3. CAPITULO III
3.9 Actores Institucionales que intervienen en el proceso Evaluación de Impacto
3.9.4 El Ministerio de Telecomunicaciones y la Superintendencia de
2 Sir Walter R.M.Lamb op.cit., 1951 edition p lOo. 3 The Saturday before the first Monday in May.
4 - Approximately 12fo of the number sent in by non-members. A det ailed description of the selection process is given in George
Dunlop Leslie, R.A., The Inner Life of the Royal Academy , London 1914 PP 73-91*
5
At this time members were allowed three varnishing days, non members one.6
The British Empire Exhibition at Wembley, which opened on April23rd 1924? contained a sizeable art and design section, but
such exhibitions were- occasional events.of war in 1914 the Association had exhibited in the smaller Grafton Galleries until 1920, The great number of -works on yievr at the Royal Academy attracted large numbers of visitors (see Apnendix K) whose
2
purchases of admission and catalogues provided some of the Academy* s running costs. The exhibition lasted approximately three months. Al though there is a paucity of information on the attendance figures at other contemporary exhibitions of modern art , the Academy Summer Ex hibition attendances bear comparison with-those of nationally funded institutions,- In 1928 the average monthly attendance figure for the National Gallery Millbank (The Tate) was 29,15° r whereas', on average,
55?1Q3 people visited the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition each month that it vas open.
The Academy’s finances during the Great Ear, and for some years 5
after it, were somewhat precarious . Attendances had dropped to 128,684 by the Summer Exhibition of 1918, and the Academy had. had to fight the Customs and Excise Board’s contention that the exhibitions
o
were liable to the new Entertainment Duty introduced in 1916 , In
1920 the Academy raised the Summer Exhibition entrance fee.- from Is to
Is 6d.1 Frank Butter, Since I Ias Twenty-five, London 1927 P 183,
2 By ticket or season ticket. In 1920 the pi’ices wares admission Is 6d, season ticket 5s? Catalogue Is (paper cover) or Is
6d
(bound in cloth),3 Having sought information from the New English.Art Club the present secretary, Carl da Winter, tells me. that the only rec ords in the Club’s possession are bound copies of the Club’s exhibition catalogues. This reply is consistent with most other galleries and organizations.
4 Royal Commission on National Museums and Galleries Final Report Part 1 His Majesty’s Stationery Office 1929» Appendix II p 81 gives the attendances at the National Museums and Galleries in London and Edinburgh and at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, for 1903, 1913 and 1938,. The average monthly attendance at the National Gallery, Trafalgar Square was 55?784»
5 S.C.Hutchison. The History of the Royal Academy 1768-19639 Lon— don, 1968 p 159* The author points out that the Academy had. been running an annual deficit since 1903.
6
Although it was decided in 1917 that the Academy exhibitions were to be exempt (Sir Halter Lamb op.cit. p 67 and S.C.Hutch ison op.cit. p160; the tax continued to trouble other exhibit
ing bodies for some years. It was reported in the Connoisseur LXIII No.249 Nay 1922 p 53 that the Earl of Plymouth, as President of the Imperial Arts League, considered it a priority to fight the imposition of the tax ’as applied to the forms of exhibition in which artists are concerned.’
Ger xne ctuspiuss UJL bOt; mi u c n o i noi r u s e uni , wcio ui^ciiijLijcu ji-Ai <-^_h.a
1
the British Red Cross Society . 'Tronhies, relics and works of art
1
2
from the imperial War Museum were displayed with the specific inten tion of raising funds for the Society and can hardly be considered in the same light as those exhibitions organized directly by the Ac ademy itself. It may be noted, however, that the majority of exhib its in this, and succeeding ’war exhibitions,’ were paintings.
The Summer Exhibition of
1918
attracted over 14,000 more vis itors than had attended the exhibition of 1917* Although 69 fewer works were exhibited than in the previous year, many reviewers wel comed the fact that pictures were only hung two deep with greater spaces between them^. There was an absence of any large number of battle pictures. A picture which might have laid claim to being the’picture of the year’ was Frank Salisbury’s King George and Queen
A ...
Mary Visiting the Battle Discricts of France but many critics agreed with Sir Claude Phillips that it represented
’the outward aspect of incidents toned down to official dull ness in order to meet the requirements of military and court etiquette ’
and could only be regarded as a limited triumph. As was to be ex pected there were a large number of portraits and despite the ab-
o
sence of Sargent and Orpen this year, pictures by J.J.Shannon , and Melton Fisher set high standards. It Is interesting to notice the
survival of the ’subject picture* in A.D.McCormick’s Kelson at the Council of bar before Copenhagen, 1801 and T.C.Gotch’s The First 1 One third of the profits from the 1915 hTar Relief Exhibition,
and the proceeds from the 1917 Graphic Art exhibition, had already been donated to the same cause.
2 Royal Academy Annual Report 1913 p 12.
3 American Art News, June Ip? 1918, and Connoisseur LI, June 1918 pp 109-
119.
4 Destined as a mural panel for the Royal Exchange. It was repro duced as the frontispiece of The Royal Academy illustrated 1918 5 Daily Telegraph, 4th May
1918.
Printing Press set up in Bristol. Fred Roe* exhibited Afternoon Prayers at Westminster School, showing many of the boys in Cadet Corps uniform in a manner reminiscent of the work of von Herkomer. The most ’modern’ work to receive attention, however, was Walter Bayes1 Underworld , now in the collection of the Imperial War Museum.
2
The critic of the Morning Post thought it an ’ultra-modern’ perfor mance but appreciated the extent to which it might be seen as rep resenting the deliberate introduction of innovation at Burlington House. Its subject was the platform of the Elephant and Castle underground station during an air-raid and although it was consid ered by the Connoisseur as ’merely an artistic joke ’ it was recog nized as possessing a command of mural composition and expression which, argued The Times ,
1. . . will tell posterity, not how one particular tube looked at a particular moment during an air raid to a commonplace observer, but how' people’s minds were affected by it. And this expression of the essential results, as it always must, in beauty"r» ’
It is interesting to speculate on the extent to which the Selection ■ and Hanging Committees, were influenced in their handling of this pic ture by the topicality of its subject rather than by its mode of