russbourough
- This topic has 3 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 21 years, 6 months ago by iuxta.
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
October 6, 2002 at 1:54 am #705726bybloxParticipant
Do they have to continually try to destroy Russborough? Why the hell do the national gallery let it be such a target? I cared about the loss, again, again and again but for christs sake another robbery, its stupid, place the important paintings in the national gallery. Im sure the donor wouuld rather the public saw them than they were stolen, there are many lesser, beautiful works that could be there in that beautiful building and they would not lessen the experience. We are not in the position that these works can be seen in their ‘original’ settings however nice that may seem ( i know they arent original to Russborough) but Id love to see them at some point and not decaying in some criminals basement (not that id be there!) This is Irelands loss and it is a huge loss.
p.s dont go on about my mispelling anything, i care and that is what counts, (!)
-
October 6, 2002 at 9:26 am #721117dc3Participant
“Why the hell do the national gallery let it be such a target?”
The National Gallery do not own Russborough, which is owned, I understand, by a foundation.
-
October 6, 2002 at 4:04 pm #721118AnonymousParticipant
yep thats right its managed by a trust, who are obviously a pack of gobshites if it takes 4 robberies before they learn their lesson…
-
October 7, 2002 at 1:05 pm #721119iuxtaParticipant
Some of the paintings in Russborough were created as part of the interior, or rather the interior was created around those particular paintings, and i feel its necessery to show them there to fully experience the house as it was intended to be seen.
Paintings in a gallery are never as interesting as when you see them in the context that they were intended to be viewed in, with the more atmospheric surrounding of the interior, lighting, furnishing and colours of the particular period.There are plenty of paintings in the National Gallery already and they only show a fraction of their collection as it is without taking on the remainder of the Beit Collection as well (although some of the items from the original collection are on show there).
I do believe that the Beit Foundation needs to re-examine the security arrangements at the house, in light of the similarity of the last two robberies, from which nothing in the procedures or physical deterrents appears to have been altered in terms of enhancing the security.
I can only imagine what complications they will encounter if they try to carry out works requiring cameras, PIRs, alarms, cabling, turnking, etc. in a house that is listed up to its eyeballs with planning permission required for every change.
-
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.