The Tate is in need of a major overhaul – but will the new director really be a catalyst for change? | | Art and design

Even Tate knows it has to change. This rich museum needs to do some self-examination and ask some tough questions about its goals and how it works – including why it doesn’t. They seem to be aware of the problem, praising their new director Jessica Morgan as “a catalyst for change”. Well that’s a relief. But is he really?

Morgan is a well-known expert in modern art, he recently led the Dia Art Foundation in the US to the most famous and historic on. Tate Modern only. However, the same energy suggests that he will live in an environment that Tate is comfortable with. It is unlikely that they will rush to show art and change, for example.

This art organization likes to identify itself with new art but it also has a legacy. The Tate’s collection includes British art from 1500, but Father Britain it has been dry in terms of its exhibitions, it does not go back to the Tudor or Stuart period and mainly focuses on art from the Victorian period. At least the Gainsborough will get an exhibition next year, but seriously, the Tate needs a proper arrangement for its British past. I believe Morgan will make this decision despite his reputation.

Not that Tate Modern is nice and interesting. When things go well they can be great, like the current display of Ana Mendieta’s legendary vision. But next to it is a museum disappointing, over-hyped Frida Kahlo show which was obviously difficult from the start. The question here is why no one raised the alarm: why was there no pre-mortem before the defendants called their postmortems? The same goes for it last year the installation of Turbine Hall and Máret Ánne Sara. The faults of this installation should have been obvious but, somehow, no one in Tate Modern seems to have said so.

These unforced errors, which have also happened in Tate Britain, are his surprisingly over-attitudinising collection hangingshow the real problem of asking yourself. Tate seems to have a culture of self-confidence and sees any criticism as hostility. This internal feeling or lack of democracy needs to be corrected urgently. And the type of Tate that needs work. “Brand” – there, I said. An art gallery doesn’t have to be a sign. The transformation of the Tate into its current form took place in the late 1990s during a marketing and PR frenzy. Today it is as if the Tate’s PR and branding machine proves its point: even the announcement of Morgan’s appointment comes with a long list of endorsements by artists – a completely unnecessary part of the judging process.

Morgan should reconsider Tate (perhaps allowing him to be called “the” Tate). Products require regular maintenance. I love it Father St Ives but it is undoubtedly the best part. And of course, there is the pain of the year – the moribund Turner prize. Tate is steadfast in his ways, adamant about “broken” technology – and his management is confident he knows what that looks like. But the idea that a museum should be involved in the presentation of ideas is flawed.

Dad should surprise us. Morgan brings the promised new eye, though he seems like a safe bet that he’ll bring more of the same. I believe they will prove to be a reformable Trojan horse.