Calvin Po

Our great art institutions have reduced British history to a scrapheap of shame

New displays at Tate Britain and the National Portrait Gallery are pious distortions of history

Guilt frames: ‘Portrait of Mai (Omai)’, by Sir Joshua Reynolds, c.1776. Courtesy of National Portrait Gallery, London and Getty 
issue 12 August 2023

Let’s indulge in some identity politics for a second: I am from Hong Kong, born as a subject of the last major colony of the British Empire, minority-ethnic, descended from Chinese refugees, now living here in exile. This summer, both the National Portrait Gallery and Tate Britain are presenting new displays that are meant to reflect the ‘inclusive’ and ‘diverse’ identities of Britain. Supposedly, I fit nicely among their target audience. In reality, as an immigrant looking to be included in this nation, I am perplexed by my visits. For two publicly funded museums tasked with telling the story of this country through the portraiture of its eminent figures and its art, their curators seem unsure if this is a nation worth being a part of, and if there’s a fair story to tell about it.

The National Portrait Gallery has recently reopened after a three-year, £41 million refurbishment and reworking of the building.

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in