to the Wallace Collection with feelings of unrelieved regret.
Mr. D. S. MacColl’s transference to Hertford House gives necessary rest and thoroughly deserved promotion to a very valuable civil servant. His appointment to the Tate Gallery synchronized with the opportunity for re-arranging the collection, and he made the most of it. Many fine paintings have been placed in prominent positions too long occupied by objects which the Tate Gallery is obliged to house for other reasons than their intrinsic merits. Mr. MacColl’s direction will be further memorable for the skill with which the Turners are displayed in the annexe. We hope that contemporary art will again benefit by his comparative leisure, for it will enable him to resume his lucid, philosophic criticism.
Mr. Charles Aitken’s appointment to succeed Mr. MacColl is well deserved by his service at the Whitechapel Art Gallery. With no pronounced preference for a single school of art, he has shown a just appreciation of any school that has proved its vitality. The consideration received from him by artists, patrons and visitors alike will make his appointment generally acceptable. The Tate Gallery appeals both to connoisseurs and the general public, and Mr. Aitken seems to have the knack of satisfying both.
These changes in administration have come about owing to the rule which places a time limit to the tenure of office in the Civil Service, and further changes are due to follow before long. Apart from particular cases, the question naturally recurs how far such rules are beneficial in the case of appointments concerned with art and archaeology. There is much
to be said for their strict application in many departments of the Civil Service, and even for their extension to other services. But as regards art and archaeology, it is more doubtful whether any time limit should close valuable services while they can still be rendered with unimpaired vigour, merely because they have lasted a long time. It might be desirable to limit the duration of such directorships if the directors’ powers were less limited. It has often been pointed out that these limitations, especially in the acquirement of new objects, cause losses of desirable acquisitions and increased expenditure. Since the value of directors’ expert knowledge is thus diminished by the control of inexpert superiors, it is still further waste of material not to use their ripe experience. Familiarity with large collections is of immense value in directing the lines of their co-ordination and future development, and this can only be attained by long continued work among them. Even when failing health or powers necessitate an official’s retirement from active duties, is there any reason why his experience should not be utilized in a recognized consultative capacity? In any case, there is need for some such consultative authority co-equal with that of trustees. Without it the most valuable expert advice — nearly always obtainable by the smallest dealer for the asking — is too often lost to the public collections for the lack of asking. This is generally the fault, not of directors, but of trustees, who do not even claim special knowledge. With no obligation to seek advice, and no recognized adviser to consult, the sole purchasing power over some great public collection has too often resided in an authority whose advice no private purchaser would regard.
Mr. D. S. MacColl’s transference to Hertford House gives necessary rest and thoroughly deserved promotion to a very valuable civil servant. His appointment to the Tate Gallery synchronized with the opportunity for re-arranging the collection, and he made the most of it. Many fine paintings have been placed in prominent positions too long occupied by objects which the Tate Gallery is obliged to house for other reasons than their intrinsic merits. Mr. MacColl’s direction will be further memorable for the skill with which the Turners are displayed in the annexe. We hope that contemporary art will again benefit by his comparative leisure, for it will enable him to resume his lucid, philosophic criticism.
Mr. Charles Aitken’s appointment to succeed Mr. MacColl is well deserved by his service at the Whitechapel Art Gallery. With no pronounced preference for a single school of art, he has shown a just appreciation of any school that has proved its vitality. The consideration received from him by artists, patrons and visitors alike will make his appointment generally acceptable. The Tate Gallery appeals both to connoisseurs and the general public, and Mr. Aitken seems to have the knack of satisfying both.
These changes in administration have come about owing to the rule which places a time limit to the tenure of office in the Civil Service, and further changes are due to follow before long. Apart from particular cases, the question naturally recurs how far such rules are beneficial in the case of appointments concerned with art and archaeology. There is much
to be said for their strict application in many departments of the Civil Service, and even for their extension to other services. But as regards art and archaeology, it is more doubtful whether any time limit should close valuable services while they can still be rendered with unimpaired vigour, merely because they have lasted a long time. It might be desirable to limit the duration of such directorships if the directors’ powers were less limited. It has often been pointed out that these limitations, especially in the acquirement of new objects, cause losses of desirable acquisitions and increased expenditure. Since the value of directors’ expert knowledge is thus diminished by the control of inexpert superiors, it is still further waste of material not to use their ripe experience. Familiarity with large collections is of immense value in directing the lines of their co-ordination and future development, and this can only be attained by long continued work among them. Even when failing health or powers necessitate an official’s retirement from active duties, is there any reason why his experience should not be utilized in a recognized consultative capacity? In any case, there is need for some such consultative authority co-equal with that of trustees. Without it the most valuable expert advice — nearly always obtainable by the smallest dealer for the asking — is too often lost to the public collections for the lack of asking. This is generally the fault, not of directors, but of trustees, who do not even claim special knowledge. With no obligation to seek advice, and no recognized adviser to consult, the sole purchasing power over some great public collection has too often resided in an authority whose advice no private purchaser would regard.