Tate must show ‘racist’ Whistler to understand history, says artist

REX WHISTLER’S mural should be shown at Tate Britain in order to “understand history”, according to the artist commissioned to review its allegedly racist content.

The 1927 artwork The Expedition in Pursuit of Rare Meats had been displayed in a restaurant at Tate Britain. The space was sealed off from the public after a Black Lives Matter protest in 2020 amid claims the Whistler piece was racist.

The gallery carried out a review of the painting which concluded that it should stay in place. Now an artist commissioned to create a counter-artwork has said this was the right decision.

Keith Piper, who was asked by Tate Britain to “critically engage” with Whistler’s mural, said it was “important to look at historical depictions in order to understand history”.

In an interview with The Guardian, he said: “I know there is an argument among young people now that these images retraumatised, but I think we either look or forget. We are very good at forgetting nowadays and things that are out of sight go out of mind.

“To keep a clear sense of history we need to see these things.”

Whistler, who was acclaimed for his high-society portraiture, completed the fantastical landscape of The Expedition when he was 23 years old.

The mural, which tells the story of a hunt for exotic meats, is regarded as one of his most important works, but contains images of black children on leads and caricatured Chinese characters.

In September 2020, members of the Tate’s ethics committee were “unequivocal in their view that the imagery of the work is offensive”, and argued that its depictions of black people as hunted slaves was made worse by its display in the gallery’s restaurant.

The restaurant was closed to the public while the artwork was reviewed, and the decision was taken in 2022 to retain the mural but to close the restaurant and turn the area into a gallery space including Mr Piper’s work.

His piece in response to Whistler is a film installation titled Viva Voce which includes footage of black soldiers in the First World War, and black American singers in 1920s London. In the 20-minute film a fictional Whistler is questioned about his work by an invented academic called Professor Shepherd, putting the artwork into the context of the Jazz Age in which it was created.

Piper, who founded the BLK Art Group in the 1980s, argued that “difficult” imagery needs to be preserved as it can play an important part in inspiring “black struggles”. He said: “If we go back to the struggle against apartheid, the very graphic and traumatising video of George Floyd during Black Lives Matter, his life coming out of his body.

“Without that very problematic image it is questionable whether tor not without that the movement would have had the same momentum. It’s the, same with the civil rights images.”

As well as addressing Whistler’s imagery, the Tate has revamped its gallery space, hanging paintings with a connection to subjects including slavery and colonialism, and adding information panels explaining the connections.

First things first: I know quite well both Humza Yousaf, Scotland’s First Minister, and Stephen Kerr, the Tory MSP who has been prominent in asking questions about how the Scottish government decided to make a donation to an organisation working in Gaza.

While we don’t agree on much politically, I don’t think that Mr Yousaf disagrees with the UK Government’s belief that Hamas is a terrorist organisation. Indeed, he condemned the group’s October 7 atrocities. But nor do I think that Mr Kerr is Islamophobic – as Mr Yousaf ’s supporters have heavily implied.

The First Minister does have robust views about the situation in Gaza; how could it be otherwise given that his in-laws were marooned there for several weeks at the start of the conflict? He’s entitled to those opinions, just as he is entitled to his views about which organisations his government should support with hard cash.

Except in one respect: the cash is not his. It is ours. It belongs to the taxpayers. And so how he chooses to spend it, particularly when accused of doing so in a different direction to that suggested to him by his civil servants (and, by the way, I think he’s entitled to make such an executive decision), he should say why he’s doing that.

This is the essence of Mr Kerr’s demand – namely that the First Minister should explain why, when his officials were reported to have recommended that the Scottish government should donate to Unicef, Mr Yousaf decided to give to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA) instead.

Perhaps because of the overcharged political atmosphere enveloping the country, however, what was a fairly bog standard demand by an opposition politician for a minister to answer a question brought forth astonishing expressions of outrage. Mr Kerr was denounced, while Mr Yousaf hit out at the story, calling it an “outrageous smear”, “Islamophobic”, and an attempt to link the First Minister to terrorism.

For his part, the Tory MSP said that the First Minister had failed to explain why he was reported to have overruled officials when deciding that the Scottish government should donate £250,000 to UNRWA. The UK Government has subsequently suspended donations to the organisation because alleged links with Hamas have since emerged.

Consequently, it’s difficult to argue with Mr Kerr’s belief that his questions were not an “unreasonable ask”. However, it is also clear that the First Minister and his party are determined to make this an issue of alleged bigotry rather than just an apparent change of direction for a sizable sum of taxpayers’ money.

This was nowhere more evident than in a completely over-the-top intervention by the SNP’S deputy leader Keith Brown, who, in a radio interview, dredged up words like “despicable” and “hate” in his attack. The normally placid Mr Brown, who served with the Royal Marines in the Falklands War, even demanded that the Prime Minister ban Mr Kerr from standing as a Conservative candidate in the forthcoming general election.

It was all a ridiculously overblown distraction from what is the bounden duty of politicians everywhere. This is to hold to account those ministers whose cavalier attitudes too often see them treat taxpayers’ money as their own – to do with it what they will, no matter the cause. Have the nationalists protested too much on this? You bet they have. READ MORE at telegraph.co.uk/opinion