictures at the British Institution, the cause of offence was spparent. Numerous complaints have from time to time reached our ears, of corrupt favouritism in the hanging of the pictures in this gallery. We were at first disposed to attribute them to disappointed feelings on the part of the individuals complaining, rather than to any unfairness on the part of the managers ; but having having had ocular proofs of (to use the mildest term) the injudicious arrangement of pictures in some instances—which was the more evident from the contrast with the excellent disposition of them in other respects,—and observing that, while some artists were invariably fortunate in the placing of their pictures, others were as invariably unfortunate,—we began to give cre- dence to the reports and insinuations that arc common among artists as to the peculiar modes of securing good places for pictures, and of pro- moting their sale at the Gallery. Amongst these, we have heard of " present:" opportunely made, of plate or pictures ; of orders given for frames to a "son in the trade ;" of douccurs on the sale of pic- tures; and so on. And when some simple artist has unconsciously lamented his ill-luck at having his picture placed so badly, his more knowing compeers have told him with a smile, that he had not found out the right way to secure a good place on the walls of the British Institution. Mr. BARNARD, the Keeper of the Gallery, is evidently one in authority, as appears from his remark to our publisher ; it is he who issues the invitations to the private views, which we have received in common aid' other journals : and we know that his opinion of the merits of pietures is often asked for, and that it is influential with purchasers who have not confidence in their own unassisted judgment; in a word, Mr. BARNARD is the ostensible manager, and is of course, responsible to the Directors for the due and faithful discharge of the duties of his office.
Reports of the kind we have alluded to seriously affect the character of the Institution ; and, if suffered to remain uncontradieted, are calcu- lated materially to affect its welfare, and the interests of art in so far as it is concerned. If they be well-founded, the munificence of the Governors and the purposes of the Institution have been shamefully prostituted to individual gain ; and the delinquent, whoever he may be, has forfeited, by the abuse of his office, all claim to the confidence of the Directors, of the exhibiters, and of the purchasers of pictures. If they be groundless, the fair fame of an individual, who is accounted a worthy man by some who know him well, has been grossly slan- dered. In either case, the matter requires investigation; and we call upon the Governors, in justice to themselves and the object of the Institution, to inquire into the fact of the prevalence of these injurious reports, and adopt such measures as may lead to their satisfactory refutation or proof. The parties concerned in the management of an institution of this description ought to be above suspicion. The faci- lities for jobbing and the indulgence of interested favouritism, are too great to allow of any individual being employed in a responsible situa- tion who has not a nice sense of honour, and a conscientious regard to the diligent and impartial fulfilment of the trust delegated to him.
I. Since this was in type, we have been informed that the Directors have investigated the charges brought against an individual, and have discovered numerous instances of malversation ; but they have suffered a mistaken feeling of compassion for the delinquent to prevail over a sense of justice and a due regard to the interests of art, arid continue to retain him in the office which be has abused. This is giving a premium to mismanagement at the expense of those who suffer by it. Surely such a state of things will not be allowed to continue !]
Previous page
