Responding to a perspective of historical myth

CONSTRAINTS of time often lead me to set aside the Saturday supplements to read later – sometimes much later.

I have just read Stephen McClarence’s article (Yorkshire Post Magazine, March 24) about Leeds Art Gallery, and was intrigued to find an oblique reference to me.

The topic was the gallery’s decision to commission and juxtapose a ramshackle “radical piece” entitled “This is General Gordon” with the compelling and poignant portrait of General Gordon’s Last Stand. The modern piece has a spiralling, polemical script which draws spurious parallels between “past and present” conflicts.

In response to Stephen McClarence’s suggestion that it was rather incongruous and “a bit subversive” the curator, Nigel Walsh, agreed and said: “Yes ... we did have one complaint about it”. Indeed they did!

The modern piece was a calculated provocation, designed to “challenge our perceptions” about the “heroic myth” of Gordon. But I chose to challenge theirs.

“What is ‘the myth’ of Gordon?” I asked.

“There is some ambiguity about his death,” Mr Walsh opined.

“Really? And what is it that you think is ambiguous?”

He couldn’t recall. He would have to “consult the research”. Revisionism revisited! I was not impressed.

“You commissioned this piece,” I retorted. “If I made such a provocative statement, I’d know my facts.”

We then had a forthright exchange of views, which culminated with me reiterating my guiding principle that “history must be judged in the context of history, rather than seeking to superimpose modish values on the events of the past”.