THE Tate revealed for the first time yesterday how much it has spent on new acquisitions and how much it paid for individual works.

The gallery had refused repeatedly to publish details of most of its previous acquisitions, but has been stung by criticism from the Charities Commission for buying works for undisclosed amounts from artists who were its trustees.

The accounts published yesterday show that it had paid a total of £12.6 million over the past two years, including £250,000 for six works by Tracey Emin, one of them a blanket appliquéd with the words “rot in hell”.

The gallery also bought, for £102,006, a nine-minute film called How I Became a Ramblin’ Man, in which Rodney Graham sings dressed up as a cowboy, and £400,857 for Foot, 1968-71, a topless coat stand, one of two abstracts by Luciano Fabro. They were among 500 works that the public institution acquired, it disclosed yesterday, sparking immediate criticism from traditionalists about whether the public had got value for money.

Of the £12.6 million spent on acquisitions, £9.6 million came from outside funding sources, such as the Heritage Lottery Fund. Over the years it cited “commercial reasons” for refusing to disclose such information. But it has been left with little choice after being reprimanded severely in July by the Charity Commission for having paid more than £600,000 for an artwork by Chris Ofili while he was one of its trustees.

Ofili was among numerous artist-trustees who benefited from the sale of their work to the gallery because the Tate’s “conflict of interest policies” were not in line with established good practice, a Charity Commission inquiry concluded. Accepting the criticisms, Sir Nicholas Serota, the Tate’s director, vowed then that the gallery’s activities would be transparent in future.

Yesterday, without mentioning Ofili, Paul Myners, the chairman, said that the public expected such institutions to be more open. “We like to set high standards of governance which indicate transparency.” He said that they had managed to buy so many works through “incredibly hard work”.

Sir Nicholas said that he wanted to reinforce confidence in the Tate. He also called for public money to be made available to buy other works that were being lost to overseas collectors. His comments came after the Tate disclosed that it was having to beg for works from the young masters that it can no longer afford.

In 2004 he said that the gallery’s finances were so tenuous that it was appealing to the likes of Damien Hirst to donate some of their most famous works. It is still negotiating a work with Hirst.

David Lee, Editor of The Jackdaw, a leading art magazine, said yesterday: “What interests me is that they claimed to be broke. They’re constantly moaning about having no money, and yet they’ve been able to buy 500 works — when 80 per cent of the collection is not on display but in store.

“Also, at the same time, they are attempting to build a £215 million extension, six years after opening the biggest contemporary art gallery in Europe. Who do they think they’re kidding? Either they’re broke or they’re not.”

Charles Thomson, co-founder of the Stuckists, which promotes traditional art, said that he had campaigned for the prices to be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act. “They have had a good reason for not telling us what they’ve been buying. A lot of people will probably be aghast at some of the figures paid,” he said.

Among other prices paid are £139,815 for various works — including an oddly-shaped bed — by Michelangelo Pistoletto, and £25,000 for The Immigrant, an assemblage of discarded objects arranged on the floor by Carl Plackman.