Vandalism at Kelvingrove

Published on Sunday 28 January 2007 01:20

I HEARTILY concur with Magnus Linklater's article on the dumbing down of displays at Kelvingrove ('Painting by numbers', Review, January 21). My visit to the gallery left me angry and close to tears. I regard certain paintings as old friends, but I could not engage with them surrounded by a cacophony of distractions (garish walls and labels, voiceovers, piped music, projections, headphone points, etc).

I came across Orchardson's masterpiece Marriage Of Convenience defaced with an array of touch screen monitors and Perspex (I felt like ripping it down). Every painting in the Impressionist room had a horrid flip chart attachment projecting from the wall and I had to fall to my knees to view the badly hung Vuillard (must be a favourite with Nabis toddlers). Titian's Christ And The Adulteress and the Bellini Madonna could not be contemplated in silence because of the nearby narration concerning Botticelli's Annunciation (sacrilegiously reduced to a video game).

The 'curators' are guilty of institutional vandalism for taking their blades of 'inclusion' and 'outreach' to an outstanding collection. Kelvingrove's paintings should be transferred to the National Galleries of Scotland or the National Gallery in London for safekeeping, until the present iconoclastic regime is consigned to history - I won't return until then.

Raymond Bell, Falkirk

THE Kelvingrove has always been a wonderful place for children to encounter the world, but what child needs to believe that a late Victorian lady in a bustle is using a mobile phone? Making learning 'fun' with such jokes falsifies reality and this pervades the entire place.

For the museum to go back to a trusted place of learning it must stop doing this. To interfere with an adult visitor's enjoyment is impertinent, but once children have 'seen' that the phone is contemporary with the gasolier and side whiskers they must unlearn this, then cope with the sense that somebody in Kelvingrove is making jokes at their expense. This will ensure that they will never voluntarily set foot in the place, which will be a huge loss.

Alexandra Davidson, Dundrenan

A PICTURE does indeed seem to say a thousand words, exemplified by Robert Perry's excellent photograph accompanying Mr Linklater's article. The photograph demonstrates all that is good about the gallery - inclusion and accessibility, especially for our young - and all that is wrong with Mr Linklater's essay.

As a Glaswegian, I acknowledge being protective about the city council's inclusive approach to culture, but I feel that the piece was still overly critical, verging on snobbery. On one occasion, Mr Linklater outlines the accessibility of the collection and the ability to almost physically examine the brush strokes of several paintings, an observation which I believed was heading towards a positive until I was advised this is "not necessarily a criticism" - from which I take it to mean that it should be regarded as criticism. It set the tone for a thoroughly uppity and, ironically, childish study.

In respect of the captioning, it's obvious to me that the target audience for the captions are the younger generation, who surely cannot be faulted for not necessarily having the ability to form their own impressions. In turn, the gallery cannot be faulted for prompting such thought, with the hope that this inclusive interaction harnesses an interest which blossoms in later years.

Surely there is no obligation on visitors to be led or even read the captioning, and the "wonderful assembly" can still be enjoyed by those so inclined, or as Mr Linklater would have it, so able.

Raymond Quinn, Paisley