logo
‘It's awful', says chairman planning to transform Tate Britain

‘It's awful', says chairman planning to transform Tate Britain

Telegraph12 hours ago

Tate Britain's chairman has described parts of the museum as 'awful' as he unveiled plans to set up a £150 million endowment fund to secure its future.
The Tate is offering naming rights to its Turbine Hall for upwards of £50 million as part of the new fundraising drive, with a goal to raise £150 million by 2030.
The museum has already raised £43 million through donations from individuals, foundations and Tate trustees, and it is now appealing to philanthropists from around the world.
It launched the Tate Future Fund with a glossy gala dinner in the Turbine Hall, the vast space at the heart of Tate Modern.
Roland Rudd, the Tate chairman, who is on a mission to transform the museum, said sections of the gallery, known as the home of British art, currently looked 'old' and 'manky'.
'At the moment, let's be honest, when you go to Tate Britain it is awful,' Mr Rudd told The Times.
'You have got these rows of bushes [at the front] and they look very old, they look manky. People tend to relieve themselves behind them.
'And that café at the bottom is dreadful … it has an awful backdrop.'
However, the building's proposed garden, funded by the Clore Duffield Foundation and designed by Tom Stuart-Smith, would be transformative, Mr Rudd said.
The chairman added that the endowment fund would be reserved for acquiring the world's best artworks and curators, but donors could specify where their money would be used.
'The whole thing about the Future Fund is to enable us to ensure we have one of the greatest collections of British modern and contemporary art, and some of the greatest curators, because we are in a global marketplace. We have over 50 curators now and we want to add to that number.
'If people want to endow curators or endow directors, all of this is available. Indeed, if someone would like to name the Turbine Hall, this could also be a big thing.'
Asked how much it would cost someone to attach their name to the hall, Mr Rudd said: 'A minimum of £50 million.'
Tate currently makes around £10 million per year from ticketed exhibitions and £20 million through membership, while 30 per cent of its income is public subsidy.
Maria Balshaw, Tate's director, said that the endowment fund 'will allow us to do the wild and extraordinary things that bring people to Tate in the first place'.
Next year's programme includes major exhibitions of the works of Tracey Emin and Frida Kahlo, while this November, Tate Britain will have a 'grand face-off' between Turner and Constable.
Ms Balshaw said: 'These kinds of exhibitions are absolutely the lifeblood of Tate and they are expensive to put together.'
The museum is now going into 'active campaign mode' to raise the remaining money.
She said: 'We will start to solicit donations from our very extensive international supporter base. We're lucky at Tate that our brand is so internationally known.
'High net worth donors like to be joining something that they know is going to succeed. We've cultivated that foundation through our closest friends, and there's a really amazing group of people that began with our own Board of Trustees giving to the endowment.'
The gala celebrating 25 years of Tate Modern was held for 685 guests, with tables from North America, South Asia, Asia Pacific, Latin America and Africa.
It was designed to impress: the Pet Shop Boys performed, Ruthie Rogers of the River Cafe provided the food, and Peter Saville and Tracey Emin designed the tablecloths and napkins.
Ms Balshaw said that Tate is now 'in a stable position after a hard few years of recovering from the pandemic'.
She expects the level of government grant-in-aid to remain stable too, adding: 'I fully expect, even in the difficult economic climate, that the government understands the value that museums bring for people.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Britain has just spent £1bn on new F-35s. Were we right to do so?
Britain has just spent £1bn on new F-35s. Were we right to do so?

Telegraph

time26 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

Britain has just spent £1bn on new F-35s. Were we right to do so?

For a Labour government keen to showcase its defence credentials to the world – and particularly Donald Trump – it was the perfect party piece. Ahead of this week's Nato summit in the Hague, Sir Keir Starmer announced the purchase of 12 new F-35A fighter jets, ordered from the United States at a cost of nearly £1 billion. Armed with state-of-the art technology and radar jammers, the so-called 'flying computer' can operate almost invisible to enemy eyes: as its maker Lockheed Martin boasts, 'it is built to conduct missions others can't'. More importantly, it can carry bombs that others can't. The F-35A will enable Britain to carry US B61s – tactical nuclear weapons that could be deployed on a battlefield in the event of a war with Russia. The idea is to widen Britain's range of nuclear response options, which currently rest only in the much bigger strategic missiles carried on its Trident submarine fleet. In nuclear weapons terms, that is the difference between a scalpel and a sledgehammer – and while the purchase has horrified disarmament campaigners, Sir Keir insists it is a necessary evil. 'In an era of radical uncertainty, we can no longer take peace for granted,' he declared. What has also not been taken for granted, however, is the F-35's complete reliability. For despite being billed as America's foremost combat jet, critics say it has suffered more than its fair share of glitches during its 19-year flying history. In 2019, the military magazine Defense News revealed that Pentagon chiefs had identified precisely 857 'deficiencies' in the aircraft's design, including seven that were potentially 'critical'. Most have since been dealt with, but to this day the F-35 programme remains dogged by technical hitches and concerns about reliability and maintenance. Britain has been a major customer of the F-35s, and already owns 48 F-35Bs – a variation on the F-35A that also has vertical take-off and landing capabilities, making it suitable for use on aircraft carriers. Worldwide, however, at least a dozen F-35s have been involved in accidents or serious technical failures since 2018. Sometimes the cause has been malfunctioning headsets or software failures; on other occasions pilots have simply struggled with the complex technology. In January, an F-35A fighter jet crashed during a training session at an Air Force base in Alaska after an in-flight malfunction, forcing the pilot to eject. Three years ago, a South Korean Air Force F-35A made a belly landing after a bird strike and a landing gear malfunction. Just this week, it was revealed that a British F-35B serving with an aircraft carrier in the Indian Ocean has been stranded on the Indian mainland for more than 10 days after monsoon rains forced it to make an emergency landing. A technical issue with the craft was reportedly identified after it landed, and a British Merlin helicopter from the aircraft carrier flew technicians in to try to fix the suspected hydraulic failure. But like a fancy sports car that can only be repaired by authorised dealers, the F-35 was deemed in need of a team of specialists from the UK. Meanwhile, Royal Navy chiefs are said to have turned down an offer by the Indians to move the jet out of the rain and into a hangar, for fear they might take a sneaky peak at its sensitive technologies. Problems with software updates have meant that hundreds of the planes have at times lain in hangars in the US, hindering ongoing roll-out programmes to Europe's other Nato players. Like much high-tech Pentagon equipment – especially anything nuclear-capable – the US military is cagey about the exact nature of the issues. But outsiders have not been shy in airing criticisms, among them aviation expert Bill Sweetman, a Hampshire-born former editor for Janes (a global open-source intelligence company), who now lives in the US. While Lockheed Martin hails its product as 'stealthy, speedy and the future of air dominance across the world,' Sweetman is rather less complimentary. In a book published last year, detailing the programme's problems and vast cost overruns, he famously dubbed the F-35 a ' trillion-dollar trainwreck '. Others – including a former acting defence secretary under Trump – have been equally damning, dismissing it as a 'rathole' and 'f----d up.' Sweetman paints a picture of a vast, outdated flight development programme, which began in the late 1990s when computer technology was far less developed than it is now, and has been playing catch-up ever since. As a result, he argues, the F-35 is rather like a clunky late-1990s laptop onto which lots of additional hard-drives and software have had to be awkwardly grafted. 'Operating a stealth aircraft [one designed to be invisible to radar] is always a unique challenge, in that you are also trying to minimise all the electronic signals that the plane might emit,' he says. 'But a big problem has been the design of the electronics, as how one did these things 25 years ago is very different to how they might be done today. By the late 2010s, for example, they were already running out of memory for the plane's computers, so they had to install first one new computer control system, and then another. That's very complicated and also affects the jet's avionics – how it flies. It might have been better to have had a design that kept the avionics separate from the control systems.' Lockheed Martin disputes that assessment, and compares the updates to 'how an iPhone receives a software update on a base operating system'. John Neilson, the firm's director of international media and corporate affairs, says: 'We continue to release iterations of software that will further enhance combat capabilities, operational effectiveness and readiness of the aircraft.' More than 1,000 F-35s have already been produced, several hundred of which are already in use by Nato allies or due for delivery in coming years. Sweetman believes that the programme, like many large-scale defence contracts, ended up being simply too big to abandon, and that 'every failed fix made matters worse'. Last year, members of the United States House Committee on Armed Services even argued for scaling back procurement of the planes until the problems were ironed out for good. The programme, however, is already seriously behind schedule, making matters even worse. 'They were all supposed to be delivered before 2030,' Sweetman says. 'Now that target is more like 2054.' Greg Bagwell, a retired air marshal and distinguished fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, says the issues extend beyond 'teething problems'. 'The F-35 is a big and long programme, with some way yet still to go,' he says. 'And while you can excuse any teething problems… there are clearly issues.' Bagwell likens the F-35 to a thoroughbred racehorse or Formula One racing car, arguing that because of its high-performance capabilities, it was always likely to suffer occasional technical hiccups. 'But if you look at the total number of flying hours that have already been put in, the number of serious issues has been pretty low,' he adds. The plane was in action over Iran recently during the US-Israeli bombing raids, with no performance issues or combat losses. 'There is some truth to the criticisms of people like Bill Sweetman, but based on exercises and operations we've seen so far, the F-35 is well above anything else we have,' says Bagwell. Other defenders of the plane, which took part in its first combat missions against Isis in Iraq in 2019, agree that despite its problems, it is still currently peerless. Its 360-degree vision gives pilots unrivalled situational awareness, and it also has formidable electronic warfare capabilities that can overwhelm enemy air defences. As one writer put it in an article last year for the magazine European Security & Defence: 'If the task is to go and drop a pair of small precision-guided missiles through someone's roof, and return home safely – probably undetected, and certainly unmolested – then there is no better aircraft to achieve that than an F-35.' Defence analysts also point out that glitches are routine with any high-performance aircraft, and that most of the more serious ones with the F-35 – such as problems with cockpit pressure leading to pilots suffering sinus pain – have now been ironed out. The debate over the F-35s' effectiveness, however, comes amid a wider discussion about whether the military should continue investing in manned aircraft and ' Top Gun ' pilots at all. With drones now effectively dominating the battlefield in Ukraine, many wonder if the West would be better off focusing purely on unmanned planes, controlled in turn by AI technology. Among those who believe so is American entrepreneur Elon Musk, who made his feelings known on social media last year when posting a video of a drone swarm. 'Meanwhile, some idiots are still building manned fighter jets like the F-35,' he said, adding: 'Crewed fighter jets are an inefficient way to extend the range of missiles or drop bombs. A reusable drone can do so without all the overhead of a human pilot.' Even Sweetman, however, points out that no drones currently have anything like the speed, range or weapons-carrying ability that a fighter jet has. And as the US bombing raid on Iran's nuclear facilities proved earlier this week, manned flights still have their uses. In an interview with The Telegraph last year, Paul Livingston, the chief executive of Lockheed Martin's UK arm, insisted the F-35's capabilities were still 'beyond anything else out there'. 'Before the F-35, if I was going to fly a mission into a peer nation's territory to strike against a well-protected target, I would need a minimum of 16 aircraft,' he said. 'You would have jamming aircraft – which, by the way, says, 'Hello, we're coming' – then you'd send in suppression of enemy air defence aircraft, because you'd have to kill the radars off, then you'd send fast strike aircraft in. 'I can now do that same mission with four F-35s and no support. And they don't need protection afterwards, because they can fight their way out.'

The 7 shows vanishing from your TV screens in just DAYS after major overhaul – binge them before they're gone
The 7 shows vanishing from your TV screens in just DAYS after major overhaul – binge them before they're gone

The Sun

time26 minutes ago

  • The Sun

The 7 shows vanishing from your TV screens in just DAYS after major overhaul – binge them before they're gone

SEVEN popular shows are vanishing from Netflix in a matter of days – so if they're on your list, now's the time to start watching. Viewers in the UK will lose access to the titles on Monday, July 1, as Netflix prepares for a major shake-up to both its content and interface. 2 The changes come as part of a larger overhaul that's already seen a wave of titles removed in recent months, and July looks set to be one of the busiest yet. Among the shows leaving are Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, Loudermilk (Seasons 1 to 3), and the anime series Overlord (Seasons 1 to 4). Also departing is the children's favourite Rabbids Invasion (Season 4), Rubble & Crew (Season 1), and the classic magical girl reboot Sailor Moon Crystal (Seasons 1 to 3). Fans of nostalgic family dramas will also lose The Wonder Years (Seasons 1 to 2), which is being pulled as part of a broader Disney Television removal. These removals are largely due to expiring licensing deals and content rotations that happen behind the scenes. But there's more to it this time – with a brand new Netflix home screen redesign just around the corner. The streaming giant is launching its first major redesign for TVs in 12 years. Dubbed 'Eclipse' inside the company, the new interface promises a sleeker, simpler experience that encourages viewers to press play faster and discover content more easily. The layout will shift the main navigation bar to the top of the screen and reduce the number of visible titles at once, focusing instead on bigger images, more dynamic previews and video clips that auto-play after just a few seconds. 'The real goal of this is, how do we make it easier, how do we make it simpler, faster for you to make a great decision?' said Greg Peters, co-CEO of Netflix. One of the most notable features is 'responsive recommendations.' These will tailor suggestions almost instantly, based on what users are actively searching for. So if a viewer looks up thrillers or family films, their home screen will begin updating in real time to show more titles in that category – a big improvement from the previous system, which could take up to a day to refresh. Eunice Kim, the company's chief product officer, said the redesign is meant to serve both types of viewers: those who know exactly what they want, and those who don't. 'The way that the old home page is built, you kind of see box art, box art, box art, box art,' she said. 'It's kind of suboptimal, right?' The new layout aims to slow viewers down just enough to take notice of what's on offer, with titles now showing labels like 'highly rewatched,' '13 weeks in Top 10,' or ' Oscar nominee.' The changes also aim to make live content more prominent – like football games or special events – by showing live animation and movement directly on the home screen. July will also see the departure of several films, including The Equalizer 3 starring Denzel Washington, which is also leaving on July 1. Later in the month, the comedy Dumb Money will exit the platform as well. Overall, at least nine Netflix Originals are scheduled to depart in July, with more likely to follow throughout the year – joining the 250+ titles already gone. Netflix's redesign could have ripple effects across the industry. For years, rival streamers like Disney+, Prime Video, and Max have taken cues from Netflix's interface. With Netflix now breaking from the row-upon-row layout, others may soon follow suit. 2

Call The Midwife fans convinced show will end in heartbreaking death as they work out final storyline
Call The Midwife fans convinced show will end in heartbreaking death as they work out final storyline

The Sun

time26 minutes ago

  • The Sun

Call The Midwife fans convinced show will end in heartbreaking death as they work out final storyline

CALL The Midwife fans have been left convinced that the show will end in a tragic death after news the main series could come to an end. The popular BBC family drama will come to a close following the conclusion of the 15th series which is currently being filmed and is due to air next year. 3 3 3 It has left fans speculating at to how the programme might reach its conclusion and some have predicted a tragic death could be on the cards for one of its most popular characters. One character who looks set to meet her match during the show's finale is Sister Monica Joan. Whilst not confirmed, fans have begun to cast suspicion that she could fall victim to a death in the programme's final episode. The character, played by actress Judy Parfitt, has been a part of the show since the very first series and has been one of the drama's fan-favourite characters. Taking to Reddit, it led one fan to quip that they could kill off their longest-serving character for shock value. Speculating what is to come: "Something tells me that something is going to happen to Sister Monica Joan. "I think it's going to be a two part episode and the series will end with implications for the upcoming film... and maybe something for the prequel series." Another added: "Maybe so. I've honestly been waiting for Sister Monica Joan to leave because she was a bit of a nuisance at times and very openly disobedient and often willful. "The actress is wonderful but the character has been shown less and less the past couple of years." Whilst many fans were sad to see the programme come to an end, others argued that now felt the right time to call it a day. Call The Midwife fans in tears as beloved Nonnatus House resident dies in emotional scenes They added online: "I love the series but honestly it was time for it to end anyway. Maybe even beyond time. Especially after Lucille left." As someone else penned: "I'm not too sorry about the show ending — it's had a fabulous run, but the writing and storylines just aren't what they were in the early years." However, the BBC have clarified that whilst Call the Midwife's main series may be paused - the show's prequel and spin-off movie mean the show will still be on the air for years to come. They said: "The BBC would like to reassure fans that Call The Midwife will remain at the heart of the BBC for years to come. "As previously announced, there are two Christmas specials, a new series, a film and prequel series, before a sixteenth series in due course. "Call the Midwife isn't going anywhere.' Up to 11 million people watched the highly-anticipated episodes at any time since it first launched in 2012. It has won numerous awards including National Television Awards, TV Choice Awards and has received several BAFTA nominations. Call The Midwife: A breakdown Call The Midwife first came onto the airwaves in 2012 and has been seen by millions. But what is it about? Series one: Set in early 1957 and it explored the 'Baby Boom generation, which included themes of poverty and post-war immigration. Series two: Set in 1958 and it showed gas and air being introduced for pain relief for the first time. It ended with the Nonnatus House building being condemned. Series three: Set in 1959 and it depicted gruesome conditions such as cystic fibrosis, polio and it showed the midwives in the context on prisons. Series four: Set in 1960 under the threat of nuclear warfare and the emergency response guidelines issued by the local Civil Defence Corp. Other themes included LGBT rights, and syphilis. Series five: Set in 1961 and it shows the care of patients with conditions such as Typhoid and strokes. We also saw the effects of thalidomide, the introduction of the contraceptive pill. Series six: Set in 1962 and domestic violence was at the centre of the season. Other themes included FGM (female genital mutilation), mental health issues and interracial marriage. It was also notable for the introduction of Reggie, a recurring character with Down Syndrome. Series seven: Set in 1963 and we see Nurse Lucille Anderson for the first time. We also see the show address conditions such as dementia, huntington's disease, leprosy and meningitis Series eight: Set in 1964 and it bravely covered the issue of abortion, which was not legal for another three years in 1967. Sickle cell disease, cleft lip, cleft palate and intersex people also featured. Series nine: Diptheria was at the centre of the ninth instalment in 1965, and it was notable for featuring a blind expectant mother. But the role of Nonnatus House within the community also came into question. Series ten: Set in 1966, Nonnatus House has a rival in the form of the private Lady Emily Clinic in Mayfair. PKU, diabetes and the controversy surrounding abortion were central themes. Series eleven: Set in 1967 amid the housing crisis and a scabies epidemic. The show was rocked by a train crash right next to Nonnatus House.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store