The man who gave us modern art

Hugh Lane never sought anything in return, not even thanks, for his great gift to the nation, the Municipal Gallery of Modern…

Hugh Lane never sought anything in return, not even thanks, for his great gift to the nation, the Municipal Gallery of Modern Art, which opened 100 years ago, writes Robert O'Byrne

Exactly one hundred years ago tomorrow, Dublin's Municipal Gallery of Modern Art opened its doors to the public for the first time. On that occasion, while speeches were being made and congratulations being proffered to those involved, a young man stood at the back of one room shyly observing the proceedings and declining to say a few words even when asked to do so. This was Hugh Lane, the driving force behind the whole enterprise, its instigator and principal benefactor: of the 300 works of art on display in the new institution, he had personally donated approximately one-third.

Hugh Lane was just 32 when his ambition to provide Dublin - and Ireland - with an outstanding gallery of modern art was realised, but he had been working on the project for the previous five years. In many ways it is difficult to understand why he should have been so committed to this scheme. Although born in Cork, very little of his childhood and adolescence was spent in this country. As an adult, he became a highly successful and wealthy art dealer, specialising in old masters, but his career was always based in London and that was where he preferred to live. On his visits to Dublin, he stayed in a gentleman's club on St Stephen's Green; this remained the case even after his appointment as director of the National Gallery of Ireland in 1914.

LANE'S LINKS WITH this country were, therefore, not so strong that Ireland should necessarily have assumed first call on his loyalty. And indeed, considering the amount of suspicion and hostility he encountered here, it is astonishing that he persisted with his plans for a gallery of modern art. Quite why he did so must to some degree remain a matter of conjecture, not least because he was not a man given to explaining his behaviour or discussing his emotions. In Vale, published in 1914, George Moore reports a conversation in which Lane, asked to explain his reasons for establishing the gallery, replied: "Well you see, I am Lady Gregory's nephew, and must be doing something for Ireland." On the other hand, in the same book, Moore describes Lane as "a London picture-dealer who had come to Ireland to see what he could pick up", and implies he had an interest in transvestism, so his opinions should be treated with caution. Nevertheless, there is probably an element of truth in the argument that Lane's campaign for a modern art gallery in Dublin was inspired by his aunt's equivalent crusade in the realm of Irish theatre. He and Lady Gregory were exceptionally close, both of them delighted to work on behalf of the other's cause, and through her he came to know the likes of WB Yeats and Douglas Hyde, who also encouraged and supported his aspirations.

READ MORE

But just as Lady Gregory's motives were sometimes called into question, so too were Lane's. Then, as now, it was difficult to understand why someone should devote so much time, energy and money to a worthy cause - and all for no apparent reward. It was often suggested, for example, that Lane, by some devious - though never specified - means was able to derive financial benefit from the establishment of the gallery of modern art and from the items he had donated to it. In fact, this was far from the truth. Not only did he pay for many works of art from his own pocket - Rodin's bronze L'Age d'Arain cost him £200 in March 1906 - but for several years he assumed responsibility for keeping the premises open when Dublin Corporation was unable to provide the necessary funding.

IN THE END, it would seem that Lane's sole intention was to improve cultural life in Ireland. In a letter written to this newspaper in January 1903, he explained how a gallery of modern art would give artists here an opportunity to see the best of what was being produced elsewhere and thus, "with opportunities of support and encouragement, we may produce a school of painting equal in importance and in profit to any in the world". A few months later, in the catalogue for an exhibition of Irish art he had organised in London, Lane elaborated on this plan, arguing that a modern art gallery would not only improve the standard of painting but also "encourage the purchase of pictures, for people will not purchase where they do not know". In other words, the gallery scheme would have a two-fold benefit: the general standard of art in Ireland would rise; and the quantity of sales of art here would also correspondingly grow.

Lane did not mind implementing this plan largely at his own expense. He was delighted to spend money if he thought others would benefit. He even didn't mind giving away the collection of contemporary pictures he had assembled, including work by the likes of Manet, Monet, Renoir and Degas. As he once told a friend, though each of these paintings was now hanging in the gallery, "it is as much mine as ever, I still possess it, I can see it when I like and everyone else can see it too, so there's no waste in the matter. I hate waste."

Disinterested philanthropy of this kind is a rare phenomenon. At the time when Hugh Lane established his gallery there were no tax write-offs offered to donors to cultural institutions, no financial advantages of any kind provided for behaviour of this sort. Nor did he ever seek anything in return for his generosity, not even public thanks, as is indicated by his reticent behaviour on the day the gallery opened. His name only became attached to the premises many years after his death. And when, during his lifetime, a group of friends insisted on acknowledging his exceptional largesse with the presentation of a portrait by Sargent, he burst into tears.

For Hugh Lane, giving was its own reward. Sadly, over the intervening century and despite Ireland's greatly improved circumstances, his example has been too little followed. This country could benefit from more disinterested philanthropy.

Robert O'Byrne is the author of Hugh Lane, 1875-1915, a biography published by Lilliput Press

The Hugh Lane Centenary Exhibition opens at Dublin City Gallery The Hugh Lane, on June 26 and runs throughout the summer

How Lane keeps on giving

So much attention has been paid to Hugh Lane's establishment and benefaction of the Dublin Municipal Gallery that his other bequest to this country is often overlooked. Lane was first appointed a member of the board of governors and guardians of the National Gallery of Ireland in October 1903, but had already made his earliest donation to the collection - a portrait attributed to Scottish painter George Jamesone - the previous year. Over the next decade he gave several more pictures to the National Gallery and then applied for the position of director at the gallery following the retirement from that position of Sir Walter Armstrong in late 1913. Even before his confirmation in the post in February 1914, he had told the artist Sarah Purser that were he to be given the job, "I would undertake to make it my first interest in life".

This he proceeded to do, donating his annual salary to the gallery's picture-buying fund, personally paying for some rooms to be redecorated as well as making several more donations, among the first being Veronese's Portrait of a Lady, and St Francis Receiving the Stigmata (right, courtesy of the National Gallery of Ireland) by El Greco. In total, Lane gave 24 paintings to the National Gallery during his lifetime, his generosity so great that on one occasion, as he afterwards wrote to his sister, the board members "said kind things, but I think inquire that they can't be genuine as I am giving them!".

He was to prove even more munificent in death. According to the terms of a will drawn up in October 1913, Lane left small bequests to various family members and friends, but the bulk of his estate to the National Gallery, the money "to be invested & the income to be spent on buying pictures of deceased painters of established merit". As a highly successful picture dealer, Lane already owned a large number of important works of art and the National Gallery board wisely decided to apply to the courts for the retention of some of these rather than sell the entire collection. Forty-two paintings were thus added to the gallery's holdings, among them canvases by Poussin, Chardin, Claude Lorrain, Romney, Reynolds, Hogarth and Gainsborough. More than 120 other significant works were sold at auction, together with Lane's house in London and its extremely valuable contents that included furniture by Chippendale and Kent, Chinese and Japanese antique porcelain and a great deal of diamond jewellery. The proceeds were used to establish a fund which, until the advent of the Shaw Bequest in 1958, was the National Gallery's most valuable source of non-governmental income.

To date it has paid for more than 60 pictures, by artists such as Brueghel the Younger, Perugino, Hubert Robert and Delacroix. In this way, more than 90 years after his death, Hugh Lane continues to enrich the Irish nation.