Our may editorial discussed several aspects of the current situation at Tate Britain. In particular it criticised the display of the permanent collection and the haemorrhaging of a number of curators. A reply from the Director, Penelope Curtis, is published on p.491 of this issue. It is hardly the robust response that we had expected – indeed, it endorses some of our misgivings – and it does not fully address the question as to why so little space was allocated in the current temporary hang to British art pre-1900. Nevertheless, we must welcome the confirmation of Tate Britain’s desire, in the new display following the completion of current renovations, scheduled for next year, for a coherent chronological hang, especially for the historic holdings; and it is heartening to read of the appointment of new curators who will ‘bring with them valuable skills and learning’. We are also informed that works by Constable, an artist, as has been widely observed, omitted from the room currently devoted to earlier British art, can now be seen in the Clore Gallery, juxtaposed with ones by Turner. This is indeed the case, but the impression given is as if the resident master had condescended to invite his (just) junior colleague to share a little of his space. The similarities of subject-matter (views of Yarmouth, Brighton, etc.) strikingly underline once again the extreme differences between the two painters, something perhaps recognised in the accompanying wall text which struggles to find much affinity beyond one or two biographical coincidences. Even under the current temporary conditions, surely one of the greatest British artists should have been displayed with more respect. Also in the Clore is a room of works on paper by Turner selected by the admirable American artist Vija Celmins, well known for her drawings of the sea and sky, a number of which are in an adjoining room. In its way it is a perfect example of the pointless bringing together of the old and the new; it tells us very little about either artist, Celmins admitting that their approaches are completely at odds.

The Director writes that the Editorial sidestepped the whole question of the Clore Gallery and the Turner Bequest and suggests that we might have mentioned, as a feather in Tate Britain’s cap, the continuing cataloguing of the Bequest. We deliberately avoided expanding on this subject while curatorial arrangements for the Clore were still undecided. We hope to comment further on this when the catalogue is finished, all being well, in 2014 when it will become fully available online. What does deserve congratulation, although a much smaller undertaking, is the completion of the catalogue of Tate Britain’s considerable holdings of works by the Camden Town Group painters, a project begun a number of years ago with a published volume in view. This was abandoned and the catalogue went online early this June.

We have to admit to some satisfaction at the positive reactions to our Editorial, especially after it received considerable coverage in the national press. Our words obviously touched a nerve: many responses (written and spoken) were coloured by disappointment, even sadness at the current situation. They ran from the crestfallen occasional visitor (‘bitterly disappointed’) to preeminent figures in the curatorial world (‘a national disgrace’) and scholars of British art (‘a very important and much needed appeal’). The more general prefatory remarks about the deteriorating status of curators generated keen assent.

On 17th May a press conference was held to announce that Tate Britain had reached its funding target of £45 million for internal renovation and refurbishment and the creation of a new Archive gallery. A grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund for this (and associated educational projects) was complemented by funds from Tate Members and several charitable bodies such as The Monument Trust, the Clore Duffield Foundation and the J. Paul Getty Jnr Charitable Trust. This is, of course, a commendable achievement in hard times and the Gallery deserves praise. It does, however, throw into relief the difficulties being faced by regional museums, great and small – a topic that is no stranger to this Editorial page. In spite of a number of welcome first-aid initiatives – the Arts Council England’s museum development fund, the Government’s ‘Catalyst: Endowments’ programme, The Art Fund Collect scheme – many regional museums are ailing. Indeed, as our May Editorial made clear, some of the problems identified at Tate Britain involving curators, display and scholarly standards are by no means confined to Millbank. But Tate Britain’s success at raising funds has to be offset by the difficulties faced by regional museums and galleries, particularly when HLF or Art Fund grants have to be matched by philanthropic or corporate giving that, on a substantial scale at least, is not easily forthcoming. This is all the more reason that the Gallery’s conduct should be seen as exemplary.

If Tate Britain is to renew this national status, it must also be seen as a player on the international stage. In the twelve years of its existence, it has achieved this mostly through its temporary exhibitions, many of which have been outstanding, especially those that have placed British art in relation to that of other countries (the current Picasso and Modern British Art is an excellent example). But it cannot rely on these. The rehangs of the permanent collection galleries over the last decade and more, while sometimes offering refreshing insights and displaying unfamiliar works, have not always shown the outstanding historic and early modern holdings to their best advantage. If the Director is able to devise ‘a hang which covers the full run of the collection’, with decisive flair and authority, then she will earn widespread gratitude.