Set art free

Too often art is subjugated to curators’ theories or interpretations. Let the work speak for itself, says Andrew Lambirth

The casual observer of London’s art scene, or even the devoted reader of exhibition listings, might be forgiven for thinking that the range of shows available throughout the conspectus of the nation’s museums was of a healthy vigour and diversity. In fact, it could be effectively argued that there are still too many different blockbusters simultaneously competing for box-office success, with museums forever chasing revenue by putting on displays of tried-and-tested favourites, and not actually serving the public in the best possible way. A museum’s dual responsibility is to its collection and to its public, and too often the permanent collection remains hidden, in cellar and off-site storage, with only the tip of the iceberg ever going on display. The Tate is a notable case in point.

For several years now a cherished project of mine has been to select and mount a full-scale survey of English painting since 1945. Just an exhibition of painting, in all its glorious variety, celebrating the richness of our national achievement over half a century. Initially, I was approached about this by two arts world luminaries who had themselves hatched the idea but felt the need for a third party to help implement it at a suitably inclusive level.

I was completely convinced by their enthusiasm (one, I must admit, I already shared) and wholeheartedly joined the team, compiling enjoyable lists of artists and then remembering favourites inadvertently overlooked. The other two, carrying a greater weight of years and experience than your humble columnist, were the ones who approached the institutions we thought might be interested in such a venture, and it was they who repeatedly had to break the news that no one was prepared to take it on.