Export ban on Turner painting

I see nothing exceptional about this painting. There are many Turner paintings of similar quality in public collections, and privately owned ones on public display in the UK.

We didn’t buy the Elgin Marbles
It's a moot point whether the Sultan allowed Elgin to remove the Marbles or not.
The British Government later paid Elgin £35,000 for them.

If our galleries only contained works from our own country they would not be nearly as interesting as they are. Art should move about, but preferably be kept where it can be seen by the general public.

My DIL works in the art world, including the Royal Academy though she is freelance now. She genuinely can see more in ‘modern art’ than most of us can, though she is quite ready to say if she thinks something is rubbish.

Whilst the temporary export ban is in place, there are attempts to raise money - eg from the Art Fund, NL Heritage Fund, a private donor may come forward. So the painting would be bought for the nation and exhibited to the public. If private people want to give, fine, if charities decide to spend money on it, fine . If the money can’t be raised, that’s a sign, and eventually the ban would be lifted and it could be sold anywhere. The current owners paid£2.7 million only a few years ago do they must be delighted with their investment.

We didn’t buy the Elgin Marbles

To be honest we have got an awful lot of Turners in galleries round the country. I can't see the problem with letting this one go.

Agreed - better a gallery overseas than secreted away in a private collection here.
And the converse, of course.

Is it going to an art gallery, or a private collection? That makes a difference IMO. Too many art works get secreted away.

while someone tries to raise ten million to stop it going abroad.

I think that's fair enough if it's from crowdfunding or philanthropists who are going to give it to a national art gallery but I do not think we should think we have a right to it because it was painted by an English artist.

My son lives in Lucerne and I've been up Mt Rigi - maybe I'll ask him to buy it and donate to the nation

Rigi - Rigi- Rigi

Is this proposal for crowdfunding or for taxpayers' money to be used?
I take your point, mcem but is this painting of such importance?

It isn't clear whether the plan is for it to go into public or private ownership. If private, and enough people want to 'chip in' then that's their business.
If public ownership is proposed that's a different issue and is about priorities.
Spending on the arts or on basic necessities?
Public funds come from different 'pockets' and cash allocated for one cause can't just be switched to another at will.
A bit like choosing a charity on a personal level - children or donkeys?

MOnica the Dark Riga is not just any old Turner is it?

We’ve moved on since then Callistemon but I do agree with returning certain things like the Elgin Marbles and shrunken heads. Many of our ‘treasures’ have a pretty murky provenance. However, the Turner is not in this category - it’s in the UK, painted by a UK artist and if the money can be raised, it would be great to have it next to the Blue Riga in the Tate.

I think these refusals of export licences should be limited to those of artists poorly represented on British Galleries, paintings of particularly British significance, a hypothetical example: the only known portrait of a person of British significance, say a medieval monarch.

But Turner? he was a prolific artist, whose work is extensively on display in most art galleries and stately homes, we can afford (not in the monetary sense) to let it go.

If I were dictator for a day, I would take all paintings out of private ownership, or at least say all art had to be on public display
You're not having my JoLoMo's suziewoozie even though they're only prints!!

We shouldn't let our artistic heritage be shipped-off to the highest bidder, if funds can be raised.
In that case we should be magnanimous and return every single painting and piece of art which was painted by foreign artists and which hang in our galleries here in the UK.
What right have we to hang on to the Elgin Marbles?

Considering how many works there are by Turner stored away rather than housed in a permanent collection, as he requested, it is hypocritical to try and prevent one painting leaving the country.
And a ridiculous amount of money.

Pantglas1
You're right. Silly me. It was the RA 2012 Summer Exhibition. I found a photo of the chair but can't get the whole pic in screenshot. Chair was really tall.

Three of us went on the Eye, toured the RA exhibits, took tea at F&M (overpriced and not even 4 star) dinner + b&b at Radisson Blu Edwardian Vanderbilt and concert at Royal Albert Hall with Daniel and Michael Barenboim.

Michael's violin solos were a screeching cacophony...dreadful, and the venue was stifling. No air at all. Never again.

Bread and Roses indeed suzie.

We shouldn't let our artistic heritage be shipped-off to the highest bidder, if funds can be raised.

It isn’t a competition between funding the Turner or helping the homeless etc. Some people will give to one of those causes and some to both. I think export bans are a good idea as they give an opportunity for funds to be raised. The money would not go to the homeless instead - it just doesn’t work like that. However, on the wider issue of art as an investment - it’s awful isn’t t? If I were dictator for a day, I would take all paintings out of private ownership, or at least say all art had to be on public display and would organise far more tours of art so that all parts of the country could enjoy all our treasures. It sounds a bit mean spirited to say you’d wave a Turner off- why do you want to deny the pleasure of seeing it to others? Bread and Roses, Bread and Roses.

Interesting point Callistemon !
There’s such a lot of rubbish masquerading as art nowadays GabriellaG54 I saw one exhibition Up North that was just a load of old padlocks locked in a circle, we thought it was more a load of old **ocks but I expect beauty is in the eye of the beholder ! I’m an art collector myself of course, with an extensive collection sourced from my local charity shops

The question is surely 'do we have a right to try to prevent this painting leaving the country?'

Does it belong to us, the nation, just because the artist was British or is art universal?

The supposed value is irrelevant.

I don’t remember that one GabriellaG54!

My particular favourite is Tracey Emin’s unmade made....although Damien Hirst’s sheep pickled in formaldehyde runs it a close second!

Whatever you buy, painting or Parmesan, it's only worth what a customer will pay. There is no true value. Look at 'Sunflowers'. It could be a child's drawing, were it not for the false 'Emperor's new clothes' hubbub surrounding the artist.

There was an exhibit in London Tate several years ago, where a huge chair made out of glued together bare unpainted chicken bones had a price tag of over £16k.
Totally ridiculous.
Some of the other 'art' included few daubs on an 8" square canvas with a tag of £2k.