The Tate group of museums, one of Britain's most prestigious cultural institutions, is facing a perfect storm of declining visitor numbers, financial difficulties, and increasing competition from rival institutions. The organization has been forced to implement staff cuts and rely more heavily on its own collection for exhibitions, while its chief competitor, the National Gallery, announces major expansion plans and ventures into modern art territory traditionally dominated by Tate.
When a national institution starts making excuses that sound like the fictional rock band Spinal Tap, it signals serious trouble ahead. Recently, Tate channeled the mythic rock band's infamous claim that its audience wasn't shrinking, just becoming "more selective." In response to declining visitor numbers and a cash crisis that has led to staff redundancies, the museum group emphasized record numbers of young visitors to Tate Modern, seemingly dismissing the importance of visitors over age 35. However, this summer, Tate's director Maria Balshaw blamed the group's problems on a shortage of 16-24-year-old visitors from continental Europe, creating confusion about whether they're successfully appealing to youth or struggling with the wrong demographic.
This week, Tate Modern will open what it hopes will be a blockbuster exhibition that might attract paying adult visitors. However, "Theatre Picasso" draws almost entirely on the museum's own collection of Picasso works, pieces that should typically be on permanent view in the free displays anyway, though they haven't been for some time. This represents a significant departure from past prestigious exhibitions featuring Picasso and Matisse, Gauguin, Rauschenberg, and the highly successful 2022 Cézanne show, all of which boasted superb loans from museums around the world.
Meanwhile, Tate's primary rival, the National Gallery, is experiencing a period of expansion and success. The National Gallery announced this week that it has accumulated sufficient funds to build an entire new wing and will abandon its long-standing policy of collecting only pre-1900 art. This decision reverses an agreement that previously benefited only Tate, as the National Gallery is now openly moving into Tate's territory. The gallery established itself as a world-class venue for modern art with its successful Van Gogh exhibition and has continued building on that reputation.
The National Gallery's momentum has accelerated with a stunning rehang this year spanning from Cimabue to Picasso, clearly signaling its modern art ambitions. The gallery has even added a new Locatelli bar that appears to have been transported from Rome's Termini station, giving it a contemporary feel. The two institutions take markedly different approaches to modern art: Tate Modern has always emphasized contemporary works, refusing to highlight early 20th-century masters, while the National Gallery can demonstrate how art was revolutionized between 1870 and 1920 against the backdrop of centuries of art history it houses.
The National Gallery finds itself perfectly positioned to tell the story that Tate Modern doesn't: how Cézanne inspired Picasso and Braque, and how cubism sparked futurism and suprematism. However, if the National Gallery intends to collect more modern art, it must maintain serious standards rather than randomly displaying contemporary pieces like Jeff Koons works, as Britain doesn't need "a fifth Tate on Trafalgar Square."
Tate's struggles extend beyond its flagship London location. Tate Liverpool is currently closed for rebuilding, and its temporary home feels like a deserted shell with unwelcoming staff. The only Tate location providing a genuinely positive experience lately has been St Ives, primarily due to its spectacular beach views rather than its exhibitions. Both Tate and the National Gallery suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the older institution has emerged stronger and more aggressive in its growth strategy.
Tate Britain currently represents a narrow rather than broad-based vision of British art, showing little interest in most pre-1800 artists despite owning the world's finest collection of historical British art. The institution also appears to be rejecting the 1990s Young British Artist generation while avoiding major British art stars, both past and present. Artist Jenny Saville, for example, recently had an outstanding retrospective at the National Portrait Gallery, another venue successfully competing with Tate for major exhibitions.
Tate appears to be a classic case of an institution that discovered a winning formula years ago but has become trapped by the rules it established for itself. The organization remains stuck in routines that are no longer innovative or relevant. Turbine Hall commissions are still timed to coincide with the Frieze Art Fair, even though Frieze is no longer the influential event it once was. Additionally, Tate continues to insist on a definition of "modern" that primarily means video, film, performance, and installation art, despite the fact that contemporary art has become more eclectic, moving fluidly between such media and traditional painting, drawing, and sculpture.
There are some encouraging signs for Tate's future direction. Tracey Emin's upcoming Tate Modern retrospective next year represents a positive development, giving star treatment to an artist who has helped lead the way back to painting. Perhaps the National Gallery's current success reflects broader changes in the art world: we're no longer certain what constitutes avant-garde versus conservative art, and innovation today is as likely to occur on canvas as on screen. The shortlisting of painter Mohammed Sami for this year's Turner Prize, administered by Tate Britain though staged in Bradford, suggests some movement in the right direction.
However, Tate needs more than a few strategic adjustments to address its fundamental challenges. The institution must break free from its rigid brand identity and restrictive curatorial approach. The overwrought installation at Tate Britain, which has been widely and justly criticized for its heavy-handed wall texts and simplistic historical narratives, will eventually need to be completely redesigned and replaced with galleries that celebrate rather than judge 500 years of national artistic achievement.
As for Tate Modern, the institution should focus on telling the comprehensive story of how modernism emerged and evolved, from fauvism through abstract expressionism, with proper historical context and genuine reverence for artistic greatness. If Tate Modern cannot or will not embrace this approach, serious consideration should be given to transferring its most important works, including its Picassos and Rothkos, to the National Gallery, where they might be better contextualized and more effectively displayed for public benefit.
