The revamped National Portrait Gallery: Our Review

The National Portrait Gallery is one of our favourite places to visit – you can drop by and see a section then come back and see another, ad infinitum. When the Gallery closed in 2020 for a much-needed refurbishment, we were excited when it was announced that it was reopening in June 2023, and apprehensive about how much a loved institution might have been changed.

So finally, after three years and £41 million, what did we think? For a start, its brighter and there are now two visitor entrances which makes it less congested, and it also allows aspects of the original fixtures to shine. Some of the hang is also much improved and allows visitors to see the portraits, photos or busts better.

The presentation is still more or less chronological with a few themes thrown in. We also get to see portraits, busts, and photos that either have never been seen before or have not been displayed for years, even decades. In addition, there were features on techniques in portraiture such as engravings and mezzotints as well as chronicling the early history of photography.  Old favourites and iconic likenesses from the collection are back. It’s a place where you can go to again and again.

However, there’s also a lot to nitpick with the new National Portrait Gallery. First, with the building itself – the new visitor entrance as pointed out at the beginning eases congestion as it allows visitors to enter and exit via two different doors, but the design of the doors in the new entrance leaves a lot to be desired. I can understand the rationale behind the design as its meant to echo the doors of several churches and cathedrals in Italy; but to commission Tracey Emin who in our opinion is not a good artist displayed poor judgement. The best thing that can be said about her engravings is that they look as if they have been done by an untalented five year old using their non-dominant hand, and the worst that they’re a puerile embarrassment. If the management wanted to go for childish illustrations, then they could have done better and saved money by commissioning children from across the UK to submit in works to adorn the new door.

Next is with regards to the subjects. We can understand that not everyone can be accommodated and there’s not enough space to display everything in the NPG’s collection, but it does beg the question – who makes the decision as to who to include and exclude? Some glaring omissions include Captain Robert Falcon Scott; the women who made up the suffragist movement; Margaret Bondfield, first female cabinet minister and Privy Counsellor; Daley Thompson, a double Olympic champion who dominated his field during the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, among others. And for some reason medieval English kings have been enclosed in large boxes despite having perfectly good frames.

There’s also what we suspect is the usual employment of the box ticking exercise. It seems to us that the NPG is desperate to increase representation among women and minorities to the point that they even shoehorn people who have absolutely nothing or little to do with the UK. The likes of Anna May Wong and Florence Mills are American, sure they might have worked in the UK for a time but what makes them deserve of a place in the NPG pantheon at the expense of someone homegrown? The most baffling however is the inclusion of a portrait of Toussant L’Ouverture who was the leader of the Haitian independence movement against France. Why? He has nothing to do with Britain and British history at all.

And finally, there’s the employment of the familiar trope that seems to be de rigueur with British museums & heritage sites now and that’s the obsession with race and slavery. Many of the interpretation of some key figures especially from the 18th and 19th centuries are focused on slavery as if that’s the only aspect of their lives. Others are crouched in the usual “white person bad, UK bad” bellyaching that’s blighted our intellectual discourse and as a result yet again reduces the subject to the level of a pantomime villain or victim. Other captions are almost patronising to the point of insulting the visitor’s intelligence. We’ve noticed this over the years that we have been visiting museums and galleries – that the captioning is pitched at the level of an intelligent 10 year old, which is fine if that’s what you are. Not so good if you like being treated like an adult.

The one saving grace perhaps is despite the one-dimensional focus on race, gender, and slavery with some of the displays, the NPG have not decided to go in the way of the Tate and the National Trust when it comes to indulging in cancel culture.  As the director Nicholas Cullinan told the Daily Telegraph, “We’re not here to make moral judgements about people, [m]ost [people] understand that everyone does good and bad things.” It would be great if this view was consistent along the interpretation of the displays.

The shop is slightly disappointing as well. For an establishment with a huge collection of portraits the postcard collection is poor. However, should you be in the market for a plaster death mask of John Keats, the NPG has it. A snip at £ 265. Don’t all rush.

Finally, NPG, if you’re going to demand that people go paperless with their tickets, make sure your Wifi network can cope.

The National Portrait Gallery is open every day. Admission to the permanent collection is free, there is a charge for special exhibitions. For more information go to: https://www.npg.org.uk/

The bloggers visited the gallery on 26 July 2023

Photos taken by bloggers

History Repeating Itself

Over the past 23 months, parallels have been drawn between the response to the Covid crisis and Nazism, Stalinism, and assorted dictatorships regarding measures such as lockdowns, assorted restrictions, forced masking and vaccinations, as well as vaccination passes; not to mention as well the censorship of alternative voices and the crushing of dissent in places like Canada and Australia.

In our case however, the insanity of the last 23 months and the current geopolitical situation have led us to see parallelisms closer to home, how history has repeated itself from Britain’s response during the First World War.

SETTING AN EXAMPLE

As the First World War went on the government was eager to keep the wartime economy productive, and one of the measures that was undertaken was to regulate the consumption of alcohol. Due to claims that war production was being hampered by drunkenness, pubs were ordered to close at 11pm and weak beer was produced to discourage drunkenness and disorder that could harm production.

Going further, King George V on his own initiative wrote to the Prime Minister David Lloyd George offering give up alcohol for the duration of the war to set an example. He did so willingly and mealtimes at the royal residences already described as “austere” and “frugal” became even more so as wine and other alcoholic drinks disappeared from the menu.

Whilst the King was conscientious with setting an example, the politicians and the government did not. Alcohol continued to be served at the Houses of Parliament while the aristocracy, plutocrats and others carried on with having alcohol served with their meals and during dinner parties. Even the general public were not interested and years later the King admitted that he felt like a fool for his abstention, especially as Prime Minister Asquith, who was a heavy drinker, declined to follow the royal family’s example.

Over 100 years later, his granddaughter Queen Elizabeth II was forced to disinvite extended family, friends and representatives of various charities and organisations to the funeral of her husband Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh in May 2021. She also wore a face mask even though she could claim exemption. This was due to Covid regulations that the government had imposed on the country and unsurprisingly the Queen and the royal family felt duty bound to follow the regulations no matter how illogical and insane they appeared to be. According to satirical magazine Private Eye, the government offered to waive the rules for the Prince’s funeral, but the Queen declined, on the grounds she wanted to set an example rather than be an exception to the rules.

A few months’ later it was revealed that several parties were held at Number 10 Downing Street contravening Covid rules and regulations all while the country was locked down, schools were closed, and people couldn’t visit loved ones in hospital and care homes. The predictable furore over “Partygate” resulted into accusations of hypocrisy and laid bare the lies and propaganda peddled by the government, its advisors, and the media. It’s interesting to speculate what the Queen thought of the government and civil servants breaking the very rules they imposed on everyone else when she thought that she was doing her duty and setting an example. Pictures of her sitting alone at her husband’s funeral were widely posted on social media as an example of the government’s heartlessness and hypocrisy and comparing it very unfavourably with the Queen’s adherence to the rules that the entire country had to follow.

ANTI (INSERT COUNTRY HERE) HYSTERIA

When the First World War broke out in 1914, Britain found itself allied with France and Russia fighting Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. The arms race between Britain and Germany that began during the 1890s finally culminated into a full-scale war.

Anti-German feeling had already been bubbling under the surface before the war due to the plethora of scare stories and spy novels, but this feeling became a wave of hysteria as soon as war broke out and over the next four years of the conflict.

Germans living and working in Britain were subjected to hostility and vilification while German owned shops were attacked and vandalised. The hysteria also reached ludicrous heights when dachshunds were kicked in the street, German Shepherd dogs were renamed Alsatians, and orchestras refused to play music by Beethoven and other Germanic composers. Even prominent people with German connections fell foul of this anti-German hysteria: Prince Louis of Battenberg who was married to King George V’s cousin Princess Victoria of Hesse was forced to resign as First Sea Lord despite having lived in Britain and been a British citizen since he was 14 years old. The author D.H. Lawrence had to go into hiding with his wife, Baroness Frieda von Richthofen especially after they were accused of espionage.

The British Royal Family also became caught up in the anti-German hysteria. Thanks to Queen Victoria’s marriage to Prince Albert, the royal family were virtually German in blood and their dynastic name was Saxe-Coburg-Gotha which came from Prince Albert. King George V and Queen Mary however never saw themselves as German, the former being a career Royal Navy officer was more at home in Britain and its people than abroad and his continental relations while the latter born and raised in London once wrote to her former governess Mme. Bricka following a visit to Germany, “thank God I am English.” Finally in 1917, by Letters Patent, the King changed the family name to Windsor and ordered his German relations such as the Battenbergs, Tecks and Gleichens who were British citizens to adopt British surnames and titles.

With the current geopolitical situation and with the rush to support Ukraine, we are seeing a similar hysteria and moral posturing. The supermarket Sainsbury’s has rushed to rebrand “Chicken Kiev” as “Chicken Kyiv” whilst the world of sports and culture rushes to cancel Russian athletes, opera singers, conductors among others. An orchestra in Cardiff dropped a Tchaikovsky concert from its roster of programmes which can be seen as an echo of orchestras refusing to play Beethoven. Even certain institutions of higher learning are rumoured to be dropping Russian authors such as Fyodor Dostoyevsky from their syllabus and in a move reminiscent of dachshunds being kicked in the street, the organiser of a cat show has barred cat breeds that have Russian origins from entering this year’s competition.

oooOOOooo

Successive governments have always used the royals for propaganda purposes, and I would not be surprised if Herbert Asquith, David Lloyd George, and Boris Johnson counted on George V and Elizabeth II’s strong sense of duty in order to chivvy the British public along with accepting the deprivations imposed by governments in response to crises be it war or a pandemic. That said as my examples have shown, these gestures never worked as planned as George V was later to realise with his laudable effort to give up alcohol to set an example. Or they end up serving as a mirror to the government’s hypocrisy such as the parties and gatherings flying in the face of restrictions that carried punitive fines vis a vis images of a 95 year old lady at her husband’s funeral, clearly in discomfort at having to restrict her breathing and being deprived the company of loved ones next to her.

As for the current anti-Russian hysterics, they clearly have parallels with the anti-German hysteria over a hundred years ago. People back in 1914 did not choose where they were born and had no say over what their leaders said and did. It’s no different now. To demonise a people and their culture for the actions of their leader is dangerous and counterproductive.

The Spanish-American philosopher George Santayana once wrote: “those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.” How sad it is that his words still ring true over a hundred years later and especially during the last 23 months.

London on Foot

Bloggers’ note:

I initially thought that the lockdown would have meant more time to blog and write. Unfortunately it didn’t work that way as I was unable to go to a library to do some research. Secondly, I live in a not very good part of London which has barely any green spaces much less a decent high street. While some people have had a good lockdown, I’m sorry to say that I’m not one of those.

When museums and historic homes reopened, I was not ready to play along with the lunacy that they have put under the guise of “safety” and so have partially boycotted them. Also out of the question was window shopping as I had no wish to be treated like a leper. Being treated like one in supermarkets was bad enough.

The one silver lining with all these is that I have taken this opportunity to explore more of London and learn more about this city that I call home. Over the next few entries, I will be documenting about the walks and places I’ve been to over the last few months.

Bruton Street London

Walking around London has taken me around places and streets that either I would have overlooked or only encountered in passing from the window of a bus. One of these streets is Bruton Street in the heart of Mayfair.

I first encountered this street when I was reading a book about Her Majesty the Queen which stated that she was born in the London home of her maternal grandparents the Earl and Countess of Strathmore. Number 17 had been their London address since 1920 and was the Bowes-Lyon family base during the Season.

From photos taken during the early 20th century, the townhouse was typical of the architecture one can see around Central London – large windows, classical columns and an arched doorway. The house itself has witnessed events connected to royal history, not only was Her Majesty born here on 21 April 1926 and where spent the first few months of her life but it was also where her mother the then Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon left for her wedding to the Duke of York on 23 April 1923.

The house like many others in the vicinity fell victim to the German bombs during World War 2 and was demolished afterwards. Today it is an office block and a Chinese restaurant Hakkasan. Two plaques one installed in 1977 and another in 2012 now mark the spot as the Queen’s birthplace.

Across number 17 is number 26 that has the words “Hartnell” emblazoned and a blue plaque by English Heritage that denotes that this was the residence and studio of Sir Norman Hartnell (1901-1979), court dressmaker and fashion designer.

Norman Hartnell might not be a household name now but from the 1930s until his death in 1979; he was the chief designer for Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother (where he created the famous “White Wardrobe” for the French state visit in 1938) and the Queen (he designed her wedding and coronation gowns). He also dressed a number of society ladies, designed costumes for film and stage then from the Second World War onwards also designed clothes for the mass market via sewing patterns; ready to wear; licences for accessories such as tights and costume jewellery as well as a best-selling perfume In Love. These ventures together with travelling fashion shows and reports about the royal family’s engagements in the UK and abroad ensured that Hartnell would always be in the news.

He was also credited for helping put London on the fashion map and pave the way for the British capital to provide serious competition to Paris’s stranglehold on the fashion industry. His designs for the then Queen Elizabeth and Princess Margaret have influenced other designers such as Christian Dior and Christopher Kane.

Hartnell moved into number 26 Bruton Street from number 10 in 1935 as his business grew. Number 26 served his studio, workshop and showroom and from the 1950s was also his main residence. After his death, the couture business was kept running by former employees however rising costs together with social changes meant that the House of Hartnell could no longer survive and compete with new players. It finally closed in 1992 and today the townhouse is home to antique dealers S.J. Phillips, Roland Phillips and the jeweller Glenn Spiro. However the Hartnell name lives on in the signage outside number 26.

The plaques outside number 17 and 26 give us a glimpse into Bruton Street’s former life and its associations with Royalty, aristocracy, fashion and high society.

Photos of present day number 17 and 26 Bruton Street taken by blogger

Further Reading:

Howard Spence (ed.) The English Heritage Guide to Blue Plaques (London, 2019)

Norman Hartnell. Silver and Gold (London, 1955)

Michael Pick. Be Dazzled! Norman Hartnell: Sixty Years of Glamour and Fashion (London, 2007)

Ingrid Seward. The Last Great Edwardian Lady: The Life and Style of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother (London, 1999)

William Shawcross. Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother: The authorised biography (London, 2009)

Deidre Murphy and Cassie Davies-Strodder. Modern Royal Fashion: Seven royal women and their style (London, 2015)

Colin McDowell. A Hundred Years of Royal Style (London, 1985)

A Look at 17 Bruton Street

https://exploring-london.com/tag/17-bruton-street/

Fashioning Royal Style, 1870-1939 Part 2

Exhibition Review: Royal Women: Public Life, Personal Style (Fashion Museum, Bath)