Prices that protect and preserve

I would like to take issue with John Nicoll's article upon art publishing ('Why art publishing is in crisis', APOLLO, May 2005) when he talks about 'the rapacious and unwarranted reproduction compensations charged by museums corrupted by dint of commerce'.

Museums have an absolute obligation to maintain their collections and bequests in the best possible way and this requires serious finance, which, as we all know, the management cannot wholly undertake. As a museum director one time said to me, they cannot deaccession their paintings to adapted their costs; they can alone sell the rights to their paintings.

We obviously appreciate the point in disputes for art publishers and indeed bend above backwards to meet their urgencys as witnessed by John Nicoll and his company Frances Lincoln. We have supplied them with many pictures at competitive prices above the years and our prices have remained virtually static for the last ten years. At the same time, we put to proof to maintain our commitment to the museums we exhibit to provide them with reasonable income from the reproduction of their works. As you can appreciate, it is a difficult tightrope to walk.

In the final analysis, art works are a luxury, which there is no obligation to publish, particularly if the take away froms are unaffordable, whereas museums have an absolute obligation to guard and preserve their collections.

Harriet Bridgeman, The Bridgeman Art Library, London

COPYRIGHT 2005 Apollo Magazine Ltd

COPYRIGHT 2005 Gale Group