The Upper Room (paintings)

Strictly speaking, each work is mixed media, comprising paint, resin, glitter, mapping pins and elephant dung.

Ofili states the work is not intended to be offensive, but rather to contrast the harmonious life of the monkeys with the travails of the human race.

[8] The revelation of this arrangement caused questions to be raised in the press as to whether the private benefactors knew privileged information,[9] and if they anticipated a profit through the increased value of Ofili's work after the Tate purchase.

"[9] Charles Thomson, co-founder of the Stuckists, said, "Sir Nicholas Serota mentions Victoria Miro's generosity in constructing this deal.

"[11] In September 2005, Serota wrote to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), assuring them that this purchase of a serving trustee's work was "exceptional" and had happened on only one other occasion.

[13] Official DCMS guidelines caution against commercial transactions with trustees: "even the perception of a conflict of interest in relation to a board member can be extremely damaging to the body’s reputation.

"[12] In December 2005, Serota admitted that he had filled in with false information an application form to the Art Fund (NACF) for a £75,000 grant towards buying the work.

He had stated that the Tate had made no prior commitment to purchase the work, whereas they had in fact already paid a first instalment of £250,000 several months previously.

[1] In front of guests at the award ceremony that evening, in what was described as a "moment of rare passion" and an "unusual, possibly unprecedented" move, he spoke out with "an angry defence" of the purchase,[15] saying, "I defy anybody who has actually taken the time and trouble to see the work not to agree with the trustees' decision to acquire this most extraordinary and important piece of work.

"[16] Christopher McCall QC wrote to The Times alleging that the purchase of a trustee's work in these circumstances was a breach of charity law.

A leaked Tate Conservator's report mentioned (potential) damage due to the lighting level and that the work might have to be removed from display.

In July 2006 the Charity Commission completed an investigation into The Tate's purchase of Ofili and other trustees' work, censuring the gallery for acting outside its legal powers.

[21] The Daily Telegraph called the verdict "one of the most serious indictments of the running of one of the nation's major cultural institutions in living memory.