Glasgow To Lose Burrell Collection, Sir William Burrell's wishes to be discarded Options

[DavidT]

If they break up the famous collection then who is to say that they will ever put it back together again. This is a quite disgraceful turn of events even for a city where the thoughts of people are treated like dirt. Why is there no outcry in the media or from other politicians?

I have to agree Mary. Didn't something like this happen to Mclellan's much smaller collection? Some of it is in Kelvingrove, some in the trades house, some in storage. I don't know if that accounts for the whole lot.

[serabash]

Maybe if we sack Bridget McConnell and her cronies we can save enough to cover the costs of keeping the collection together.

[JAGZ1876]

Enough public pressure may force them to have an about turn just like they did with the George Square debacle.

[GG]

Maybe the bill for the Commonwealth Games has come in. Time to get the family silver out!!

I think there is certainly a risk that we will be paying for the Commonwealth Games for years to come – either directly or indirectly! However, Glasgow Life is actually looking for more money to revamp the Burrell building over a 4-5 year period. Incredibly, Councillor Archie Graham claims that it will cost £45 million to revamp the building ... that's more than double what it cost to build it in the first place!

GG.

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[GG]

What kind of people are we dealing with when they wish to break a contract ie the covenant made by the city and Sir William.Their arrogance is breathtaking.
If the building needs refurbishment by all means close it and get the work done but there should be no wriggle room when it comes to the collection.
I have to ask what legal power would the Scottish Govt have to make decisions of the type they are asking ?
I just remembered I visited the Burrell 97-98 when I was deployed on the M77 construction and I recall there were buckets placed about because of leaks.
I bought this piece as a momento.

Nice piece, Jupiter. I hope it's not an original!

The Scottish government has the legal authority to remove the restrictions on travel imposed in Sir 
William’s 1944 will and 1953 codicil. It requires formal legislation, which is to be considered by a committee of four MSPs, and that's currently taking place at Holyrood under the title 'Burrell Collection (Lending and Borrowing) Scotland Bill'. A preliminary decision on whether the Bill will be passed is not likely to be taken until November this year, with a final decision likely in January of next year. An initial report on the proceeding so far can be found as a PDF document here.

According to Councillor Graham, Glasgow City Council has already committed to contributing £15 million, and they hope to get a further £15 million from the National Lottery Fund ... but the real doubtful figure is that Glasgow Life think they will get the same amount, £15 million, in profits from commercial sponsors! I've no doubt whatsoever that the commercial sponsorship would not end if the Burrell Collection ever returned to Pollok Park, more likely it would be the thin end of the wedge, and that is something, I believe, that really should be put to the people of Glasgow ... or we might get a big McDonalds sign over the entrance to the Burrell in future!

GG.

[Jupiter]

Thanks GG ,you have explained the powers the government possess ,I only hope that measures other than those proposed can be adopted.

[norrie123]

If Glasgow cant afford this collection it should be returned, if possible to any descendants of Burrell, yes I know, it will never happen 45 million to revamp the building, why not use the Kelvin Hall, as far as I am aware they are empty just now?
Bye for now, norrie

[GG]

Thanks Jupiter. I should have mentioned that the current parliamentary proceedings are an extension of a bitter and costly legal battle that the council had with the Burrell trustees and family in 1997. On that occasion, the council got a far from convincing victory from four Westminster parliamentary commissioners in their fight to overturn Sir William's wishes. The next stage was supposed to be what is known as an order confirmation bill from Westminster, presumably to put the decision into a legal framework, but I suppose that fell by the wayside with the formation of the Scottish parliament.

Anyway, notable from that 1997 decision was the reaction of the Burrell family. Following the decision, Ruth Mackenzie, then 87, Sir William's niece and oldest living relative and one of the few people still alive at that time who knew the shipping magnate well, said:

"This decision is completely contrary to what was in the will. And we all feel that it is wrong to break the will and split the collection.

It is going to set a very bad precedent for other collections and people who want to donate works of art. Ethically it is just wrong and Sir William would be truly horrified. I feel very let down by Glasgow council who have broken their word: what could be worse than that."

During the proceedings, Ms Mackenzie had made this heartfelt plea:

"It's a matter of honour, a question of if you honour your commitment or not. The council gave its word that it would honour his wishes but it has now done its best to overturn them.

I used to visit Uncle William at Hutton Castle with my mother. She was his youngest and favourite sister. They built up quite a bit of the collection together while travelling on the continent, they used to hunt as a pair.

He would be furious if he knew what the council is doing. I don't think he would have given it to Glasgow if he knew this would happen, he would have given it to someone he could have trusted, perhaps Edinburgh as the capital, I think.

He would have thought the money spent on this hearing [from the Burrell trust] would have been better spent adding to the collection."

GG.

[Jupiter]

That statement in my opinion should be all that is required to put the brakes on the proposals.This is the complete answer to the point I made in an earlier post re family wishes.GG thanks for taking the time to look into this.

[Dylan]

I took my children regularly when they were young.

A National Treasure with treasures !

Five years for required building work.?

Who are they trying to kid. Surely this could be easily exposed !!

[Billbhein]

Why not compromise; Close down the City Chambers for five years and send the occupants to the four corners of the earth on loan. Hopefully most of them would be lost to the city forever, as would the Burrell Collection if these people get their own way.

Billbhein

[GG]

Please allow me to take you to task here for calling those responsible "IDIOTS". Idiots they are obviously not as they have succeeded where others have failed in robbing Glasgow of it's most prized cultural asset. ...

I would have to agree with you, Talisman and HarryMc. We are not dealing with idiots here – although we may be angry with their decisions – these people are far from idiots; on the contrary, they are calculating, patient and intelligent, knowing how to influence the levers of power while, at the same time, muting the opposition. Worrying times for Glasgow.

GG.

[carmella]

I am actually surprised that they are being allowed to feed the media and the public these stories - I think this is rubbish about the roof repairs and the 45, million how can they possibly justify this, has anyone taken them to task, or is it just the case that because they are who they are, they get carte blanche to do whatever they want, and justify it by whatever means they want.

I think that this is such a serious matter i.e. the roof and the cost involved, that it should be referred to a higher authority, and asked why the roof was not maintained properly all these years. I recall when the building was built, and it was state of the art, custom built to house the collection which was the same size then as it is now, so why all of a sudden is it deemed insufficient and in need of a further 45 million???

My mind is having a hard time accepting what we've been told to be honest.

[Doug1]

I dont personally care what they do with the building but the Burrell collection must surely be kept intact, is that not what Sir William wanted. Had space been available I would have loved to see it either in or adjacent to the Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum where it would have been accessed by far more visitors in a more central city location.

[GG]

Regarding the very real dangers the Burrell Collection will face during any transportation process – including the “put in condition” procedure prior to moving objects – anyone with an interest should read the following informative ArtWatch article:

Protecting the Burrell Collection ~ A Blast against Risk-Deniers
http://artwatchuk.wordpress.com/2013/09/06/6-september-2013

The article concludes with this highly-pertinent warning:

[...] Burrell be warned. Awful as recent “developments” at the Phillips have been, the United States has witnessed an even greater betrayal of a bequest: the wresting of the entire contents of the Barnes Collection from its, also bequested, delightful purpose-built original home and grounds, in order to place it in a worse than awful modernist pile a few miles away, hard by a noisy polluting freeway in the centre of Philadelphia. The denouement of the Barnes Bequest hike began (as is proposed at the Burrell) with a vast international travelling exhibition. At the Barnes, as now at the Burrell, the jaunt was premised on the morally-coercive “conservation” justification of putting the building itself “into condition” on behalf of the great collection of works. Humbug has rarely appeared so rank. The specially commissioned “site specific” Matisse mural was detached from the walls of the museum, packed on a flat-bed, open truck – against all reassuring conservation-compatible promises – and carried at an angle (see photographs, right) to Washington. Nick Tinari, who is to submit testimony to the Burrell Inquiry, has informed ArtWatch “I can state unequivocally that damage was done on the tour to the Matisse mural, the Seurat Models and a Picasso. I have documentation for all three.” Tinari further points out that, as with the intended Burrell tour, the Barnes tour – which netted $7m – breached the benefactor’s express prohibition on foreign loans. Far from serving to make the collection safe, that earlier exercise paved the way to a full takeover. More generally, it served as a template for trustees everywhere who might wish to harvest cash value that is otherwise locked into permanently housed works of art.

Clearly, Dr Penny’s intervention addresses much more than the welfare of the Burrell Collection, precious and vulnerable though it is. It is greatly to Penny’s credit that he should have spoken in such frank (and brave) terms. It is also greatly to the credit of the Scottish Parliament that it should be engaging in such an open exercise before another art world horse may be induced to bolt.

My personal opinion is that the breaking up of the collection is not simply an event, rather, it is the start of a wider process – similar to that which transformed the Barnes Collection – which will fundamentally alter the Burrell Collection in ways we cannot yet envisage.

GG.