Ubicación de las Estaciones de Telefonía Celular

was correspondrx:g with Aitken. Llewellyn obtained the Tate's ad­ mission that it 'was. not challenging the Academy’s legal position over the administration of the Bequest, and the Academy Council ag­ reed to discuss the criteria which it used to approve purchases. There the matter effectively rested by 1930.

The internal problems between the Academy and the Tate were but

1 Sir Edgar Vincent, 16th baronet and Viscount D ’Abernon (l857—

1941) was a financier, a diplomatist, and an administrative expert. He was a Trustee of the Rational and Tate Galleries, and Chairman of the Royal Commission on Rational Museums and Public Galleries. Interestingly enough, in 1931 the Chantrey Fund tried unsuccessfully to buy Augustus.John’s portrait of D ’Abernoni

2 Letter of December 13th 1927.

3 The Council had decided to approach Stanley Baldwin, who. met

the President of the Royal Academy on March l6th.

the results of an unsatisfactory relationship "between the purchac- ing and exhibiting bodies. External criticism of the Chantrey Col­ lection and the purchasing policy still served to keep alive many of those criticisms, first publicised in 1904. A review of the re­ cent additions to the collection in the November 1923 issue of The Connoisseur was entitled Poor Chantrey! (with a few remarks on the policy of the Tate Gallery). In this particular case the author thought works which were then being bought more suited 'to the ref­ erence folio than to the walls of a national exhibition*. The art­ icle assumed (1 there can be no doubt*) that Chantrey had intended to encourage the work of living artists, and was indignant at the num-

2

ber of works by deceased artists bought by the Bequest . It seemed most unfair that money intended for living artists should be used to make good the government's failure to provide adequate funds for the purchase of 'retrospective art,* especially in the difficult times, of the present’ The problems which had been formally identified in 1904 remained evident^.

4

The Chantrey Bequest Purchases and their Selection 1918-30. 1: 1918 - 1921.

The only purchase in 1918 was Robert Anning Bell's Kary in the House of Elisabeth, a recent work for which £350 was paid. Bell had himself been a student of the Royal Academy Schools (l88l) and had been elected Associate of the Royal Academy in 1914* In. 1918 he was appointed Professor of Design at the Royal College of Art. This

1 The Connoisseur vol.LXYII Bo.267* Bov.1923 P 173* The Connois­

seur was edited by Cecil Reginald Grundy, who was also its managing director and a contributing critic.

2 Since the Great Bar* the Bequest had purchased works by Holman—

Hunt (1919)? Burne-Jones (l919)j Charles Keene (1922), John Jackson (1922) and Alfred Stevens (1922).

3 Harry Quilter*s article The Last Chanty of Chantrey which had

first appeared in The Contemporary Review, 1903? was reprinted as- Chapter II of his Opinions, London, 1909? with a preface by his widow. As a footnote Kary Quilter mentioned the 'frugal satisfaction* her husband had had of giving evidence before the Select Committee (see above). As will be seen from the dis­ cussion of Chantrey Purchases (1918-1930) following, many of Quilter’s criticisms still had a validity after the Great Bar.

together unexpected in the work of an artist who was also respons­ ible for some decorative schemes at Westminster Cathedral (mosaics). Its religious content was by then rare in Royal Academy exhibitions

1

and at least one critic perceived genuine devotional sentiment, in Bell's picture, particularly in its simplicity and (conventionally symbolic) use of colour. The recommending committee for painting in 1918 consisted of Frank Dicksee, Arthur Hacker and Sir John Lav— ery, and although Bell1s work was bought from the Royal Academy

2

annual exhibition the committee did visit the Goupil Gallery where

it noted Henry Tonks* The Birdcage (at £650 -

TOO)

commended, albeit unsuccessfully. As at December 31st 1917 The

I

Chantrey Fund, current credit stood at £3,712-lls-3d so available cash was hardly-an obstacle.

The purchases for 1919 (by which time interest had increased credit to £4y753-6s-7d) were numerous but dominated by the purchase of four Burne-Jones* paintings and ten designs at-a price of £1050 and one Holman Hunt, the I85O Claudio and Isabella, for £1000.

These latter certainly appear to have been made out of deference to the idea of creating a representative form of collection , if not out of specific regard to the current deficiencies within the Tate’s collection. Although it is on record that the recommending committ­ ee for painting considered work by the late Edward Stott^ and Sir

5

William Orpen the remaining purchases finally made consisted of

1 Royal Academy review in The Connoisseur vol.51 June 1918, see

illustration and commentary pp 111-112.

2 Royal Academy Annual Report 1918 p 58

3 In the 1904 inquiry a number of questions had been put on this

subject, including some on the failure (at that time) of the Bequest to buy any works by Burne-Jones. In the course of ev­ idence it was suggested by the Earl of Lytton that a Burne- Jones picture might never have been bought because members of

the Royal Academy Council might have been unaware of suitable pictures exhibited outside the Academy. By 1918, however, Sir Edward J.Poynter, President of the Royal Academy was writing to the Treasury, 'the Council of the Royal Academy believe that the Tate Gallery Board have with themselves only one desire - viz. to make the collection as representative as possible . . *

4 Foaling Time and Eilking Time.

paintings by John Arnesby Brovm and Frederick W.Elwell, and bronzes by Francis Derwent Hood and Hilliam Reid Dick. In the event all four of these works were exhibited in the Royal Academy annual ex­ hibition that year, the artists being'established Academy exhibi­ tors. . Arnesby Brown’s The Line of the Plough (Plate Ho.2) relied largely upon its foreground colour and contrasts between curves and horizontals for its effect, The artist had been a pupil of Herk— omer, and been influenced by both the Barbizon School ana the Iiim-

2

ressionists. The critic of The Connoisseur certainly appreciated the painting, as did the critic of The Studio^. Less attention was paid in the press to Frederick Elwell’s The Beverley Arms Kitchen (Plate 3), which represents a large scale interior scene. It is tempting to find in it some influence of Elwell’s -experiences of the

Academy Schools, Antwerp (1887-I891), particularly in the use of a

further interior seen through an open doorway, albeit the handling

may owe a debt to the Academie Julien in Paris, Although Elwell was

not to become an Associate of the Royal Academy until 1931? and Dick until 1921, Arnesby Brown had been Royal Academician since 1915 ana Derwent Hood Associate of the Royal Academy since 1910. The lat­

ter’s Psyche (Plate 4) uas generally well thought of, as belonging to the sculpture that, according to The Studio, showed substantial signs of progress. Hood had studied in the Royal Academy Schools in 1894? had once worked for Sir Thomas Brock, and had been in Paris 1896-7.

Only three paintings were bought in 1920, when the.recommend- • ing committee consisted of the new Keeper, Charles Sims, with Kenry Tuke and Charles Shannon. It is of interest to note that Halter Greaves* Hammersmith Bridge and Chelsea Regatta were considered, but not purchased - it was not until 1922 .that .Hammersmith Bridge on Boat Race Day was acquired by the Bequest. In 1920 the works of A. J.Runnings, Hark Fisher and Oliver Hall were preferred. All three

4

f

were established Royal Academy exhibitors * vall three paintings were 1 Arnesby Brown from I89O, Frederick Elwell and Derwent Hood from

1895? Hilliam Reid Dick from 1912. 2 The Conno i s s eur June 1919 P 113.

3 The Studio LXXIX Ho.315 June 1919 P 6.

4 A .J .Runnings exhibited at the Royal Academy from 1899? Kark Fisher from 1872 and Oliver Hall from I89O.

purchased from the annual exhibition), and were either Associates

1

or Academicians . Runnings * Eosorn Downs; City and Suburban Day (Plate 5) «as particularly well received, even if the critic of The Cormoisseur was still a little worried about the ’sketchiness* of

the technique. This gentleman might have expressed similar reser­ vations about Hark Fisher’s Feeding the Fowls (Plate 6). Both

2

Fisher and Munnings had worked in Paris . Their-work certainly has a vitality and freshness which appears to be lacking from Oliver Hall's Shap Moors (Plate 7)? which by virtue of its 'faded* look was criticized.as barely justifying the artist's recent Associateship^• Moreover C.R.Grundy, in a Connoisseur editorial entitled The Royal

4

Academy. A -plea to the Government protested at the apparent par— ' tiality shown to Academicians and Associates in the annual exhib­ ition, and made a plea for more extensive exhibition facilities. Grundy implied that, owing to the large amount of hanging-space re­ served for Academicians and Associates, ’outsiders’ stood little chance of laving works accepted. This.resulted in the acceptance of a large number of miniatures, watercolours and small works by

’outsiders’

’The Outsiders, with the exception of those in immediate run­ ning for Academic honours generally confine their contributions to small examples, knowing that their size will be among their

greatest recommendations to the Hanging Committee.* ..

The 40 x 50 size of Hall's painting would seem to substantiate the