Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Feb 1963

Vol. 199 No. 10

Special Committee on Companies Bill, 1962. - National Gallery of Ireland Bill, 1963 —Committee and Final Stages.

SECTION 1.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 2, line 15, to delete "State," and substitute "State or held in trust by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland,".

The purpose of this amendment to paragraph (c) of Section 1 is to remedy the existing position. The wording "belonging to the State" may not cover certain properties and in order that the Board of Governors may not be precluded from granting loans of works of art for display in properties such as St. Stephen's Green which are held in trust for the public but which may not be legally regarded as belonging to the State, this amendment is necessary.

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

As I understand it, the original intention when the Municipal Gallery was established, and certainly the intention of Sir Hugh Lane, was that the Gallery was to be regarded as a gallery of modern art. By any standards, this is a small country and the present National Gallery has available a great many pictures which have never been exhibited, while, at the same time, having on display some modern paintings. I wonder whether the Minister, in conjunction with the authorities of the National Gallery, would co-operate with the Municipal Art Gallery to arrange a system under which modern pictures would be shown in one Gallery and then a reasonable time allowed during which these pictures would be hung. A regular period of alternation between one group of pictures and another would enable the many pictures that have never been displayed in the National Gallery to be displayed.

As I understand it, the announcement the Minister made recently that an up-to-date and complete catalogue of the pictures in the National Gallery is being compiled and will shortly be published could enable a rotation of pictures to take place on a reasonable basis. I would suggest that arrangements should be made so that exhibitions of modern art would be confined to the Municipal Gallery and that a regular rotation over reasonable periods would exist in the National Gallery so that the very large collection of pictures would be shown at regular periods, so enabling the people to see pictures that have not been displayed for a considerable time. The proposal in the Bill will undoubtedly enable pictures to be displayed elsewhere than in the National Gallery. That might be considered, but one of the drawbacks is that a great many pictures there remain in the same position from one year to another. I am suggesting that there should be periods of rotation which would ensure regular displays of all the pictures.

The purpose of this Bill and of any Bill dealing with works of art and their display should be to have them displayed for the people generally and for that reason I cannot understand the reason for paragraph (a) of this section which provides for the lending of works of art for display in the official residence of the President. That is a place very infrequently visited by members of the public of this State. In fact, it is very infrequently visited by members of either House of the Oireachtas for the simple reason that they are never invited. I do not think that is one of the places where these works should be exhibited. Some visitors from abroad, unless they are very distinguished visitors and unless they are invited to the residence, will never have an opportunity of seeing works of art on display there.

I am in full agreement with paragraph (c) which provides for the display of works of art in other premises or property of the State in Ireland or abroad and in that connection I suggest that advantage be taken of the spacious rooms of the RDS for exhibitions of our works of art. It is a place very frequently visited by our people and also by visitors from abroad who would probably have little or no access to any other institutions or places of a semi-public nature. During the Spring Show and the Horse Show, if space could be made available in the RDS premises for exhibitions of these works of art, we would do a considerable lot to publicise them.

I certainly cannot see why they should be exhibited in the official residence of the President of Ireland. I do not want to object to the decorating of the President's residence but we vote considerable sums of money, upwards of £50,000 annually, for that purpose. If we are to bury some of our works of art there, they will be on view only to a very small number of official visitors to the President. Of course, some of the undesirables, such as the Maximoes, may get to see them, but only a very small minority of visitors to this country will get an opportunity. The President's residence is not an ideal place to exhibit our works of art. I think the Minister, under subsection (7) should make some arrangement with the RDS to put on display there bi-annually pictures which have too long been buried.

I do not agree with either of my colleagues in this matter. I think some of these pictures should be hung in Áras an Uachtaráin. I am not sure if it would be wise to devote the National Gallery altogether to a display of the classic works of art and to take away from it the modern works. If we do that, we will run into trouble. The accepted definition of modern works of art would be the works of the impressionists from the middle of the 19th century onwards. It would make the National Gallery much less interesting to visitors if the Renoirs and other such works were removed from it. That would detract from the generality of representation there and would be undesirable. If the two Renoirs were removed from the National Gallery, it would not encourage me to go there as often as I do.

I wonder if the Minister has given any consideration to the points I raised during the Second Reading debate. Under this Bill, the Gallery authorities will not accept responsibility for the insurance of pictures when sent to other centres for exhibition. If that insurance bears any relation to the value of the pictures, it would be impossible for any local group to shoulder the burden. Sometimes I wonder if it is wise to continue showing these pictures at all.

I should also like to make the point that the recent windfall received by the Gallery has saved the Government what could be quite considerable expenditure in the future. A rearrangement of the Gallery and of the rooms might involve the country in considerable expense and that will be saved by the Shaw Bequest. The Government might also consider assisting the smaller galleries in the country to make occasional purchases so that they would have a small stock of pictures of their own. I have in mind some thousands of pounds for each such gallery. That would cover Limerick, Galway, Waterford and other such cities.

I am afraid this is enlarging the scope of the Bill.

On the last occasion when we were discussing this Bill, there was a suggestion that the Minister might consider the establishment of small collections in other parts of the country. I think it desirable that the Minister should indicate to Bord Fáilte that in the literature they publish they might include good reproductions of some of the pictures we have in the Gallery.

That would be for another Minister.

It is very difficult to keep the different parts of this matter separate.

This is an ad hoc Bill to deal with the need for powers for the lending of pictures which the Board have not got at present. The wider question of dealing with the arts generally is being considered by an inter-departmental Committee, as has already been announced by the Taoiseach. All these questions are being considered by the committee and will be considered by the Government in due time. This Bill gives power to the Governors of the National Gallery to lend pictures. They have a large number of works of art there and I do not agree that some of these should not be lent to the official residence of the President. I think they should be there and in other places such as those of important representation abroad. Subsection (e) gives fairly wide powers to the Governors and the Guardians to lend to other places not specifically named in the Bill. There were a number of points raised by Deputies concerning particular interests of their own which are not covered in the Bill.

Have the Gallery disowned the responsibility of insurance? In what cases would insurance be needed?

I do not think it possible to provide for insurance by legislation. All that is covered by the Bill is permission to lend and I think that security rather than insurance would be the main consideration. The Board have the power to impose whatever conditions appear to them to be necessary.

That could prevent the exhibition of pictures.

What we want to do is to encourage the lending of pictures and not to put too many obstacles in the way of making the loans.

Outside the Bill, have the Board power to impose terms such as insurance?

They have the power without any specific provision. They have the power to make terms of their own and they can include insurance, if they think fit. I do not think it necessary to make any such provision in the Bill. Many of the other matters mentioned do not fall to be mentioned on this Bill, although they may arise at a future time.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.
Top
Share