National Gallery is selling its legendary red leather benches!!!

One of the joys when I visit the National Gallery is to walk around various of the galleries and then finally to sink into one of the amazing red leather benches.  Proper seats which allow you to rest as opposed to hard benches with no backs which give you aches in both your bottom and back.

Very sadly, this is a joy about to be lost as all the red leather benches have all been sent to an auction house to be sold tomorrow (14th October starting at 1pm - details below)!

One of the red leather benches from the National Gallery

Sir Gabriele Finaldi, the Director of the National Gallery has decided they have to go and all the red leather benches are consigned to auction at Bellmans Fine Art Auctioneers

• The benches will be sold as part of the furniture section of our Antiques & Interiors Auction on 14th October. (View Catalogue). Designed by Gordon Bower & Partners for the National Gallery in 1986 and made by Arthur Brett & Sons, Norwich, Englad c. 1988.
  

In May 2025, the Gallery marked the end of its Bicentenary year with the reopening of the refurbished Sainsbury Wing and a complete rehang of its collection. As part of these projects, the decision was made to replace some of the benches in the National Gallery - out with the old and in with the new. And here at Bellmans, having received the consignment directly from The National Gallery themselves, it is most definitely (and is typically the way with auctions) in with the old!

Included in our October Antiques & Interiors Auction on 13th-14th October are five large double-sided round ended gallery benches (lots 1200, 1240, 1260, 1280 and 1360) The National Gallery comes to Bellmans (09 October 2025) 

I gather there's been an outcry about this. Interestingly there are no press releases about the removal of the much loved red benches or any sort of coherent explanation of why they are being removed.

It made the Telegraph. According to that article it's about "fears they could attract pests". Which is very odd given the condition survey by the auctioneers indicates no pest damage and they've been used in the Gallery for the last 40 years when they were recreated from the original 1890s benches.

The headline and image in The Telegraph about the sale of the red benches

Methinks a Director who likes new architectural developments disliked the red leather benches as too associated with the past and not the present or the future.

The London Visitors blog "Ian Visits" investigated and found that 

In a response to the initial outcry about what initially looked like the sale of old Victorian benches, the National Gallery said that “The eleven benches which are being sold by Bellmans Auctioneers are replicas of the original Gallery benches, made in the 1980-90’s. These replicas are not fire safe and are difficult to clean, which causes risks to the Collection from pests – both key factors in our decision to replace them.

The question is whether they will replace them with identical benches which are fire safe and easier to clean.

Apparently the fire safety standards for furniture in public buildings (BS 7176) are higher than those required for private homes (BS 5852). 

• Museums are required to meet the "Low Hazard" requirements (and that's "low hazard" as in fires less likely to damage people than the higher grades of hazard) . Interestingly it appears it ONLY relates to what's called "Contract Furniture" of the type which might be moved between rooms of different types. 
• It strikes me that it is entirely possible that when they were remade - to replace the originals - in the 1980s that non-traditional and more flammable materials were used which now makes them a potential hazard. 

However I'd hazard a guess that if there was a fire inside the gallery, it would be the artwork which presented the greatest hazard and which would go up much faster than any of the sofas. 

Are they planning to replace the national art collection in order to render it safe?

One small bright light on the distant horizon - because you can be sure they're not being replaced like for like right now - is that the Gallery announced.

We have detailed photography and designs in the Archive, should we wish to have them remade in future.

However I find it very odd that the National Gallery should be 

• so keen to pursue fire regulations 
• while at the same time ignoring the Financial Regulations relating to direct debits and annual subscriptions. see BEWARE National Gallery Members!!!

Major Disability Concerns

Speaking personally, I find the way in which art galleries and museums in general ignore the needs of disable people to be completely reprehensible - of not illegal. 

How come they need to provide disabled toilets and not seating suitable for those (like me) with severe osteoarthritis who have difficulty getting up and down without an arm. 

As one other commentator put it (my bold)

For all the online stir around the new, minimal design choice versus the familiar favourites, it is a lack of accessibility in the new seating that concerns Kent, among others.

‘The old chairs were excellent for people with mobility issues or back pain because they had both arm and back rests, but the new ones are unusable. This is hostile furniture, it is designed to make you move on,’ she says. ‘Ironically, the rhetoric around museums today is all about accessibility, and yet the modern, international museum aesthetic of hard, uninviting spaces is so hostile to anyone with a disability or mobility issues.’ Wallpaper

Several people responded to the points raised by Kent to share personal experiences of accessing museum spaces with disabilities and mobility impairments.

A Critique of the PAOTY Series 2024

The level of concern expressed  this year about the outcome of Portrait Artist of the Year prompts thoughts about 

• how much this relates to the artists - and 
• how much to the programme format; the objective of the programme; guidelines and criteria for assessment and the actual judging.

As a result, I've decided to do an extra 'final' post this year - about the way in which Portrait Artist of the Year works and to highlight some serious concerns.

The Final: final portraits

The programme formula - and Judges - have now remained the same for over 10 years. In my opinion it's no longer "up to snuff"in terms of:

• PAOTY Formula and format: about the participants, the design and format of the competition
• Objectives, Criteria and Judging: 
• the clarity of the judging criteria - and its communication to contestants
• the rigour expected of the judging
• the relevant expertise of the judges - in comparison to other shows
• Conduct of the Competition & Duty of Care / Wellbeing - expectations about the conduct of such competitions and regulatory compliance
• OFCOM and informed consent
• Guidelines and Policies about Duty of Care to support Participants
• Risk management and mitigation measures

So let's get down to business.... This has been a marathon and this post is a long one - for which I do not apologise - but you might want to go and make yourself a cup of tea first!

(PS I could probably write the short version in a couple of days - because, as they say, the short version takes longer! I might come back and provide a synopsis up front)

PAOTY Formula and Format

Is it really a show about an art competition? Or is it an entertainment programme?

It certainly has heats, heat winners and a final and a winner - but does it work the way other such programmes work on television?

The participants

One of the reasons people got very agitated by the result of PAOTY 11 was that a very established professional artist who has exhibited internationally and been selected five times for the BP Portrait Award and was producing good portraits which had been praised by the Judges was deemed to not be as good as a young artist who only took up portrait painting very recently.

It was felt to be grossly unfair as it felt like the decision was a whim (of which more later - under Criteria and Judging)

If there is anything more guaranteed to deter professional portrait artists from taking part then that is it. 

I've noticed how the calibre of participant has deteriorated over the course of the last 11 years.  Indeed in some years, it's been very apparent that the competition while not lacking entries has lacked enough people of the right calibre. Could the number of entries be influenced by what happens in the show and how it is judged? I think that's very likely.

• Back at the beginning it attracted members of the Royal Society of Portrait Painters (RP) - but now we only get amateurs who have been selected from the open entry for the RP Annual Exhibition. 
• For years I've been highlighting that those who were after fame and a boost for their CV who said they were "professional artists" were nothing of the sort. (Not that I say so explicitly but the clues are there)
• Interestingly during that time it has ignored very competent portrait painters in heats who have subsequently become members of the RP

One of the aspects which distinguishes PAOTY from other shows is that others specifically stipulate that if you are a professional you cannot take part. In other words, if you make serious money from the activity covered by the programme, then you cannot take part.