The Camila Batmanghelidjh Portrait At The Npg

NPG website page
re. the portrait of Camila Batmanghelidjh.

Following the publication of the damning Public Accounts Committee Report into the funding in addition to activities of Kids Company this afternoon I asked the National Portrait Company what was happening most the portrait of Camila Batmanghelidjh (its former CEO)

I've got a lot of experience in addition to expertise inwards reviewing applications for funding for charities in addition to thence monitoring both their fiscal in addition to functioning management. I couldn't for the life of me empathize how what had happened had come upwardly about. It seemed to me to breach every professional person criterion in addition to basic organisation command inwards the authorities handbook.

I also knew what sort of conclusions were going to last drawn equally before long equally they started whatever formal investigation.

The contents of the written report of the PAC written report published today - 8th Report - The Government’s funding of Kids Company | PDF version( PDF ) - come upwardly equally absolutely no surprise to me.  This article yesteryear BBC News Newsnight article The autumn of Kids Company also provides a really goodness overview of the electrical current province of affairs in addition to how it came about.

On a personal level, I experience extremely annoyed that the hurdles in addition to controls which utilise to all other children's charities were somehow waved for this one. Mostly for all the other kids who were deprived of funding that may conduct keep made a departure to their lives.

Back to the portrait....

I was inwards the NPG before long later the furore started most the funding issues in addition to the closure of Kids Company in addition to noticed that the portrait was hanging on the wall inwards the ground flooring corridor inwards what I intend of equally "its commons space". (It comes in addition to goes only this is where it unremarkably hangs.)

I all of a abrupt found myself looking at it with novel eyes - in addition to non liking it equally much. I've ever genuinely loved the painting. It's thence really unique in addition to distinctive in addition to it's also an fantabulous portrait. Maybe a chip besides goodness given what has come upwardly to pass?

Interestingly today, I found myself intensely irritated at the idea of the portrait withal hanging inwards the gallery in addition to wondered how long it would remain on the walls.

Note: The portrait was commissioned yesteryear the NPG in addition to was painted by Dean Marsh in 2008 equally the committee he was awarded later winning the BP Portrait Prize. It's mode is based on paintings yesteryear Ingres.

After the publication of the PAC written report today, I wrote to the NPG equally follows

I'm wondering whether the National Portrait Gallery is going to review the hanging of the portrait of Camila Batmanghelidjh inside the context of the of late published written report yesteryear the Public Accounts Committee - in addition to today's reports inwards the papers in addition to professional person journals

• ​Public Finance - Ministers’ Kids Company obsession took cash away from children across country, MPs
• ​FT - ​MPs laid on ‘staggering’ lack of Kids Company scrutiny

Meg Hillier, who chairs the PAC, said the illustration of Kids Company 

“will anger many people. The charity was passed around Whitehall similar a hot potato, with no ane willing to telephone telephone fourth dimension on spending millions of revenue enhancement pounds for uncertain outcomes”. 

It's a genuinely groovy portrait only I'm thinking that the nature of the dependent area in addition to the pose powerfulness last rather besides antagonistic to all the goodness people who enhance coin for children's charities - which didn't larn similar handouts?​

I know I've been really irritated yesteryear it when I saw it ane time to a greater extent than recently. I intend perhaps it's due some fourth dimension inwards the archives.......

The NPG kindly sent me a really prompt response.

It had patently been pre-prepared inwards answer to what I'm guessing are a number of other people cry for to a greater extent than or less the same question.

So here's the response. The portrait disappeared from the wall for normal reasons PRIOR to the PAC Hearings in addition to Report.

“Along with other portraits inwards the National Portrait Gallery’s Lerner Contemporary galleries which conduct keep been taken off display to adapt the extended infinite required for the Gallery’s "Giacometti Pure Presence" exhibition, the portrait of Camila Batmanghelidjh yesteryear Dean Marsh is non currently on view. There are currently no plans for the portrait to last shown only the Gallery has a rotating displays policy whereby newly commissioned in addition to acquired portraits tin last seen amongst other portraits inwards the Collection which may non conduct keep non been on thought for a menses of time. The portrait of Camila Batmanghelidjh yesteryear Dean Marsh, along with most others inwards the Collection, conduct keep been removed from display inwards the yesteryear equally business office of the rotation policy. In the illustration of Camila Batmanghelidjh, this is non the starting fourth dimension time the portrait has been removed from display since it was commissioned yesteryear the Gallery, in addition to these previous instances occurred long earlier these reports came to low-cal in addition to it was removed then, equally now, inwards monastic state to brand room for other portraits in addition to to refresh contemporary displays.”

I tin sure endorse the fact that the contemporary portraits really definitely create rotate - in addition to that the Giacometti exhibition is occupying ane of the corridors where they usually hang - in addition to that this was where I saw the epitome recently.

However it would appear from some other answer also provided that others experience that to a greater extent than should last done - in addition to that the portrait should genuinely last removed from the collection.

So should the portrait remain inwards the Collection? 

This is the NPG's thought on that question.

‘It is non the National Portrait Gallery’s policy to take away portraits from our Collections in addition to nosotros wouldn’t comment on allegations or investigations involving sitters inwards our portraits.

‘The Gallery’s remit is “to promote through the medium of portraits the appreciation in addition to agreement of the men in addition to women who conduct keep made in addition to are making British history in addition to culture.” The Gallery’s guidelines for acquisition (established inwards 1857) province that it is “the rule... to await to the celebrity of the mortal represented”, in addition to that the Gallery Trustees “attempt to gauge that celebrity without whatever bias....Nor volition they consider groovy faults in addition to errors, fifty-fifty though admitted on all sides, equally whatever sufficient ground for excluding whatever portrait which may last valuable equally illustrating the civil history of the country.’

My thought is that an of import investigation has at ane time been concluded in addition to reported in addition to it's clear feelings are running high on this topic - for all sorts of various reasons.

However it's also really clear to me that farther investigations volition larn nether means soon.  I'm guessing that the portrait volition remain inwards the collection - only may last starting a really long residuum inwards the archives.

What create y'all intend should conduct house inwards circumstances similar this?


Here's what Jonathan Jones of The Guardian thinks - Is Camila Batmanghelidjh genuinely worse than Henry VIII in addition to Oliver Cromwell? He presumably wrote the article without cry for the NPG whatever basic questions?

You tin abide by some other comment from the Evening Standard hither - Londoner's Diary: Kids Company boss Camila is thence off the wall

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: