Art or Lives? How do we weigh Titians against Other Goods?

Should the State pay £100 million (which is a bargain by current market standards) to stop two great Titians being sold overseas? We've had the benefit of these paintings being on public display since 1945 in the Bridgewater Collection in the National Gallery of Scotland (and they are remarkable paintings - I've seen them), but that could be about to be withdrawn if the money can't be found.

Watch a short video about the paintings (1 min 33 seconds)

Psychologically the withdrawal of art that is already on public display feels much worse than missing an opportunity to expand a collection. The paintings' removal will be a great loss for many. Yet £100 million is a large enough sum to save or at least substantially improve many lives if it were invested in health care or in good social housing, or to stimulate contemporary artists if it were used to found an arts centre. Great paintings have become so expensive to acquire that this question is coming up every few years: when resources are scarce, could we justify State expenditure at this sort of level on paintings? The truth is, though, that the Government is unlikely to come up with this amount of money for these paintings.

Mark Rothko used to ask the question: if a house is on fire and you could only save a Rembrandt painting or a child, which would you do? He thought the answer was obvious: you should save the child. He's surely right about this.

It would be great if philanthropists could step in to solve our problems here and buy the paintings for the nation. But if they don't, the price tag is so high that, much as I love the paintings and believe that our museums are central to our cultural life, I don't believe it could be justified as a State expense when our social services still lack funds.

Perhaps someone should change the law so that hereditary peers can only keep their titles if they give at least one great painting to the nation every generation.

Comments

[Ophelia Benson]

Another point is that it's not a choice between the Titians and the social goods - it's a choice between location of the Titians and the social goods - at least, it is if the Titians are destined for another museum or other public place.

In fact there are various issues. If the Titians will be sold to private collectors, that's the loss of a general public good, not just a UK or Scottish public good. If they will be sold to another museum, that just means it will be easier for some people to see them and more difficult for others; they'll be recirculated rather than removed.

If the latter is the case, how much of the concern has to do with national prestige? Is national prestige less worth considering than relative ease of access? Does it matter whether ease of access shifts from one place to another? If so, what are the criteria? (Population density? Relative lack of access to art?)

The more you look at it the more complicated it gets. [wanders off scratching head]

[Nigel Warburton]

Yes, I agree Ophelia. And even if the paintings go into a private collection, many private collectors are sufficiently philanthropic (or else recognise that public display in major collections increases the worth of the paintings) to lend them to national museums and travelling exhibitions. So even in a private collector's hands, they might be available to many people. A tricky one.