Artists, critics and readers on 10 years of Tate Modern
To celebrate Tate Modern's 10th birthday, we asked the art world – and our readers – to put their questions to its director, Nicholas Serota

Sir Nicholas Serota at Tate Modern. Photograph: Richard Saker

Next month, it will be 10 years since Tate Modern first opened its doors. Not only is it not showing its age, it is still, as you approach it across the Millennium bridge, a thrilling sight – the incredible hulk of it across the river, the sense that the building itself is, before you have even glanced at any of the art inside it, an event. Since it opened, 45 million people have visited and many of its exhibitions have been crowd-pullers: Matisse, Picasso, Hopper, Warhol, Dali, Rothko… It is also dedicated to showing challenging new work by less well known artists. And in its dramatic Turbine Hall, the sense is that anything could be given house room if it deserved it – from Louise Bourgeois's towers (I Do, I Undo, I Redo, 2000; her tremendous steel spider had to wait outside) to Olafur Eliasson's The Weather Project in 2003 or Rachel Whiteread's Embankment (2005) – heaped white boxes, like sugar lumps for giants.

The man behind – or rising above – all this, Nicholas Serota, has been in the job from the start. Tate Modern was his vision, and it still is, as he forges ahead with a £215m extension. Serota is often seen as a severe arbiter of artistic taste. And because he can look austere – especially when a camera is pointed at him – I had assumed a corresponding angularity of mind. What a pleasure to discover that I could not have been more mistaken. I found him charming from the word go. There was a question I was longing to ask him – before posing the questions from our readers and members of the art world – about his survival. What has kept him in his job – and at the top?

"Going into artists' studios and seeing new work," he replied without hesitation, "and realising it is as difficult to understand as it was 20 years ago. Artists are always challenging us to think again, to look again at the world and find new ways of discovering ourselves. Every time I go into a studio – and often when I go into a gallery – I find myself challenged and think: life is beginning all over again."

Serota's warmth, acuity and dedication – not to mention the amused gleam in his eye – make it easy to understand exactly why he has more than prospered in his job. His passion for art is unmistakable in everything he says. When I asked about his own personal highlights over the last 10 years, he described the "incredible" first day – 12 May 2000 – that Tate Modern opened "after seven years of working, with so many people, to create this extraordinary institution. The Turbine Hall had been empty for months and to see people come down that ramp and take possession of the building – make it theirs rather than ours – was a great moment."

Later, he described his own nifty version of taking possession of the place. In 2006, Carsten Holler installed colossal silver slides – a playground for grownups. Serota recalls the press day: "The press had been in for about three minutes. "Are you going to be the first down?" they asked. I found myself obliged to go to the longest slide, right at the top, and slide into a pen of press." This, he insists, was "great fun". But his most cherished memories are of making exhibitions: "Cy Twombly with Cy, the Donald Judd and Barnett Newman exhibitions. All these have been great shows to make and present at Tate Modern."

In the hour that followed – in which Serota was grilled on every possible subject – I was struck by the care with which he answered each question and his visible interest in the different ways in which people think about art – and Tate Modern. He was curious, often amused but never dismissive. There is so much to celebrate – and marvel at – as the Tate turns 10: "The astonishing thing to remember is that this is a part of London people didn't visit 10 years ago. I remember, just before we opened, one of our trustees, who had always been sceptical about Tate Modern, saying: 'But how are people going to find it?'" Ten years on, that is a joke question.

WHAT THE ART WORLD ASKED SEROTA

Amanda Sharp Co-director of Frieze

What was the first piece of art that mattered to you?

Turner's Norham Castle, Sunrise. I was 14 years old.

Chapman brothers Artists

If Tate Modern were on fire, which work of art would you save?

I could be flippant and say Jake and Dinos's works aren't on view at the moment, so I wouldn't have the luxury of saving one of them. Oh God – duty would compel me to try and save Matisse's The Snail. It is one of my favourite works, an incredible masterpiece. Or the Rothkos. So many things have become favourites in recent years – Rebecca Horn's Concert for Anarchy – the upside-down piano that hangs and disgorges its interior. The Gerhard Richter paintings we acquired three years ago. But on reflection I would probably choose work by Oiticica. A fire at the estate where Oiticica's work is kept destroyed an enormous amount of it. Little now exists in the world.

Damien Hirst Artist (pictured below)

All children paint and draw, but most of them stop as they get older. Why do you think that is?

Young people paint and draw to express their ideas and vision. The danger is that, as they get older, they feel the need to conform to other people's conventions, so start to be more deliberate and representational in the way they work. Great artists fight that, whether it be a David Hockney or a Tracey Emin. They try to preserve an apparently childish vision, their innocence.

Martin Creed Artist

What were you into when you were 10?

It wasn't art. It was sailing.

Mark Titchner Artist

The past 10 years have seen an explosion of interest in contemporary art. Has art primarily become a form of entertainment?

No, but I was looking at something the other day that reminded me that, in the mid-19th century, Charles Eastlake, director of the National Gallery, spoke to a parliamentary select committee about how he kept seeing people in the National Gallery having picnics. He found it extraordinary that they had come in for reasons other than looking at art. The same kinds of complaint are made about people at Tate Modern. But they are here. They are finding out about themselves, they are looking at art – maybe out of the corner of their eye – but they learn something and come back. And that is all that really matters.

Bob and Roberta Smith Artist

When you wake up in the morning, what is the painting or artwork in front of you in your bedroom?

A small, early 20th-century Indian watercolour in a traditional form of miniature. It is two figures dancing. A great image to wake up to.

Ben Bradshaw Secretary of state for culture, media and sport

How important to Tate Modern's success was it that government investment allowed it to be free for everyone from the day it opened its doors?

Interestingly, the commitment to Tate Modern was made not by the Labour government but by a Conservative government, in 1995, when Virginia Bottomley supported the creation of Tate Modern. So Tate Modern has, in a sense, been a crossparty invention. Tate had always been free and we had maintained we wanted it to be free. It opened and then other institutions that had been charging were enabled by Chris Smith [former culture secretary] and government to remove the charges in 2001. There was never any question about charging admission at Tate Modern. But the government support we have had has been crucial to its success. Chris Smith, Tessa Jowell and others have been supportive. We have needed government revenue to sustain Tate Modern in spite of its success and they have been very helpful in that.

Victoria Miro Gallerist, Victoria Miro Gallery

Tate Modern has made huge progress in building the collection, most recently in securing important gifts, such as Anthony d'Offay's Artist Rooms. What is your focus for the collection over the coming decade?

Not only do we have to concentrate on buying art of the last 10 or 15 years, we also have to recognise that we want to buy not just in north-west Europe and North America. In the past 10 years, we have been trying to represent Latin American art seriously. We have recently formed a group that will help us buy art from the Middle East and north Africa. The world has changed so dramatically in the last 15 years – not least because of information exchange and the fact that artists move across the world so much more easily than they ever did. Eastern Europe is an area we didn't look at in the 60s and 70s – we are trying to catch up. But we won't neglect British artists – or artists from western Europe.

The other area in which we are making a big effort is photography. There is a great collection of 19th-century photography at the V&A. But the 20th-century representation of photography in the national collections is not as strong as it should be. We have recently acquired a photography curator, Simon Baker, and I hope in the next five years we will make real strides in building a strong collection of photography.

Nicholas Logsdail Gallerist, Lisson Gallery

What will you be asking the next government to do to ensure the continued success and development of visual arts and culture in the UK?

I would like them to put more value into art education. Art schools have suffered in recent years. It would also help if the government were prepared to put more money into the collecting of contemporary art by regional galleries so people had the opportunity to have regular encounters with contemporary art in the way they are able to at Tate Modern. It is striking that until about the 1960s and 70s, most regional galleries and museums were collecting contemporary art in a serious way. In the past 30 years, it has been difficult for them to do so.

That has been the purpose of Tate Modern's Artist Rooms. Anthony D'Offay's great vision, in giving these works of art, has made it possible for people to encounter Warhol or Beuys or Jeff Koons or Jannis Kounellis in a gallery within 50 miles of where they live.

Christopher Frayling Writer and former chair, Arts Council

Do you wish your distant predecessors at the Tate had been more adventurous and imaginative in their acquisitions of modern paintings and sculptures for the permanent collection at a time when art was much more affordable?

The lesson is that we have to focus on buying the art of today rather than on the art of the past. We can never catch up. Of course I regret that the gallery is not filled with Picassos, Matisses and great Braques and Legers from the early part of the 20th century. But the success of Tate Modern has been that we are able to take advantage of the fact that the collection is strong in the last 20 or 30 years and can use that as a starting point from which to look back rather than regarding the past as the great pinnacle from which one descends down the slopes into the present.

Sadie Coles Gallerist, Sadie Coles HQ

The acquisition budgets of Tate and other UK museums cannot keep up with the contemporary art market. When an artist is emerging and the museum could afford their work, it is too early to commit, and when they are established, the work is priced out of reach. So huge gaps appear in the collection. Is there any chance of having a similar system to the US, where there is a partial tax benefit to the donor of art?

It is an anomaly that you can get a tax benefit if your estate gives a work of art to a national museum when you die, but you cannot get a tax benefit during your lifetime. It would make a big difference to donations of works of art to museums by collectors if there were such a tax benefit. We have been campaigning for it and – every now and again – it seems as though we are going to get there. I hope, with a new administration coming in, to renew the argument.

Matthew Stone Artist

Does art change the world?

It changes the way we understand the world. That is what artists do. It can't change political and social and economic circumstances.

Mary Desmond Painter, Rome, Italy

For the average punter it is sometimes difficult, with the sophisticated machines of spin at work, to separate an artist's worth from the hype. What two or three artists whom you have met have most impressed you?

I remember doing an exhibition with Joseph Beuys in 1974 – an artist around whom there was a lot of myth and hype. I am privileged in having the opportunity to spend time with artists and engage with them. And the hype just falls away. The job of the curatorial team here, among other things, is to look at those artists who aren't in the spotlight and try to bring forward their work. Either the work speaks to you or it doesn't. Hype is about something else. Sometimes hype gets in the way of looking and you can be discouraged. You have to see your way through it.

Henry Iddon Photographer, Cleveleys, Lancashire

Should Tate Modern only show work by established figures? Is there any effort to look "under the radar" and seek out innovative work produced by those unable to connect with the big money global art scene?

It depends how far below the radar. We would argue Tate takes more risks than equivalent organisations in Europe and America in terms of acquisition and showing work by younger, less established artists. But we are also there to give our public an opportunity to see Warhol or Twombly. We have to do both.

Nonito Rosello Freelance writer/PR, London

1) If you were a work of art, which one would you be and why?

I would be one of the dancers in Picasso's Three Dancers. It would be great. It is an amazing painting – full of mystery and surprise. It is a little bit threatening too.

2) And if you could invite three people to dinner (no matter which era or whether dead or alive) who would they be?

One would be Van Dyke. I would love to have met him because he was such an incredible, swashbuckling character. He would have made a pretty lively dinner companion, I think. And Turner would be quite good. And Louise Bourgeois. A strange combination. But Louise would be – is – an extraordinary dinner companion. And she would make her way [with the other two].

Glen Tarman Charity manager, Wapping, London

In a time of climate change, will you stop sponsorship by oil companies so we can visit Tate and enjoy great art without being complicit in climate chaos?

The first thing to say is we have support from BP, which as a company is looking at renewable energy as well as using up fossil fuels and using oil. We have long had support from them and are not intending to abandon it. But we are committed to addressing issues posed by climate change. Tate has made some big strides in terms of carbon reduction and bringing that to the attention of other people in the world.

Clive Parkinson Director, Arts for Health, Manchester

The Tate has made great strides to engage new audiences, but there are vast swathes of the population who believe the arts have nothing to do with them. How will the Tate address this?

We have to try to make people across the country aware they are welcome. If you come to the Long Weekend, you will see tens of thousands of people enjoying a visit to Tate Modern, many of whom are coming for the first time. We can also do it through Tate Online (we are redesigning the website so people can get access to all the rich layers of it – some of which have been slightly buried). Of course there will be people we don't reach. Yet I believe the arts can appeal to many more people than is supposed.

Bridget McKenzie Director, Flow Associates, London

What are the main justifications you use when fundraising for the new Tate Modern extension? How do you feel an extension in London will deliver £215m worth of cultural learning compared to the potential value of spending that money on, for example, supporting museums at risk of closure, filling rural gaps or increasing digital access to culture?

There is a place for a large flagship organisation of the kind Tate Modern represents that is able to bring together the best art, large audiences, a strong learning programme and show things can be done in new ways. Spreading money thinly across the country would not have the same impact. I believe money should be spent in the regions, but a lot of the money collected for Tate Modern comes from places and individuals who want to see a great organisation in the centre of London. If it were all public money, it might be different. We have five million visitors a year. We will have more. Anyone who visits at weekends knows how overcrowded the gallery is. Anyone who tries to subscribe to our learning programmes knows they are wildly oversubscribed. So we have to grow. Every museum of modern art has grown in the last 20 or 30 years. The Museum of Modern Art in New York almost doubled its size five years ago, the Pompidou Centre increased by one third, eight or nine years ago. We have an expanding collection and need to have space to show that collection. If we don't grow, people will stop giving us things – they will think they are simply going into the basement.

Jolyon Gumbrell Writer and website editor, Dorset

Has abstract and conceptual art had its day? Does figurative and representational art have a better future?

What happened in the late Sixties was equivalent to what happened with cubism. It was a new way of describing the world that looked dry and impenetrable to many people for many years, but underpinned a great deal of the art we now admire in the 20th century. The same is true of conceptual art. People describe as "conceptual" almost any work of art that has deep thought embodied in it, rather than simply the representation of an object on a canvas. By those standards, almost all the great art of the last 10 or 15 years has been conceptual because it has dealt with ideas as well as images.

Kate Butler PR consultant, Manchester

Can the arts be funded through philanthropy or have the Tories got it wrong?

The arts can be assisted by philanthropy and individual giving is an important part of the Tate's income and will increasingly be so, but we cannot rely on individual philanthropy. Even those institutions in America regarded as private get huge support from the state – not least by way of tax incentives offered to donors.

Amy Budd Research assistant, London

Last year, a minor feminist art revolution took place in Paris as the Pompidou Centre rehung its collection with an emphasis on women artists. Might something comparable happen at Tate Modern?

I don't think we will do a show equivalent to the Pompidou's but we are determined to show more work by women. Two years ago, we bought the most magnificent work by a neglected arte povera artist called Marisa Merz. It was made in 1966. It is as good as anything made by her husband, Mario, or other arte povera artists. It had sat, in her studio, uncared for, for nearly 40 years. We thought it a major work and decided we should bring it into the collection. We're doing that kind of thing all the time. The work of women artists is prominently displayed but in the context of a whole history. We don't privilege their work for six months then take it away and never show it again. And we don't buy work because it is by women. We buy work that is strong, capable of holding its place in the collection.

Jason Fleet Freelance graphic designer, Bristol

Why don't you have more Brit Art in Tate Modern's collection?

We have a great deal of art by that generation, the YBA, in the collection. We show it at Tate Britain, we show it at Tate Modern. We don't have a corner devoted to Brit Art but we don't have a corner devoted to any art – we try to integrate it. And if you look through the collection, you'll find it. We do have great works by Rachel Whiteread, by Damien Hirst, by Gary Hume.

Peter Kettle Painter, Hellingly, east Sussex

I don't share your view of art as revealed in Tate Modern. Most of the work on display illustrates a narrow attitude to the art of our times. You are as orthodox, dogmatic, conventional and blinkered as the academies of a hundred years ago. Modernism in all its forms is now over a century old, and sclerotic. I would relish the chance to curate a show with all the ignored movements and painters of the last century. How would you defend yourself from these charges?

I would need to understand which movements and painters the questioner had in mind. If you come to Tate Modern, you will see a wide range of work. Some of it is in an academic tradition of realism. You will see great movements of the 20th century, including surrealism, which changed the way we understand the world. You will see an astonishing range of contemporary art. It isn't a single view. People have given us major works. Not everything here is determined by my taste or the curator's taste. If you come to the Tate with an open mind, you are bound (with the exception of this questioner) to find something interesting and engaging.