Home

Introduction Contents Search Paintings Essays Interviews Shows Enquiries Email


TATE BUYS TRUSTEE CHRIS OFILI'S THE UPPER ROOM FOR £705,000
This site first drew attention to the fact that Chris Ofili, whose work The Upper Room was a major purchase
by the Tate trustees, is himself one of those trustees, who had earlier asked other artists to donate work.


Pages on this site about the Chris Ofili Upper Room Tate trustee scandal
Intro
Censure Press Jon Snow censored Trustee minutes: Jan + May 2003 - Jul 2003 - Nov 2003 - Jan 2005 Trustees Letters - Dossier to Charity Commission and DCMS - to Chris Ofili - to Paul Myners - to Tate Legal Questions Background Poem

TATE CENSURED

CHARITY COMMISSION AGREES WITH STUCKIST CAMPAIGN: TATE'S TRUSTEE PURCHASE WAS WRONG
Press coverage of the Tate Ofili scandal leading up to this censure here

The accusation of impropriety against the Tate for buying its trustee Chris Ofili's work was first made on this site last July. We campaigned in the media and outside the Tate against the Tate gallery's self-serving clique with its lack of public accountability. A Charity Commission report on the Tate issued in July 2006 confirmed we were right.

STORIES WITH STUCKIST QUOTES (19.7.06):
The Times
The Guardian
The Daily Telegraph
The Independent


ALSO:

bloomberg.com (19.7.06) & The China Post (20.7.06): "Serota said the Stuckists ... played a role."
The New York Times (20.7.06): "the Tate ... had been unaware of the requirement to seek permission ... until last year, when an independent group of British artists, known as the Stuckists, drew attention to the Ofili case"

STUCKISTS IN THE OBSERVER (23.7.06)
Stuckists exposed the Tate * Artistic Licence * Criticism of the Tate

and a follow-up What happened to the Stuckists? (9.4.06)

Jonathan Jones, Guardian art critic in Guardian Culture Vulture:
"it is absurd that the Tate management has played into the hands of idiotic know-nothings like the Stuckists" (19.7.06)
(which makes the Tate management - what exactly?)

3ammagazine.com blog + insightful anon comment from "Lordy". (19.7.06)

Stuckism and charity commission censure of the Tate on politicalaffairs.net (5.11.07)


2008... AND IT CONTINUES
More trustee acquisitions revealed at the Tate gallery, which had previously not counted prints as acquisitions(!) Stuckists quoted. Sunday Telegraph (14.1.08) Also in the paper David Lee comments.

Mark Lawson: The Stuckists, the modern art monitoring body who caused all this problem by spotting what was going on, do you see them as heroic defenders of the public and monitors of art, or do they irritate you?
Sir Nicholas Serota: They obviously regard themselves, and indeed have acted in the public interest in this instance, and they don't irritate me. I think that as a public servant I should be here at the service of the public, including the Stuckists.

A discussion on BBC R4 Front Row about the Charity Commission's finding the Tate guilty of acting illegally by buying their trustee Chris Ofili's work, The Upper Room. (25.7.06).
P.S. It was actually the Tate that caused all this problem by not spotting what was going on.

From Trouble at the Tate in The Evening Standard, ES magazine 1.3.08, by Godfrey Barker:
A couple of years ago Serota was asked a question on BBC Radio 4 over alleged 'insider dealing'. Was he 'irritated', inquired Mark Lawson, by those who had blown the whistle on the Tate buying art from its own trustees? Not at all, replied Sir Nicholas amiably. The Stuckists (an art protest group who believe the Tate are a self-serving group of conceptual artists and their acolytes) "obviously regard themselves - indeed they have acted in the public interest in this instance. They don't irritate me. I think that as a public servant I should be here at the service of the public and that includes the Stuckists."

Paul Harvey letter (penultimate letter) in The Independent (14.8.06)

back to top