Reuniting J.M.W. Turner's bequest: the search for justice continues

Childe Harold's Pilgrimage, J.M.W. Turner (1823).
Oil on canvas. Tate Gallery, London

LONDON. When J.M.W. Turner died in 1851, he bequeathed "about 300 paintings and 30,000 drawings as well as a large sum of money" to the nation of Great Britain on two conditions: (i) that the works be displayed in a "Turner Gallery" at the National Gallery in London and (ii) that the money be used "for the foundation of an almshouse for elderly artists in the South London suburb of Twickenham." However, after the artist's death, his descendants were successful in challenging his will on the grounds of the absurd "Mortmain law" of 1736 and, despite the House of Lords' Select Committee holding in 1861 that the conditions had to be fulfilled, Turner's wishes have never been met.

The concept of donor intent is riddled with problems, the most notable being the issue of courts having to decipher -- invariably many decades after the donation was made -- what the donor's intent was, and, assuming a court is able to come up with a formulation, whether or not the intent can in fact be fulfilled. Then, of course, there are the public policy concerns related to limiting the scope of a person's right to tie-up property (personal or real) from their grave balanced against the need to incentivize charitable donations. Setting aside my own misgivings about the notion of "donor intent", why it is that the Select Committee's decision of 1861 -- the highest court in England and Wales -- was and continues to be ignored is uncertain and wholly unsatisfactory. It would appear that the artist's intent was pretty clear (the Royal Academy arguing otherwise) and there has been no attempt whatsoever to honor it even though this would still be possible today with respect to the artworks and the underlying reason for the condition (not that this should really matter, legally-speaking at least) was precisely to display the paintings in a cohesive manner for the very benefit of the recipients of the Turner Bequest.

Today Ray Turner (descendent of the artist) and Selby Whittingham (Turner scholar and founder of the Turner Foundation) continue the quest for justice on behalf of the late artist. Next they will meet with the House of Lords' All-Party Arts & Heritage Group to discuss the 1861 Select Committee decision. I personally agree with Whittingham in that "[Turner's] bequested pictures would gain a lot in coherence and interest if shown together" and Turner being one of my favorite painters of all time, I very much hope a "Turner Gallery" is opened one day soon, whether at the National Gallery or another museum.

Who owns Henry Moore's "Knife Edge Two Piece"?

LONDON. In 1967, Henry Moore and the Contemporary Art Society donated Knife Edge Two Piece (1962-65) to the United Kingdom. The bronze sculpture has since stood directly opposite the Houses of Parliament, admired by millions either in person or through its televised appearances in the background of news programs and becoming somewhat of a national emblem. However, the work is "badly discloured and covered with incised graffiti" and because to date it has not been possible to establish its legal owner, no one will assume responsibility for the restoration of the work. Another unfortunate consequence of this apparent legal loophole is the inability of the British Council to loan Knife Edge Two Piece for display in international exhibitions such as the Moore retrospective at the Kremlin in Moscow. According to The Art Newspaper, the British Council could not determine to whom the loan request should be addressed "though it now seems that there might have been no legal impediment to prevent the Council from simply sending the sculpture to Russia." The trade publication meticulously followed the "paper trail" in an attempt to reveal who owned the sculpture but to no avail.

At this point, it's imperative that legal advice be sought (question is, by whom) to put this matter to rest and restore the work to its intended state. But could it be the case that no one in fact owns the work? When a person owns property, whether real or personal, his/her testament or, if the person dies intestate, the relevant jurisdiction's intestacy laws (the Intestacy Rules in England and Wales), establish who the successor owner is or owners are. Yet when it's a non-human legal person that owns property, the situation is arguably quite different. Perhaps the Crown is the residuary taker as under intestacy though that likely wouldn't solve the question of which public body is ultimately responsible. Despite Moore's seemingly erroneous recordation of the City of London as the owner of the gifted sculpture, much of the evidence points to the City of Westminster as being the recipient and caretaker of the work: "both the Contemporary Art Society and the Henry Moore Foundation said that their records showed that it is owned by the City of Westminster (which is recorded in the official Moore catalogue raisonné)" and Abingdon Street Gardens -- where the work has stood since 1967 -- are owned by the City of Westminster. Why it is that Westminster Council refuted ownership is unclear but surely that must be the starting point of the next forensic expedition to establish who owns Knife Edge Two Piece.