Representations of fame: the National Portrait Gallery in post-war Britain

Susan Martin, Institute of Historical Research

‘The success of the whole scheme governance and the portraits acquired depended on confining the gallery to or displayed. The gallery was under men of real distinction’;1 Earl Stanhope, the directorship of Sir Henry Hake, one of the founders of the National who had been director since 1927, Portrait Gallery (NPG) in 1856, hoped and the trustees held similar status, it would provide both pleasure and professions or interests to the original instruction to the industrious classes aristocratic board of trustees. They were through drawing attention to the not averse to change — historian and heights which they could admire or trustee G.M. Young did put forward a aspire to. This notion determined the memorandum in 1950 that recognised type of portraits the gallery acquired the need to acknowledge the and displayed. There were portraits of achievement of highly distinguished, soldiers, statesmen, literary men and but less well known or less enduring scientists; all of high-ranking status. It individuals, and the other trustees was not until the second half of the 20th responded with broad agreement2 century that the Victorian objectives — but there were few fundamental with which the gallery was founded developments during this time. Aside were broadened and adapted. from displays of recent acquisitions, special temporary exhibitions were For much of Britain the immediate post- infrequent until the late 1950s. There Jane Austen by Cassandra Austen, 1810. Acquired war years were marked with recovery, was, however, an exhibition in 1948 in 1948. Currently on display in room 18 of the development and change. But the NPG organised for a portrait of Jane Austen gallery.© National Portrait Gallery, London was notably unchanged in both its by her sister Cassandra. This was the only original portrait of Jane Austen Although this might not have seemed in the natural remit of the NPG, the ‘The Chandos Portrait’. William Shakespeare, and was purchased with help from attributed to John Taylor, circa 1610. This was the Friends of the National Libraries. Festival also marked the centenary of the first portrait to be acquired by the gallery in Such developments and events were the Great Exhibition in 1851 and the 1856. It is currently touring the country as part significant but modest. The focus of the NPG participated with an exhibition of a ‘Writers of Influence’ exhibition.© National entitled Some Leading Characters of Portrait Gallery, London director and trustees was on recovery and reopening. There was not any 1851; some 150 portraits were exhibited notable change or innovation that might including prints, drawings, sculpture and situate the gallery more comfortably in paintings. Most were from the gallery’s the social and political environment of own collection. The NPG’s involvement in post-war Britain. the Festival did not mark any change of approach or role for the gallery. Instead, In 1951, the year Charles Kingsley it serves to emphasise how it remained, Adams became director, the last of as described by the current Chair of the war-damaged galleries were trustees Sir David Cannadine in his brief redecorated and reopened. This was history of the gallery, ‘a quintessentially 4 also the year of the Festival of Britain, Victorian institution’. a national exhibition devised by the Labour government in the spirit of The 1960s were a turning point for bringing the arts to everyone: ‘the the gallery. David Piper was director idea was to represent the history and between 1964 and 1967, after holding potential of the British people – not the post of Assistant Keeper from just of distinguished individuals’.3 1946 upon returning from a Japanese

10 www.history.ac.uk Representations of fame prisoner of war camp. There was an But the Portrait Award encouraged and increase in the number of exhibitions promoted portraiture as an art form and during Piper’s time at the gallery. He highlighted the gallery’s recognition also instigated an education programme of the importance of the art and the with regular public lectures. Their style and form of the portraiture. There success encouraged a regular series was significant rearrangement and of lunch-hour lectures and further reorganisation of the galleries during programmes for school parties. He Hayes’s directorship and, although raised the profile of the gallery through Strong’s display style did not survive broadcasts, lectures and publications, into the 1980s, there was a continued including the Catalogue of Seventeenth awareness of changing fashions and Century Portraits which was the first tastes within museum display. The systematic study of any of the gallery’s portraits were returned to greater collection. Cannadine believes that Piper prominence in the displays and there recognised that further development was ‘a new respect for the gallery’s 10 would be beneficial for the gallery, Sir Roy Strong by Cecil Beaton, 1970s. Accepted by building and original plan of its rooms’. which despite his efforts was still the government in 1991 in lieu of tax. © National By the 1980s acceptance or purchase considered a scholarly and conservative Portrait Gallery, London of photographic portraits was normal institution, but he felt that it was for the acquisition, it was not to go ahead. and there were regular acquisitions of someone else to reform, not him.5 Piper In his published diary Strong describes portraits of popular and well-known and Lord Kenyon, the then chair of how his relationship with the still rather living sitters that perhaps were not trustees, changed the age requirements conservative trustees was uneasy; they always what Stanhope had hoped for for applicants for the position of director did not all approve of his distinctive when he had envisaged a gallery of ‘men from over 35 to over 30, which allowed appearance or his enthusiasm for of real distinction’. 31 year old Roy Strong to succeed to the change. He remarks that in ‘the old days directorship in 1967. the Trustees chose the wallpapers. The second half of the 20th century God protect us from that’.7 Strong was an exciting and important phase Strong was unconventional and initiated a programme of redecoration in the history of the NPG. Ultimately it controversial. He was director until and re-hanging that was described by modernised and adapted but remains a 1975 and in this time there were 35 Lord Kenyon as a ‘type of evocative gallery dedicated to the representation temporary exhibitions. Of these, it storytelling’.8 He grouped portraits of eminent individuals in British history. was an exhibition of Cecil Beaton’s according to the period and background It was realised and accepted that photographic portraits in 1968 of the sitters rather than in compact eminence in post-war Britain was often that marked a defining moment in rows and included objects loaned from different and diverse or attained and the direction of the gallery. Beaton other museums to help illustrate the represented in different ways to the photographed not only members of historical context. His approach to Victorian ideals pertaining when the the royal family but also other well- display was in keeping with the trend gallery was established. There was an known figures such as actors and for popular history and helped to revive increasing awareness of the influence of writers. He worked for both Vogue the gallery’s attractiveness to visitors. changing political and cultural contexts and Vanity Fair and was known for his The popularity of Strong’s exhibitions on how the gallery and its collections fashion photography. As such, he was and displays encouraged the Treasury were perceived. This continued an unusual, but popular choice for the to increase the annual purchase grant recognition became important in NPG. About 32,000 people visited the from £8,000 to £40,000 in 1970.9 He maintaining the gallery’s popularity and exhibition in the first two weeks, a soon became a well-known and in- success. record for the gallery and its run was demand personality in Sixties London, twice extended. This was the first giving lectures, attending professional exhibition dedicated to photography and social events and parties, actively and its success encouraged Strong to fundraising for the gallery and making set up a new department for film and regular contributions to magazines photography. and newspapers. He was well attuned to the spirit of the time and this was In 1969 Strong persuaded the trustees reflected in his innovations at the to discard Stanhope’s ‘10-year rule’, gallery. It was under his direction that which allowed the gallery only to the gallery began to reflect the cultural 1 Hansard Parliamentary Debates Vol. 140, House of acquire a portrait if the sitter had been circumstances and tastes of the period Lords, March 4 1856. deceased for at least 10 years. This in a way that had not been done since 2 Minutes of Trustees meetings, 22 June 1950. ensured that only portraits of individuals 3 Alan Sinfield, ‘The Government, the People and the gallery was established. the Festival’ in Jim Fyrth (ed.), Labour’s Promised of enduring significance were acquired. Land? Culture and Society in Labour Britain 1945- Strong’s intervention was a significant Strong’s successor, art historian John 1951 (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1995), p. 184. 4 turning point; an intrinsic rule that Hayes, was director from 1975 to David Cannadine, National Portrait Gallery: A Brief had been in place since the gallery’s History (London: National Portrait Gallery), p. 59. 1994. He continued Strong’s innovative 5 Ibid. foundation and was vital in determining approach and established the Imperial 6 Annual Report, 1967-1975. the portraits the gallery could acquire Tobacco Portrait Award (now the BP 7 Roy Strong, The Roy Strong Diaries 1967-1987 and display had been abandoned. It (London: Phoenix, 1997, 1998), p. 45. Portrait Award). Although the trustees 8 Peter Funnell, ‘Display at the National Portrait was, however, agreed that acquisitions had always recognised that the quality Gallery, London, 1968-1975’, in Deborah Cherry of portraits of living sitters or those of the art was important in acquiring a and Fintan Cullen (eds.), Spectacle and Display deceased less than 10 years should only (Chicester: Blackwell, 2008), p. 134. good likeness, the status of the sitter 9 6 Annual Report, 1967-1975. be ‘in exceptional circumstances’ and, if was considered more important than 10 Funnell, ‘Display at the National Portrait Gallery,’ three or more trustees did not agree to the status of the artist or the artwork. p. 135.

Past and Future 11