National Gallery Page #5

And Greg and I go back to Westminster

and just use this as an example

of things that they have to talk to us about,

so that we're

much more joined up with them,

because we need more notice on this,

so I think we should pick that up

as an action point if you support that.

- I totally do, yes.

- Yeah!

And it would be a good example

to be able to quote.

I supported Julie when

we first heard about this,

cos I thought the exposure is fantastic,

and it is very populist and it actually

gets us to 18 million people,

and it's therefore a good association,

and my only concern in this

is that obviously, it is setting a precedent

in terms of charities, so it does...

you know, in associating

with charities to a degree.

And that was the only struggle

I've had with it,

of how to then actually say no

to other organizations.

Whereas before, we can be very cut...

you know, cut and dry on it.

But outside of that,

if you're able to get round that,

or felt that we could associate with it

and it's a one-off,

and that we're not going

to do this as a habit,

I think it actually could be quite doable.

I mean, I would have thought

that at this relatively early stage,

we'd be at a point where,

if we wanted to do it,

we could work with them

so we actually make it possible.

So it's only a half-hour shot

of an interview,

and maybe one can keep

the portico open

by having people directed

through a different way.

I mean, I think if we believed in it,

we could make it happen.

- And could you...

- But it's... Sony.

Could you articulate what you think

the National Gallery gets out of it?

I think it's an associa... I think it's actually...

Cos we do appear rather on our pedestal,

physically, literally.

It's actually a way to be there

and seen to be part of common culture.

Sport Relief has a massive following,

and is very much for the nation, as it were.

So it's associating with something

that gives a lot of pleasure to a lot of people.

It's how I'd sort of rationalize it,

but I do accept it is quite difficult

in setting precedents with charities,

and we do get many, many requests.

I think what they're looking for

is either a no or a yes in principle.

If the answer is yes in principle,

then we can -

Jill and I, or whomever -

can work to shape that,

so that if we think, then, that we need

to sort of get more out of it, if you like,

we can be doing that,

whether that's in terms of profile

or actually financially as well.

OK, what about Chinese New Year?

Why shouldn't we be involved in that?

I mean, would you say yes

to Chinese New Year?

- Well, you don't have quite the same...

- We don't want...

...rationale in terms of profile, do you?

- You know, it's a profile-raising thing.

Whereas it's different from

other events that are happening,

simply because of the breadth

of the reach you'd get.

The example...

Well, one criterion would be

how many millions are going

to be actually watching it?

I think it would be dangerous

to suggest that we'll be able

to get a lot of coverage per se,

but on the other hand, if we feel that,

you know, as per our corporate objectives,

we want to be seen as more approachable

in the very positive sense,

it is one way of doing it

for half an hour once a year.

- So, you know... And if we said...

- That's interesting.

- ...this is not something we'll do...

- That's an interesting one, Jill.

Half an hour every year,

there'll be our...

- that's going to be one of our fences.

- Well, no...

- No, no, seriously...

- We might say we'll consider

one thing a year that supports

something that is...

- loved by the nation...

- Compatible.

...and compatible and for everyone.

I mean, one could rationalize that.

We'd decide, if there wasn't an opportunity

on certain years, we wouldn't do it.

- Perhaps...

- We wouldn't do it if... Sorry.

If it causes a lot of disruption to our public.

But if there's something

that's not going to,

and we can work with Sports Relief to make

it minimum disruption to our visitors...

Let's talk about that for a bit,

the disruption.

Because we sat round this table,

and we were all sure

that we were going to work

with Harry Potter to make it work.

What actually happened was that, in fact,

the National Gallery

was completely blocked,

and inasmuch as it wasn't blocked,

people were just using the Sainsbury Wing

as a spectator point to look out the gallery.

I think the gallery did probably make

the right decision about Harry Potter.

It was most unsatisfactory.

But in fact, none of the sort of guarantee

that we were talking about

actually could be effectively

implemented at the time.

We're talking about a certain type

of advertising.

And when you see a football match

on television,

and you see these huge signs,

they're all about running shoes and things.

I mean, they're...

there's some sort of relationship.

They're not about Goya and Picasso, even.

So it seems to me

the more disparity there is

between the different types of public

which are for one thing and the other,

the more it actually looks

as if one's just short of cash.

I mean, in other words,

or is in desperate need of publicity.

I mean, I just don't know.

I just don't see how it's seriously going to..

The name National Gallery

can be announced a lot,

but what, in this context,

would that do for us'?

What does that tell people

about what the gallery really is'?

You have to continue

with these negotiations, anyway.

One of the highlights

of the gallery,

a painting that many people

come along and see.

At some point, in 1533,

these two men, meeting as they did,

did what we might do, were we to meet

a fellow countryman in a foreign place.

They had their picture taken.

Clearly, there's no handing a camera

to a passer-by or a waiter.

The only way, until the advent

of photography, to have an image,

is to have a painter paint you.

They had money. They were wealthy.

They could pay for the bat painter

living in England to capture their image.

And the top painter living and working

in London in 1533

was the German painter Hans Holbein.

And at some point, the three men,

Hans Holbein, Jean de Dinteville,

Georges de Selve,

would have got together

and discussed this composition.

They're the ones telling

the painter what to do.

Probably, Jean de Dinteville

having the greater say,

because it was his painting, he paid,

it went back to his chteau in Polisy,

and it could well be

that Hans Holbein had no idea

of the whole significance of everything

he was being asked to make.

I have a colleague who thinks

this is all about a murder that took place.

And I look at it and I see,

"But where? What?"

And he says, "I'm not telling you.

You'll steal my idea and publish it."

So none of us knows what it is,

but all we have is what we can go on.

And there is the lute case,

the box, the empty box,

which perhaps reminds us

of the coffin, of death,

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes