By Lifting Its Ban on Post-1900 Art, the National Gallery Sparks a Historic Rift with Tate

10 September 2025

An Allegory with Venus by Giovanni Tiepolo at the National Gallery. Successive directors have argued that the 1900 barrier is arbitrary and awkward. Photograph: Guy Bell/Rex/Shutterstock

In a move poised to reshape the cultural landscape of London’s art world, the National Gallery has quietly dismantled a decades-old agreement that barred it from collecting works created after 1900. Now empowered by a remarkable £375 million in donations, the institution is preparing to open a new wing that embraces 20th-century art. While the gallery casts this as a long-overdue expansion in narrative, insiders warn of renewed rivalry and tension with Tate, which long held primacy over modern and contemporary collections.

This seismic shift unfolds under the banner of “Project Domani,” funded largely by two £150 million gifts from the Crankstart foundation and the Hans and Julia Rausing Trust, along with additional support from the National Gallery Trust and other donors. The new wing will rise behind the Sainsbury Wing and is the largest expansion attempt by a UK arts institution since Tate Modern opened its doors. Project organizers emphasize that the gallery’s approachable scale will remain, even as its collection broadens.

The heart of the change lies in the cold logic of chronological cut-offs. Since agreements forged in 1996 and reaffirmed in 2009, the National Gallery curated artworks up to 1900 while Tate Modern and Tate Britain handled everything beyond. But those boundaries always felt arbitrary. National Gallery Director Gabriele Finaldi, appointed in 2016, often expressed frustration at stopping at 1900 when related movements think Cubism or Expressionism existed outside that horizon. The gallery already holds pieces by Picasso and Cézanne, and even Richard Long’s 2025 work. Removing the cap allows it to more faithfully chart artistic evolution.

Tate’s leadership has publicly welcomed the lift of restrictions and emphasized collaboration. Tate director Maria Balshaw highlighted ongoing joint planning and pledged to explore how the galleries can serve the national collection together. A working group representing both institutions is already in action.

But behind the scenes, whispers of unease are brewing. One insider warns that the surge in funding could embolden the National Gallery to bid aggressively against Tate for major acquisitions a landscape that may revive old competition and “bad blood,” as seen in the 1970s. Another source offered a sobering lens: with a Rothko priced at up to £150 million and a Basquiat exceeding £100 million, the pressure to maintain boundaries is greater than ever.

There is concern that the rewriting of collection rules could also sow confusion among artists and donors. Where should future bequests from figures like David Hockney go? If no clear understanding exists, one source predicts “complete shambles.” As the two museums redefine territory, donors may face uncertainty over how their generosity will be attributed and displayed.

Still, there are compelling advocates for this change. Some within Tate underscore that the prior cutoff at 1900 was always an arbitrary construct. Opening up post-1900 acquisitions to the National Gallery could ultimately benefit Tate especially if that museum is struggling with budget constraints and cannot always outbid as effectively in the modern art market. In effect, the shift could infuse the art ecosystem with new purchasing energy.

Publicly, both Balshaw and Finaldi are aligned in optimism. Their joint statement frames this as an opportunity to redefine collaboration for public benefit “building a close collaborative relationship... of great benefit to the art-loving public.” Behind the magnifying glass of press scrutiny, they aim to lead the conversation away from turf wars and toward shared stewardship.

If Project Domani succeeds, the National Gallery will reposition itself from venerable guardian of pre-20th-century art to a broader narrator of visual history one that bridges centuries rather than stopping at a hard line. The experiment will reshape how generations understand artistic progress and perhaps ask readers which institution is best suited for what role.

But as the architectural plans and curatorial strategies crystallize, the art world watches to see whether historic rivalries remain dormant, or whether this new chapter reactivates tensions between two of Britain’s most iconic institutions both now chasing new visions for a changing century.