I LAST wrote to the Glasgow Herald (as it still was) over a quarter of a century ago. The issue then was the proposed replacement of the St Andrews Hall by a sort of hybrid of an Italian piazza and New York's Lincoln Centre (but without New York's heated pavements).
Of course, as a mere scientist, I am not expected by the ''general public'' to have, let alone express, opinions on matters artistic or aesthetic. But what I read in your recent reports concerning the Glasgow Museums scene persuades me to put pen to paper again.
Apparently, in blatant opposition to the clear wishes of Sir William Burrell, the Scottish courts are to be asked to allow items from his collection to be sent away on loan. Is it perhaps safer to do so now than in his day?
On the contrary: the greatly increased incidence of art theft is the main change, but the inevitable use of air transport also adds to the risk, not merely because of crashes, but because inadequate control of pressure in the hold can damage a wide range of art and artfacts.
The whole project is an insult to the memory of a fine collector and most generous donor. Its only effect can be to discourage potential future donors. I doubt that any Scottish judge can agree to such a proposal or that we have lawyers prepared to take this undesirable and hopefully unwinnable brief for the sake of a fee at the taxpayers' expense.
One further reads that the still fine Kelvingrove Gallery is to be organised completely. Apparently it will be old-fashioned to allow visitors to enjoy, say, its splendid collection of French Impressionists as a group of paintings. They are to be viewed separately alongside indifferent paintings and objects concerned with the same subject - and while listening to the Director's highly personal view about each or to a musical accompaniment according to his controversial taste.
Art lovers of my generation will remember the time when the first few paintings were brought back from wartime safe storage. They included ''our'' Rembrandt (Man in Armour) and that uniquely superb work by an unknown artist described as the Maitre de Moulins.
I was a student at ''the University'' then and would wander down to the gallery munching my sandwiches in Kelvingrove Park on the way and stand admiring that work, uncluttered by the exhibits now destined to surround it. How many of my successors will don a helmet and listen to the tape to identify the same work?
And who is this paragon of virtue who is so keen to drag us into a twenty-first century which seems more like an Orwellian 1984? His name is Julian Spalding and his most recent achievment is the creation of a Gallery of Modern Art. I hope that most of your readers, who have not yet been there, will go to see how their taxes have been spent. I don't think that many will go back to show it off to their visiting friends. To put it bluntly, it is an abomination.
We are assured that every item has been personally selected by Mr Spalding. But then, since his taste is perfect, any advice which a less modest curator would have sought, would have detracted from his achievement.
The art lovers of Glasgow have had enough of Mr Spalding's machinations. His continued actions, unsupported by other experts or by democratic consultation, would have the result that never again could Glasgow be described as a City of Culture. Please spare us his further efforts.
Peter L Pauson
(Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of Strathclyde),
40a Station Road, Bearsden.
March 26.
I AM appalled to see (Art exhibition faces huge loss, March 26) that a total of #500,000 has been paid for this work to a French company in Creamuse, Strasbourg, when Glasgow Museums staff are being sacked. How is it that this job is not being done in-house and why have these jobs not been tendered for properly?
It is a fact that jobs over #5000 must go out to tender and that jobs over #50,000 must be passed by the Arts and Culture Committee. Why is Glasgow Council giving jobs to the French?
Jane Porter,
48 Edgehill Road,
Glasgow.
March 26.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article