This is at first blush a curious exhibition for the National Gallery to put on. The Gallery’s permanent collection stops at some point in the late 19th century, I am guessing. When the Tate was created as a national gallery for modern art, one of the issues was when the National Gallery should receive things no longer considered “modern” – always a slippery concept. There is no doubt that Richard Hamilton won’t be entering the permanent collection any time soon.

What, then, is the rationale for his presence here rather than the Tate or even the Hayward Gallery (or the Barbican)? The information available at the gallery proposes that the artist had a long and close engagement with the Gallery’s collection and it is certainly the case that a number of the complex works show the influence of the work of various Old Masters. Hamilton was that rare thing amongst modern British artists: something of an intellectual. His approach to what he was trying to say therefore bore no resemblance to the productions of  many practising artists. He thought about the past, grappling with those aspects of past work which he chose to engage with. This covered a surprisingly long span, from Renaissance artists to Marcel Duchamp. Although this does not necessarily justify his presence here in amongst the most formal collection of pictures which the nation possesses, it does soften the potential clash between the work of a contemporary artist and his grand surroundings. How different it would be if Tracey Emin had a show here!

As one looks at the works, art historical references abound. There are a number of different themes going on, as the helpful little free guide points out. It is not necessary to repeat them here. Suffice it to say that those who think contemporary art has to be trite and meaningless, and painfully commercial, will need to think again if they approach this show with an open mind. The repeated use of naked female models may cause eyebrows to raise, but there is plenty of substance to contemplate.