French government returns Nazi loot
March 12 2014
Picture: AFP/Getty/LA Times
With great fanfare, and just a day before The Monuments Men* opens in France, the French Government has declared that it is returning three paintings stolen by the Nazis to their various owners. More here in the LA Times.
Update - a reader writes:
Bendor.... good to see the French government returning paintings looted during World War Two, now it must be time to return some of Napoleons trinkets.
*N'allez pas. C'est une dinde.
In the US, gender bias in museum pay
March 12 2014
Jerome Weeks at artandseek highlights an awkward new survey from the the US National Center for Arts Research on gender disparities in museum salaries:
Fewer than 43 percent of art museum directors are women. And the female directors, on average, are paid less than their male counterparts. These are the results of a joint study done by SMU’s NCAR and the Association of Art Museum Directors. It found that female directors at museums with budgets of more than $15 million earn 71 cents for every $1 male directors earn. At the same time, women who run art museums with smaller budgets do earn more than their male counterparts – annually, they earn 2 cents more.
Averaging both groups, though, still leaves a gender gap for female directors of 79 cents for every dollar male directors earn.
I don't know if we have the same problem here in the UK. But I do know, as I've said before, that we don't have enough women museum directors to start with.
How do we value 'the arts'?
March 12 2014
A long time ago, when I was working as a political adviser on cultural and heritage policy, I had to deal endlessly with the 'how do we value the arts?' question. In other words, if we are to pay for them, in part, with public money, what do we pay them for?
And my God what a tedious question it is. The problem is, those in 'the arts' can never stop talking about it. On and on they go, desperate to find a way to reassure the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day that they deserve taxpayer's money. In the early 2000s, the new Labour government was all for funding the arts for their 'instrumental' value; that is, exposing people to culture means they will be less likely to commit crime, or need to see a doctor. Really. And then there was a reaction, happily, and we began to swing back to the 'intrinsic' case; we fund the arts because we believe in them, and in protecting our national heritage.
Now, however, post-recession, the buzz is all about 'growth'. The arts should be funded because they can contribute towards our GDP. The Culture Secretary, Maria Miller, recently incurred AHN's wrath for appearing to rely too much on this point. So - and at last I get to the point - I was surprised to see the Chairman of the Arts Fund, David Verey, agreeing with Ms Miller and making the same case:
The idea that art is valuable is something that underpins everything we do at the Art Fund. It is a fundamental belief that access for everyone to great art is something worth funding, and worth fighting for. A recent report by Fiammetta Rocco for The Economist showed that globally the number of museums has nearly doubled in the last 20 years, reaching 55,000 across the world. China in particular is building more and more to meet a growing demand from an increasingly educated and culturally hungry nation. Here at home, a record number – over half the population of UK adults – visited a museum in 2013.
But to ensure that the government, businesses and individuals continue to invest in the arts, we need hard statistics as well as warm words, which is why it is encouraging to see that so much work is taking place to bring together – in evidenced-based terms – a tangible understanding of the value of culture. What the Treasury needs to understand – and embrace – is that investing in culture is an important economic activity and part of the growth agenda of this country. Above all else, it makes economic sense to invest in museums.
From the Commission on the Future of Cultural Value at Warwick University to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s ongoing work with the Arts and Humanities Research Council on the holistic value of culture, and the Arts Council’s work with the Centre for Economic and Business Research on the economic value of art, there is much debate on how we can demonstrate the financial value of culture. We at the Art Fund are working hard to understand these complex models, from gross value-added calculations to life satisfaction equations: but it is also vital to remember that whatever the monetary value of culture, its real worth is something entirely unquantifiable.
A recent survey by Barclays of the very wealthy suggested that while there are 30 art investment funds in the world, only a minority of people would buy art purely in the hope of turning a profit. This view was echoed at a packed talk at the London Art Fair in January. But we are all too aware, as my fellow trustees and I decide which works of art we are able to help museums purchase, that the price of art is rocketing and that the art market is, in investment terms, in a healthy position.
The truth of the matter is that no activity is beyond the reach of value and we must ask again ‘what is the real and irreducible value of the arts in our lives?’ In an ideal world it would not be necessary to state the need for something so fundamental to an enjoyable, fulfilled life. But if the argument does need to be made – and funds produced – we stand ready to make the case.
I wonder if this is anything to do with the recent attack on the government by Art Fund director, Stephan Deuchar. Still, Verey is at least right on the rocketing value of the best quality paintings, both old and modern. And it may be that therein lies a simple answer to our question of how and why do we value art? Because people like it?
Update - a reader writes:
Reading the dismal account of David Verey’s speech I could only think of Théophile Gautier’s “art for art’s sake” principle. And then I remembered a splendid metaphor in Michael Levey’s biography of Walter Pater: “It was the equivalent of finding one’s tutor recommending in place of some study of Greek syntax Mademoiselle de Maupin.” Sadly I think we can only expect more irregular verbs from politicians and those involved in arts administration.
And another adds:
As an economist I have been called upon to calculate the economic benefit of various government programs over many years. Some deserved testing their economic benefit or rate of return. Art as a tourist attraction has a benefit, hence the invests of Las Vegas casinos in creating small galleries. But is has additional benefits.
Ultimately, government investment in culture broadly makes a society richer in ways that aren't measured on financial statements, but that are recognized in historical perspective. We remember ancient Greece, the Sumerians, and other societies for their cultures and how their cultures enriched life in those societies and ours rather than their GDP that funded the culture.
In the case of art, Philadelphia for its the most disadvantaged and dangerous neighborhoods created The Mural Arts Program which supports artists, has improved life, and is a source of local pride in areas where pride is in short supply.
The city lured the Barnes Foundation and its extraordinary collection to town from a suburban location with great public and private contributions in total exceeding $ 100 million in order to build its position as an art destination and its prestige. Indeed that in part an economic investment much like adding another attraction at a theme park, but there is more benefit if you build a critical mass.
The reason most wealthy individuals buy art are for enjoyment, prestige, and as a store of value, often chosen in the opposite order. Governments invest in art funding for two of the same reasons. Given that governments spend vast amounts on prestige and enjoyment, like funding Olympic games lavishly and well beyond their economic return, buying long term prestige with art institutions is consistent with established government policy in developed countries. And smaller or newly wealthy countries invest in art to increase their social standing among nations.
Investing in cultural activities is both consumption and investment like buying and furnishing a residence, but the consumption is part of sustenance as well as of pleasure. It should be treated as a matter of public policy, at whatever level is chosen, as a stable expenditure with long and short term benefits rather than an annually fluctuating budget item. It is part of building and maintaining a society.
How to get the Scots to stay
March 11 2014
A reader and I have been in discussion about what might happen to the Union flag if the Scots vote to leave the UK.* The above suggestion was made at the time of Act of Union in about 1707, but didn't catch on. Should we now resuscitate it, and say to the Scots: stay with us, and we'll promote you to the front?
*Now that I live there, I have a vested interest...
Mona Lisa theory no. 953
March 11 2014
AFP reports on yet another theory about the Mona Lisa. This time the headline is 'She's a feminist', but there's also a more religious angle:
It's taken him 12 years, but an amateur art historian from Texas reckons he's solved the mystery of the Mona Lisa's enigmatic smile, five centuries after it was immortalized by Leonardo da Vinci. In a just-published book, "The Lady Speaks: Uncovering the Secrets of the Mona Lisa," William Varvel argues that La Gioconda was a 16th-century feminist who favored a greater role for women in the Catholic church.
"La Gioconda was trying to get people to see that the New Jerusalem would be here as soon as you recognize women's theological rights," Varvel, 53, a former mathematics professor, told AFP in a telephone interview. "La Gioconda may be a grand statement for women's rights," he added.
His theory joins many others -- some serious, others fanciful -- surrounding what is perhaps the world's most famous painting, which draws legions of tourists every day to the Louvre museum in Paris. History remembers the Mona Lisa as Lisa del Giocondo, a mother of five born into an aristocratic Florentine family whose husband, a cloth and silk merchant, commissioned the portrait.
Da Vinci, who had already painted The Last Supper for a Dominican convent, toiled on the oil-on-poplar painting from 1503 to 1506 and perhaps several years after. In his 180-page book that's not always an easy read, Varvel explains that, in the course of his career, Da Vinci had painted "each and every verse" of the final chapter of the Old Testament's book of Zechariah, which anticipates the rise of an ideal society within a New Jerusalem.
He did so, Varvel contends, "in order to state that women's rights to the priesthood should be recognized." What's more, the author said, "Leonardo constructed and placed a total of 40 separate symbols taken from chapter 14 into the background, middle ground and foreground of the composition of the Mona Lisa." Religious clues? Thus, Calvary rises from behind the Mona Lisa's right shoulder, while the Mount of Olives is on the other side. And folds on the arms of her robe suggest a yoke -- a reference to Biblical texts and women's oppression. For Da Vinci, the idea of a New Jerusalem "was based upon a universal recognition of both men and women of the laity to have recognized rights of the priesthood of Jesus Christ," Varvel said. He added: "The perception of the New Jerusalem is the secret that her smile reflects."
Of course we're dealing with Mona Lisa's Law here - the less truth in a Mona Lisa theory, the more news organisations will report it. So naturally this story has already appeared on a vast number of 'news' sites around the world.
Readers interested in the genus of the latest theory are directed to the author's website, which leads on the home page with this quote:
The Lady Speaks compels the Church to critically re-examine biblical texts and religious works of art that recognize Theological Gender Equality to the Preisthood of Jesus Christ.
The website also includes a 'review' section with this emphatic endorsement:
“The Lady Speaks presents Leonardo da Vinci’s hidden message within the Mona Lisa, Theological Gender Equality to the Priesthood of Jesus Christ. The message broadens the understanding of men and women to the truth that the Priesthood of Jesus Christ is universal to all.”
—Brenda Gordon--Product Manager, Vice President of a large financial institution
So it seems we're dealing here with a religious argument which has been forcefully projected onto the painting. Amazon's website allows to read the preface of the book here, in which the basic argument is laid out. It's the usual case of finding hidden 'symbols' in the book, which supposedly relate to chapter 14 the book of Zechariah in the Old Testament. As you can see they're pretty far out:
Come on everyone, it's just a portrait!
Update - a reader disagrees:
Alas, I must now reveal the "true" meaning of the "Mona Lisa" portrait. Notice that she is looking slightly to her left and that her hand is pointing subtly to her left. Either she is looking to Venice or Greece or she's a Socialist.
Sewell on the NPG's new 'War Portraits' show
March 10 2014
The Great Brian is on excellent form in his review of the National Portrait Gallery's new exhibition of Great War portraits. The whole piece is exhibition reviewing at its best. Here are the strangely moving final paragraphs:
Though it is far too cramped and small, playing second fiddle to a once fashionable photographer — David Bailey in this case, but my objection applies to every other who might have been so honoured, so foolish is this misjudgment of priority. I am grateful to the NPG for this exhibition. It falls between too many stools and concentrates on only one campaign, the long-drawn Western Front, but it is to some degree a reminder of the horrors inflicted by war. My diminishing generation needs no such reminder; in my childhood before the Second World War, on every street in London I could see the living wreckage of the Great War, men limbless, eyeless, dreadfully damaged, selling matches and bootlaces for a penny, or, in hope of a penny, singing (often rather well), playing the accordion, the saw (outside St Mary Abbots, Kensington) — yes, the saw — and a harp outside Tattersalls in Knightsbridge. The fortunate legless might have a wicker chair on wheels, the unfortunate a simple wooden chassis paddled along with the hands. A curious child, I wonder how such damaged beings emptied their bowels and bladders, where they slept, how they could eat. Now I see them only in my memory and in the dreary northern paintings of Laurence Lowry. The Great War did not create a world fit for heroes — it threw them on to the street.
It did, however, establish lasting loyalties and affections. Only once did my stepfather speak of that war, though he fought throughout it — in France, the Balkans, Gallipoli, Mesopotamia and the Holy Land — and that was when I unwisely developed an interest in Lawrence of Arabia (who is among the many not included in this exhibition) whom, I learned, my father had good reason to think “a boastful little shit”. But his loyalty to those with whom he fought was quite extraordinary and to be found in no other of his interests; he joined his soldier peers once a month for dinner, even in the blackouts, the Blitzes and the Buzzbomb Summer of the Second World War, until his death in 1962. I experienced something of that loyalty as a National Serviceman with not an enemy in sight — but had there been an enemy, that loyalty would have been much more intense and lasted longer.
But these are the maunderings of an old man in melancholy mood inspired by the pathos of the young so early dead. As the experience of war in any form, in the armed forces or as a civilian, is now the privilege of very few in Britain, I doubt if many will share my powerfully empathic response to this exhibition but I beg them to try. Having done so, having watched the film clips (cramped and uncomfortable) and perhaps having gleaned something of the inglorious sufferings of the soldier, cross the road towards Pret A Manger and, glancing to the left, spare a moment for Edith Cavell, nurse, executed by the Germans in October 1915, for there is her monument, “Patriotism is not enough”, the inscription — her last words, we are told. And it is not, but how now are we to interpret this Delphic utterance when young Gavrilo Princip’s patriotism proved to be so much too much?
The exhibition is on until 15th June.
Update - the Grumpy Art Historian didn't like some of the labels:
The weakness is a jarring curatorial voice that makes bombastic claims that are quite unnecessary; the pictures tell their own story. But the wall text offers questionable generalities like this: "The appalling consequences of [new] weapons suggested that human nature itself had changed, compassion snuffed out by unbridled cruelty and hatred. Such altered perceptions raised profound questions for artists". Was it really new weapons? Was it really worse than, say, the thirty years' war? And even if it was, why should other horrific conflicts not have caused such questioning? Were changed perceptions really caused by war? Virginia Woolf thought human nature changed in December 1910; why do the curators think it was later? These questions are better left for visitors to ponder. Less would have been more in this otherwise fine show.
Update II - I went to see the exhibition, and agree with Brian. It's fascinating, but way too small. What a shame. The show is cramped into two semi-rooms, one of which is part of a room reduced to make way for the tiresome and too, too large exhibition (it takes up almost the entire ground floor) of photographs by David Bailey. I went to see the Bailey show to contrast the offer with the WW1 exhibition. In the former, people drifted swiftly from room to endless room, each more boringly and densely hung than the last. In the latter, they dwelt for far longer on both image and wall text, evidently learning and thinking about a subject currently high up in our national consciousness.
Presumably, the disparity in space is a reflection of the NPG's enforced priorities, for shows like the Bailey bring in the cash. Let's hope that somewhere like the Imperial War Museum (from where many of the NPG exhibits come) can soon mount a larger and more penetrating exhibition of this fascinating artistic aspect of the Great War.
Coello to be exported
March 10 2014
The above portrait by Coello of Philip II's son, Don Diego is to be exported from Britain. As I reported here in February, the picture was made the subject of a temporary export block by the government, with a price set at £4.25m. But no gallery came forward with a matching offer. It had been suggested that the National Gallery might have a go. But while the portrait is a fine one, I think the NG was right not to try and 'save' this one.
The picture belongs to the Prince of Liechtenstein. The last time he tried to export it, at a lower price, there was a row which led in part to the cancellation of an exhibition of his collection at the Royal Academy.
Update - a reader writes:
I would have to disagree with you and had hoped that the National Gallery would have acquired it. Indeed, following its appearance before the RCEWA in 2006, they were looking seriously into it. At that stage it was valued at £2M but: “Prior to the end of the second deferral period, a serious intention to purchase the painting was made by a UK institution. Before the end of the second deferral period the applicant withdrew their application.”
They clearly had a change of mind when it came before the Committee again in January last year as they made no effort to acquire it at £4.25 (there are some interesting reports in the records about the valuation including the applicant making direct representations to the Secretary of State in order to up the price). I guess the trustees of the National Gallery were in the midst of negotiations to bring the, wholly inappropriate, Bellows to London and couldn’t afford it. So where now are they going to get a major example of 16thc Spanish portrait painting?
Oxford College sells Ruisdael
March 10 2014
Picture: Kimbell Art Museum
The Sunday Times reported yesterday that the Kimbell Art Museum in Texas has bought the above landscape of c.1656 by Jacob van Ruisdael from Oxford University's Worcester College. The price reported was up to £10m. The Kimbell has confirmed the acquisition, but the College's Provost has said the sale price was 'pure guesswork', and that the amount was confidential. In other words, he didn't deny it. The picture was donated to the college in the early 19th Century, and the money raised is going to build some new bedrooms.
Meanwhile in China...
March 10 2014
They're putting on the country's largest ever Monet exhibition - in a shopping mall. As you can see above, it all looks a bit sparse. But the good news is that the show is a sell out, with over 60,000 tickets sold so far. More here.
Guffwatch - junior edition
March 6 2014
I don't know who came up with this series, but it's great.
Update - two readers kindly tell me it is by Miriam Elia - see more excellent examples here.
Update II - Miriam has annoyed Ladybird books, who have demanded that she pulp them. More here.
Connoisseurship strikes back (ctd.)
March 6 2014
Early last year I mentioned here the forthcoming Authentication in Art conference to held this May in The Hague. I noted then the apparent lack of any mention of the 'C-word' in the programme, but I'm pleased to see now that it features a great deal. The conference will be held over three days, and speakers include Prof. Martin Kemp. They kindly asked me to speak, but I decided against in the end. I see, by the way, that the fee for the conference is 700 Euros! Ooph.
Much cheaper, and more convenient for those in Blighty, will be a forthcoming one day conference on connoisseurship organised by the Paul Mellon Centre in London. 'Connoisseurship Now' takes place on Friday 2nd May. I will be giving a paper headed 'Why Connoisseurship Matters', and other speakers will include Dr Stephan Deuchar (director of the Art Fund and former director of Tate Britain), Hugo Chapman of the British Museum, and Dr Martin Myrone of Tate Britain. Should be fun. Book now!
PS - do you think connoisseurship matters? If so, do help me write my paper by telling me why... Equally, I'd like to hear from you if you don't think it matters.
Update - a reader writes:
The Mellon Centre event looks interesting... but it's nowhere to be seen on their website (even though they have stuff on events happening much later, in July). Do you think it's because they are themselves deeply ambivalent about connoisseurship?
Don't think so! I'll ask the PMC to put the details up soon.
The Grumpy Art Historian sends a link to some heartening E H Gombrich quotes he found recently in a short pamphlet called Art History and the Social Sciences. Among them this:
"[the basic skill of art history is] the ability to assign a date, place, and, if possible, a name on the evidence of style. I know no art historian who is not aware of the fact that this skill could not be practised in splendid isolation. The historian of art must be a historian, for without the ability to assess the historical evidence, inscriptions, documents, chronicles, and other primary sources the geographical and chronological distribution of styles could never have been mapped out in the first place."
A reader wonders if the word 'connoisseurship' itself is the problem:
I think there is a struggle to hand as the general run of art and art-history theorists believe that connoisseurship needs to be locked away in a cupboard (probably dark brown 18th century gothic revival) and not mentioned.
It’s an enormously important area and I wonder about finding another name for it so that ordinary folk don’t get frightened off... ?
I like the word myself personally. But I agree that in other senses the word 'connoisseur' has very snobbish connotations, especially when it comes to defining 'taste'. But this is in fact a corrupt use of the word, for when applied to the skill of working out an attribution it makes perfect sense, deriving as it does from the latin 'cognoscere', which means 'to get to know'. Connoisseurship, therefore, is simply 'getting to know' (say) the style of Van Dyck.
Another reader addresses the 'science' issue:
In your recent blog you asked for views on connoisseurship. Perhaps an obvious point but one which does not seem to be stressed much is that science i.e. proof of facts such as pigment identification, dendrology etc. can only really be used to prove unequivocally that a painting is not by a given artist. (I do not include fingerprints or handwriting in this which are subjective fields and, speaking as a lawyer,I know how woeful the track record for these is. ). Whilst science may contribute towards a positive identification it is hard to see how it could ever do so unequivocally on its own. So long as positive identification is desired therefore connoisseurship will be essential. Or am I being simple minded?!
Another reader sends this further analysis:
Their isn't any certain recipe for attributing a work of art about which a doubt exists or should exist. Connoisseurship is a tool in authentication and attribution. It isn't the only tool, but it is an essential one.
If one thinks of a hierarchy of authentication: first is a signed work with documents that show that it was by a particular artist, science that validates the materials, and a provenance that can trace this particular piece to the artist, which only leaves the possibility of intentional fraud by the owner who could have substituted a copy with the right materials for the original.
After that all of the tools of authentication must be applied to the work.
Provenance - documentation and historical support.
Scientific examination - of the pigments, canvas, wood, and other materials.
And then Connoisseurship.
In general, scientific data can only disprove an attribution. It can only show that a work could not have been created by a particular artist or in an positive sense, that it might have been created by a particular artist. Even a work on a piece of canvas cut from the same larger piece of canvas as a work by Vermeer could be (admittedly unlikely but still possible) by a contemporary, but for an artistic examination of the work itself.
If documentation is lacking and the work passes the other tests, and probably some which I have overlooked, connoisseurship is still necessary.
Two identical or similar works of the same vintage are often by two different artists and could pass other tests including provenance, both possibly having had the same original owner who wanted a copy, and ultimately it is style, brushwork, peculiarities of signature or other indicia (Strong noted how dates were indicated), and the other elements of connoisseurship that can attribute (provide an informed opinion regarding) the authorship.
Like science, connoisseruship isn't a proof of anything only a statement that a particular artist could have created, might have created, or is very likely to have created a work. It can also suggest that there is evidence to disprove an attribution.
Then, when there is a individual work, aside from deliberate fraud which is a separate topic, there is the question of whose hand created it or which parts of it which, in the absence of other proof, requires connoisseurship.
But this still only an informed opinion. A great difficulty with connoisseurship is assessing the agenda and qualifications of the expert. There are both professional and financial pressures at work here. And the expert is only a human.
Why consider connoisseurship, because the scientific tools are also inconclusive, and C adds evidence to build an opinion. The work, in general, must speak for itself. Res ipsa loquitor.
Update II - an artist writes:
As a painter the bit I'm always troubled by is something that is rarely spoken about in the art world - some experts are colour blind and some others have no spacial awareness and that's why for many it's easier to talk about scientific analysis and provenance, without looking at the picture concerned and asking basic questions about why, what's achieved and how.
Sometimes with a collector one can tell what their strengths and weaknesses are from the art they collect and that's true also with gallery owners who choose and put on exhibitions - I can think of several who I think might be colour blind! (I won't name anyone) But 'experts' are opaque about their abilities / prejudices and preferences. And frequently they are unable to either explain decisions or engage in debate about these decisions. I can understand why they back off - especially if the other party has a financial incentive to prove a picture.
I'd happily try to devise an exam in practical skills in which experts could demonstrate their understanding and sensitivity to line, colour, texture, composition, sculptural qualities and pattern. Maybe a if an expert could analysis - for example which colours he/she can see in a shade of grey or do a quick sketch to demonstrate their understanding of the work they are looking at, this would inspire greater confidence in them.
Who gets what if the Scots leave? (ctd.)
March 6 2014
Picture: Daily Record
A few months ago, I wondered how an independent Scotland would approach the question of its, and the rest of the UK's, art collections. I also raised the issue of what happens with the current UK-wide export controls. Now, in The Art Newspaper, David Black also asks 'will the Scots sack the British Museum?'
If we really are talking about a national divorce in this case—and let’s not forget the polls tell us it is highly unlikely—it would be difficult to see how the thorny issue of a division of spoils could be avoided. The pain could, however, be mitigated if the institutions themselves, unlike our politicians, could begin to consider one or two preliminary ideas, at least in abstracto.
The outstanding collection of around 1,400 Old Master drawings and prints that the British Museum acquired from the estate of the Scottish clan chief John Malcolm of Poltalloch in 1895 could certainly be the subject of a cross-border concordat. This single acquisition, which includes important works by Michelangelo, Leonardo and Verrocchio, among others, raised the museum to the same level as the Louvre overnight. There is no reason why these could not, from time to time, be shared with Scotland on an agreed loan basis.
Similarly, the Tate could release a number of drawings by William Blake that have a Scottish provenance. Even the British Library could help out. It is something of an anomaly that it holds the country’s most significant collections of Pictish and Celtic survey drawings, most of them Scottish. It would hardly be much of an intellectual sacrifice to send them north.
On the other hand, even if Scotland does opt for independence, the subject may never come up. I contacted the office of the Scottish government’s culture minister, the SNP’s culture spokesman in Westminster and the Scottish National Party press office in Edinburgh to ascertain their views on the matter. I have yet to hear from any of them. Perhaps they don’t much care—in which case the curators of Millbank and Great Russell Street can probably rest easy in their beds.
I wish I could be as relaxed about the possible outcome, but I have to say I'm not so sure. I've recently moved to Edinburgh, and my feeling is that there may well be a 'Yes' vote in September. Of course, art will come way down the list of priorities in any subsequent negotiation, so there's a risk things will be rushed through. I have no idea what they'll want to do with the Royal Collection, for example. Incidentally, I see on their website that the Royal Collection Trust is a 'company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales'.
Beltracchi - the Movie
March 6 2014
Here's a new film about Wolfgang Beltracchi, the German forger whose works ended up in Sotheby's and Christie's, selling for mega money (more here, here and here). It's in German, and at the beginning we hear Beltracchi boasting that Leonardo 'isn't difficult'. Given that Beltracchi's fakes of second rank modern German artists were in fact pretty rubbish, I don't believe for one second that he could fool anyone with a 'Leonardo'. At the end of the film he claims to have made over two thousand fakes.
Getty book collection online - for free!
March 6 2014
Very cool. Says the Getty:
The books in the Virtual Library come from three of the Getty’s programs: the Getty Conservation Institute, the Getty Research Institute, and the J. Paul Getty Museum. The over 250 offered here today—and the many more we will continue to add into the future—represent a significant portion of our publishing list. Still, they are just a modest part of what is becoming an important, informally networked library, spread across multiple institutions and spanning thousands of years of art historical knowledge. Our virtual library proudly joins those already created by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Guggenheim, LACMA, and others. We hope you will explore and use them all. The books they hold are treasures meant for all, and now easier than ever for all to access and enjoy.
Search the virtual library here.
For overseas readers...
March 5 2014
Some cunning fellow has just uploaded my recent Culture Show Special, The Lost Portrait of Bonnie Prince Charlie, onto You Tube. Catch it quickly before it gets deleted!
What have the Hanoverians ever done for us?
March 4 2014
I was slightly surprised, after all my recent Jacobite and Stuart hurrah-ing, to get an invitation from the German embassy to 'celebrate' the 300th anniversary of the Hanoverian succession. There seems to be a concerted effort to remind us what a Good Thing the Hanoverians were, with the Georges branded 'Glorious', and a whole new exhibition soon (11 April) at the Queen's Gallery on 'The First Georgians'. Says the Royal Collection:
In 1714 George I ascended the throne as the first British monarch of the German House of Hanover. With the dawn of a new dynastic age came a silent revolution – one of the most dramatic periods of change across all aspects of British political, intellectual and cultural life.
To mark the 300th anniversary of the beginning of the Georgian era, The First Georgians: Art and Monarchy 1714-1760 explores royal patronage and taste in the reigns of George I and George II as a product of a time when Britain was the world’s most liberal, commercial and modern society. It brings together over 300 works in the Royal Collection from royal residences across the UK.
Should be a fine show. More here.
Clooney speaks (again)
March 4 2014
The Guardian reports that George Clooney, not content with urging the return of the Elgin Marbles to Greece, now wants the Mona Lisa to go 'back' to Italy (tho' it has been in France since 1518).
I'm a big Clooney fan, but sadly I have to report that Monuments Men, which I was so looking forward to, is a bit of a turkey.
Update - a reader writes:
If George Clooney feels so strongly that works of art should be returned to their place of manufacture, perhaps he could take this work back home with him...
March 4 2014
Malcolm Rogers is to retire in two years as director of the MFA Boston. Rogers, a Brit, has worked miracles at the MFA, and will be a hard act to follow. More here in Apollo.
Agnews to re-open
March 4 2014
Picture: Look and Learn
Great news that Agnews, one of the most venerable Old Master dealers in the world, is to re-open. The company has been bought by a new owner, reports the Telegraph:
Barely a year after the 195-year-old London gallery Agnew’s closed down, it is to reopen under new ownership. Backed by Boston Old Master collector and investor Cliff Schorer, Agnew’s is to be revived, with Old Master dealer Anthony Crichton-Stuart at the helm.
Crichton-Stuart was previously head of Old Master paintings at Christie’s in New York, and subsequently a director of Noortman Master Paintings, an art dealing subsidiary of Sotheby’s that also closed down last year. When Agnew’s closed, outgoing chairman Julian Agnew kept the company’s name, some remaining stock, and a valuable library and archive, all of which has now been sold to the new owners. “Agnew’s is more than a name,” said Crichton-Stuart, alluding to the value of prestige, without revealing its price. “It represents one of the most successful art dealing businesses in history.”
Update - a reader writes with news of the archive:
Very interesting news about the sale and revival of Agnew's, but the wonderful Agnew's archive is not part of the transaction. It has actually been (or is in the process of being) acquired by the National Gallery. The University of Manchester and the National Gallery will shortly announce a new PhD studentship to work on the archive. Even better news for students of the history of the market and collecting.
Update II - it's official, the NG just announced the acquisition of the archive for £240,000:
The National Gallery has acquired the archive of art dealers Thomas Agnew & Sons Ltd following the firm’s decision to close its Albemarle Street gallery in 2013. The archive, which dates back to the 1850s, consists of detailed stockbooks, daybooks, diaries and huge leather-bound account ledgers that give unprecedented insight into the activity of one of the world’s most important international art dealers. It complements the National Gallery’s own rich archive and establishes the Gallery as a centre of research for the study of collecting, the art market, taste and provenance. Researchers will benefit from improved access to an outstanding and little-studied collection spanning more than 150 years of history.
Agnew’s archive provides a remarkably detailed record of the activities of the firm, which during its history has had branches in London, Manchester, Liverpool, Paris, New York and Berlin. It includes the records of famous paintings that have passed through Agnew’s, including Velázquez’s ‘Rokeby Venus’ and Bellini’s Feast of the Gods. It also holds information about the company’s involvement with major collectors from around the world. Exceptionally, Agnew’s has remained a family firm from its inception and the archive includes items of a more personal or immediate nature, such as Victorian diaries of overseas trips. Letters and digital information will complete the record through the 20th century up to the end of 2013, the later material being transferred to the National Gallery in stages over the next three decades.
The archive was offered at a discounted price of £240,000, for which sum it was generously purchased and donated to the Gallery by the National Gallery Trust.
Julian Agnew said on behalf of Agnew’s, “I am delighted that our fascinating archive has found such a prestigious permanent home, where the records of the firm and of its influence on the history of taste and collecting will be available to both scholars and the general public.”
Nicholas Penny, Director of the National Gallery, said, “Agnew’s has been at the centre of the art trade for almost 200 years and importantly during the late 19th century and early 20th century when major shifts in collections between the UK and USA were taking place. As the largest and most influential dealer of its age, the information held within the archive is of international significance and has outstanding research value.”
The addition of Agnew’s archive to the National Gallery Research Centre is significant in that it is the first time the Gallery has collected an archive that is not closely bound to its own history. The Gallery will catalogue the archive, and this is expected to be completed within two years. However, the Gallery aims to make the archive as accessible as possible during that time.
Update III - the National Gallery have released the below photo. White gloves! These are the worst things you can use to handle archives. It makes it more likely to rip the paper, as you become clumsy. Clean hands please NG!