Saatchi Gallery, London
There’s more than meets the eye and much that doesn’t add up about Charles Saatchi‘s recent public disclosure that he is “is gifting over 200 works [from his collection], and the Saatchi Gallery [the former adman’s art facility in Chelsea], to create a Museum of Contemporary Art for London.” The core permanent collection is said to be “worth more than £25 million at current market value.”
For reasons best known to Saatchi, Thursday’s announcement, while garnering mostly favorable publicity for the project, was premature.
For one thing, it seems clear from the tentative, conditional language of the released information that the gift has not yet been perfected, nor have the plans been finalized:
The Saatchi Gallery is currently in discussion with potential Government departments who would own the works on behalf of the nation [emphasis added].
If this were a done deal, with only incidental details to be fleshed out, the announcement would likely have been made not solely by the giver but jointly with the recipient—a government official expressing gratitude for Saatchi’s benefaction. Carol Vogel reported last week in the NY Times that “the British government has not yet accepted the gift.”
When I inquired by e-mail whether the gift would definitely happen, Rachel Duffield, Saatchi’s spokesperson, replied: “The gift has definitely been made.” British Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt seemed to confirm this to the BBC, stating: “His [Saatchi’s] decision to gift these works to the nation is an act of incredible
generosity and I’d like to thank him on behalf of the government.”
Still, there are a number of problematic aspects to this gift, which may have put a damper on negotiations. Saatchi’s decision to go public could be a way of applying pressure for an agreement. According to Duffield, “the reason Saatchi has decided to make this announcement now is because, ahead of his retirement, Saatchi is keen to put plans in place.”
As several commentators have noted, Great Britain already has a great national museum in London that’s devoted, in part, to contemporary art—the Tate. Saatchi believes a new museum is needed, Duffield said, “to ensure that London has a prestigious museum of contemporary art that is able to display a ‘living’ and evolving collection of work, rather than an archive of art history [the Tate, presumably].”
Saatchi is known as a trader, not a keeper. To make sure that London MOCA’s collection continues to evolve, he has hit upon the unusual strategy of giving to London MOCA not only a core permanent collection but also a group of works to be monetized, providing acquisition funds for the next new thing.
Also unorthodox is the complete absence of operating endowment. Duffield says that “the Saatchi Gallery’s management team will run it as it is today,” supporting operations solely through sponsorships and earned income. Admission to the gallery will remain free (thanks to the continued sponsorship of Phillips de Pury & Company, the auction house) and no government support is being sought—not even tax relief in exchange for the gift. In the U.S, establishing a new museum with a collection but no endowment or government support would be a recipe for disaster. Can this work in Great Britain, or might the government find itself as subsidizer of last resort?
Also problematic is dignifying an important but very personal, quirky collection with the sweeping title of “London Museum of Contemporary Art.” For the foreseeable future, it will, in esssence, be the “London Museum of Saatchi Art,” but that’s not a sufficiently public-spirited name to accompany a gift to the nation.
It won’t be until 2012 that the British public will begin to see what they’re getting, in the first of three planned exhibitions rolling out the core collection. The recent announcement (linked at the top) identifies a few key works (with some images). But the rest is, for now, TBA.