The Tate Gallery obtained a £75,000 charitable donation to buy the work of one of its trustees by breaking the rules governing such applications. Confidential documents obtained by the Sunday Telegraph reveal that the gallery included incorrect information in its application for funding towards the cost of The Upper Room, by Chris Ofili, the Turner Prize-winning artist who is a trustee of the Tate. The National Art Collections Fund, which funds only works in danger of falling into private hands or leaving the country, supplied the money after receiving a grant application from Sir Nicholas Serota, the Tate's director. The application stated that the gallery had not made a prior commitment to fund the work, which is made partly of elephant dung. In fact the papers, released to this newspaper under the Freedom of Information Act, reveal that eight months before he applied for the funding Sir Nicholas had authorised an initial down payment of £250,000 to Victoria Miro, the artist's agent. Sir Nicholas, 59, has blamed "a failing in his head" for the oversight. The disclosure prompted calls last night for the fund to seek repayment of the money - and demands for Sir Nicholas to stand down. Charles Thomson, the head of the Stuckists, a group of artists critical of the Tate's purchase of The Upper Room, said: "I think the fact that Sir Nicholas forgot that he authorised this payment when he signed the application form is perhaps proof that he has been in the job a little too long. "Perhaps he should resign or retire to somewhere like Bournemouth." The purchase of The Upper Room has been at the centre of controversy since the Sunday Telegraph first highlighted concerns about the purchase in August. Correspondence obtained by this newspaper shows that the collections fund reacted with incredulity when it was first told about the mistake by Sir Nicholas in October of this year. In a letter dated October 24, 2005, David Barrie, the fund's director, told Sir Nicholas: "The trustees were at a loss to understand how such an oversight could have occurred." The Tate insisted last night that it had made a genuine mistake in its application for the grant and that the fund had allowed the grant to stand. A spokesman said: "The art fund discussed the application and accepted that this was a genuine mistake by the Tate and wished its contribution to this important acquisition to remain." |