Previous Posts: April 2014
The value of dirt
April 30 2014
Picture: Christie's (left), Sotheby's (right)
We've just had a round of rather uninspiring Old Master sales here in London. I haven't noticed any special prices to report, on the sleeper front. However, I was interested to see that the above portrait in oil on copper by Gonzales Coques sold at Sotheby's for £16,250. This was some seven years after it sold at Christie's in Paris for a whopping EUR78,000. So someone has presumably taken quite a hit...
Why the dramatic price difference? Well, first, as we say in the trade, 'cleaning is the friend of a good picture, and the enemy of a bad one'. The cleaned picture, as seen this week at Sotheby's, isn't an especially bad one. But it's fair to say that it's not as enticing as the pre-cleaning, Christie's image might have led one to believe.
Then there's the question of whether it's better to enter a picture into a sale cleaned or 'dirty'. I'm often asked by consignors whether they should restore a picture before sending it to auction, and the answer is - rarely. Despite the auction houses' best efforts to work against art dealers, it is still the case that dealers underpin most prices at auction, particularly for the middle market. So when the Coques was at Christie's in 2007 its dirty and alluring state would have appealed to the trade, who, in taking a risk on the painting in its unclear condition and then restoring it, could be seen to have added value to the sale price which, in this era of online prices, anyone could easily look up. The dirty picture, therefore, would have been a good piece of stock for dealers to buy, and consequntly the number of potential bidders went up, and the price was high. I know it was bought by a major European dealer, whom I shan't name.
This time round, alas, there would have been no trade buyers for such a shiny bright work, and so the price achieved was much less. It's still the same picture of course. Which value was more appropriate? I don't know. But the moral of the story is, keep your picture's dirty (most of the time).
Sic transit gloria mundi
April 30 2014
A number of items from the estate of the late Michael Winner, the acerbic film director and critic, were offered at Sotheby's this week. A portrait of Winner, above, was offered for just £600-£800, but it failed to sell. Rather tragic really.
This is still not Shakespeare (ctd.)
April 30 2014
Picture: Discovery News
And still they come... From Germany now, via the Shakespeare scholar Prof. Hildegard Hammerschmidt-Hummel, we have another version of the Cobbe/Janssen portrait, above left, and now a wholly new 'life portrait', above right, supposedly painted just a couple of years before Shakespeare died. This new portrait, termed the Boaden portrait, is claimed by the Professor to be the only portrait to show Shakespeare's whole body, but also tells us that he liked lurchers, that he was short, and that he suffered from Mikulicz's syndrome.
Let's look at the evidence presented by Prof. Hammerschmidt-Hummel (of the University of Mainz) for the Boaden portrait (quoted on Discovery News):
"I am calling it the Boaden Portrait because I found it in a rare, richly illustrated edition of James Boaden's work of 1824," Hammerschmidt-Hummel said.
Called "An Inquiry into the Authenticity of Various Pictures and Prints, which ...have been offered to the Public as Portraits of Shakespeare," the book displays the portrait as an engraving -- with no caption.
"Nevertheless, my research in close interdisciplinary collaboration with experts from other disciplines shows we are dealing here with an authentic portrait," Hammerschmidt-Hummel said.
"The portrait could only have come about by direct contact of the artist with his model, that is Shakespeare," said Jost Metz, a dermatologist who examined the portraits. Metz specializes in diagnosing signs of disease in Renaissance portraits.
In other words, there is no evidence whatsoever that the print is based on an original portrait painted in Shakespeare's lifetime. This is a perfectly harmless 19th Century engraving, an imaginary portrait of the sort regularly made for 18th and 19th Century publications. Saying it is a life portrait of Shakespeare on the basis of a dermatologists's view just won't do.
But it gets worse!
The tests for authenticity on the new portraits brought to light a series of facial marks and idiosyncrasies that correspond to those found on all the other Shakespeare likenesses. In particular, the two newly found pictures show a growth on the upper left eyelid and swellings in the nasal corner of the left eye, which seem to represent different stages of a disease.
"Renaissance painters faithfully reproduced not only the features of their subjects, but also any signs of disease," Hammerschmidt-Hummel said.
A team of doctors analyzed both paintings and concluded that, in the Boaden portrait, the Mikulicz's syndrome and the additional swelling on the upper left eyelid, interpreted as lymphoma by the ophthalmologist Walter Lerche in 1995, had grown considerably.
The doctors say that the swelling on the left upper eyelid of the Wörlitz picture is just appearing and less noticeable.
With reference to the nasal corner of the left eye of both new portraits, Metz, the dermatologist, stressed that this was a pathological symptom all the authentic images had in common.
The evidence presented for the copy of the Cobbe/Janssen portrait is a little more interesting, tho' one wonders how reliable it is. The copy is apparently lost and only known through a 1936 black and white photo. But this hasn't stopped the Professor confidently claiming it have been painted from life (tho' it looks to me clearly to be a much later work, probably late 17th or early 18th Century):
According to the German academic, one portrait, possibly painted around 1594, when the poet was about 30 years old, depicts Shakespeare as a young London playwright and author of sonnets who has reached the first height of his unparalleled literary career.
"Showing amazing self-confidence, the man appears to cast his spell over the viewer with a touch of a triumphant smile," Hammerschmidt-Hummel said.
Hung in the bedchamber of Prince Franz (1740-1817), in the Gothic House of the Dessau-Wörlitz Garden Realm, the 2.4- by 2-foot portrait was seized in 1945 by the Soviet army.
"It has been lost ever since. Today there is only a high-quality, monochrome photograph from 1936, now in the Photo Marburg Picture Archive," Hammerschmidt-Hummel said.
Archival research shows Prince Franz brought the picture from his trip to England from 1763 to 1764. Records show it was given to him as a gift by Thomas Hart, a distant relative of Shakespeare.
The presence of the bald head shows that this portrait is a copy after the Janssen portrait, which belongs to the Folger Library in Washington, was over-painted with its bald head. Quite when it was over-painted nobody knows for sure. But it must have been done prior to an engraving of the 'bald' type in 1770.
'Building the Picture' online catalogue
April 27 2014
Building the Picture is all about the place of architecture in Renaissance paintings. Says the NG site:
This spring, the National Gallery presents the first exhibition in Britain to explore the role of architecture in Italian Renaissance painting of the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries.
'Building the Picture: Architecture in Italian Renaissance Painting' aims to increase visitors' appreciation and understanding of some of the most beautiful and architectonic paintings by Italian masters such as Duccio, Botticelli, Crivelli and their contemporaries. Visitors will be encouraged to look in new ways at buildings depicted in paintings, and to investigate how artists invented imagined spaces that transcended the reality of bricks, mortar and marble.
The exhibition is the result of a research partnership between the National Gallery and the University of York, and offers a fresh interpretation of some of the National Gallery’s own Italian Renaissance collection. In addition, other masterpieces are featured – such as the Venetian master Sebastiano del Piombo's 'The Judgement of Solomon' (Kingston Lacy, The Bankes Collection, National Trust), on display in London for the first time in 30 years, and 'The Ruskin Madonna' by Andrea del Verrocchio (National Gallery of Scotland).
Cracking down on 'the ring'
April 27 2014
The Art Newspaper reports on a new EU law designed to 'crack down on auction rings':
The new regulations, part of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, state that dealers who enter into a legitimate agreement must provide details of the contract to the auction house, including the names of the parties involved, the lots being bid on and a description of the arrangement. This could include a percentage breakdown of the financial stakes. Previously, dealers only had to notify the auction house that an agreement was in place, or submit a copy of the contract. New provisions also mean that prosecutors no longer have to prove that members of an auction ring have acted “dishonestly”.
Some in the trade say that dealers may be reluctant to disclose details of such contracts, particularly in the light of the encroachment of auction houses in the private sale market. “Dealers may only agree to act in conjunction with one another immediately before the sale, and possibly only by oral agreement, so for practical reasons it may be difficult to disclose the agreement in time,” [art lawyer Pierre] Valentin says. He says that larger dealers may be at greater risk of prosecution, because it would be more difficult for them to prove that they could not afford a work outright and so any joint agreement might be seen as anti-competitive.
The major auction houses would not be drawn on the number of joint acquisition agreements they receive, but a spokesman for Bonhams said that the practice is “far from unusual”. Dealers contacted by The Art Newspaper would not comment on the matter.
There's a difference between an 'auction ring' and dealers buying a part share of a picture. In the former, dealers agree not to bid against each other, and then have an informal auction afterwards amongst themselves. Buying a picture in part shares is quite common amongst art dealers, and perfectly legal - but it does leave the 'trade' open to accusations of murkiness and anti-competitiveness. We don't do it at Philip Mould Ltd, because it's usually more trouble than it's worth - some dealers end up trading eights of a picture, and then the only person to benefit is your accountant. Also, if like us you like to hunt out auction 'sleepers', then having a fellow dealer ring up and say 'are you bidding on...' before a sale obliges you either to tell porkies, or give the game away. So it's better to have a reputation for flying solo, so to speak. Such approach sometimes has its drawbacks; it leaves you outside the fold of a tight-knit world of dealers, and exacerbates a feeling of 'them and us'.
Update - a reader writes:
The anti-competitive behaviour which is being opposed with new rules only served to lower auction prices, benefitting all buyers at the expense of the sellers and the auction firms’ commissions and premia. It might have helped the auction firms convince some sellers that private sales would yield higher prices because of this “market imperfection.”
The result of the new rules, if any result, will be to increase auction prices. Also, apparently dealers, one step ahead, can still form rings for private sales.
Guffwatch - 'Art as Therapy' (ctd.)
April 25 2014
Time for another of Alain de Botton's label gems, folks. This one's from 'River View by Moonlight' by Aert van der Neer, 1645:
We've all known nights a bit like this. The ordinary preoccupations of the day recede and, away from the familiarity of home, one accesses unfamiliar, yet important, parts of oneself. The artist is trying to hold on to a mood of heightened consciousness at being alone in a strange, beautiful world. It is a mood that we all know but generally neglect.
Since Alain doesn't really think it's important to know who painted what, how can he claim to know what Aert van der Neer was thinking when he painted this? And judging by the number of figures in the scene, he can hardly be called 'alone'. The Irish have a good word for this sort of thing: gobshite.
It seems, by the way, that I'm not alone in thinking Alain's labels are a bit far out. Here's Adrian Searle's review of the Rijksmuseum's new venture in The Guardian:
De Botton is like one of those "Jesus is your best mate" Christians, giving us not one but 150 thoughts for the day, on the ubiquitous labels, audioguide and downloadable app. He wants museums to become temples of virtue, places of instruction that go far beyond their usual remit of caring for and displaying centuries of culture. He'd probably also like to replace burgeoning museum education departments with outposts of his School of Life, a sort of drop-in self-help centre which, just this week, opened a branch in Amsterdam.
De Botton thinks we've got art all wrong. He doesn't like the way museums are organised and finds the usual little wall labels, with their dates and movements and snippets of art history, unhelpful. Ideally, he envisages museums reorganised according to therapeutic functions – with a basement of suffering, leading upwards to a gallery of self-knowledge on the top floor. It's like Dante's circles of hell.
De Botton's evangelising and his huckster's sincerity make him the least congenial gallery guide imaginable. He has no eye, and no ear for language. With their smarmy sermons and symptomology of human failings, their aphorisms about art leading us to better parts of ourselves, De Botton's texts feel like being doorstepped. But art contains concentrated doses of the virtues! You could coerce any art at all into his cause of mental hygiene and spiritual wellbeing. De Botton reduces art to its discernible content. He doesn't make us want to look at all.
Update - a reader writes:
That picture by the rather boring Aert v/d Neer is about Moonshine, the stuff we brew here in the South. One's got to see the symbolism...!
The label I have put next to de Botton’s work is “observe the petit philosopher still seeking an idea that will gain acceptance for emotion over knowledge.”. He should seek it by writing little descriptions for conceptual art, where it wouldn't matter and be indistinguishable from the drivel already there.
Royal baby discovered!
April 25 2014
Picture: Philip Mould and Co/Historic Royal Palaces
Forgive the plug, but here's an interesting discovery I'm rather pleased with. The above portrait shows Princess Augusta (1737-1813) when a baby. Augusta was the eldest daughter of Frederick, Prince of Wales and Augusta, Princess of Wales, and also the elder sister of King George III. The picture came up for auction in the United States as 'a portrait of an unknown baby' by an unknown artist. Following research and conservation by is, it is now on display at Hampton Court Palace, as part of their new 'Glorious George's' exhibition (which is well worth seeing).
Despite being an unknown (and one must say, not especially cute) baby, the picture piqued my interest when it came up for sale because of the blue velvet and ermine cushion. Blue velvet and ermine usually denotes royal status, and as the armoured figure resembled Britannia, I reckoned the baby must be a British royal baby.
From the pre-cleaning photo, I thought the child might be James III, being heralded as the new heir of James II. But there was no proof of this, and for a while I was stumped. Then, cleaning revealed a picture painted in a later style, and also (excitingly) the signature of Charles Philips (1708-1747), which pushed the timeframe forward into the 18th Century. Now Philips was quite an obscure figure, but he was patronised by Frederick, Prince of Wales, and so for a while my favoured candidate was a baby George III.
But it was only when I saw a full length portrait of the Princess of Wales holding the same baby, but inverted, (below) by Philips at Warwick Castle that I finally got the right kid. In the background of the large picture we see Britannia with her shield, confirming the shield-less figure in the smaller painting to be Britannia too (as opposed to, say, Minerva). The newly discovered painting is evidently unfinished, and a number of pentimenti visible in the background show that it was probably an abandoned composition in favour of the larger full-length. Interestingly, it turns out that our newly discovered picture was engraved, with the strapline that the young princess was 'painted from ye life' by Philips.
The presence of Britannia makes the picture an interesting piece of royal propoganda. Since the young Augusta was the first Hanoverian heiress to be born in Britain, she was proudly heralded by her parents as an emphatically 'British' royal baby. Frederick, Prince of Wales was estranged politically from his father, George II, and actively tried to present himself as a British prince, in opposition to his German-speaking dad. 'Rule Britannia', for example, was first sung in Frederick's presence. Indeed, such was the tension between Prince of Wales and his father that when his wife went into labour, Frederick insisted they flee Hampton Court, so that the baby could be born in London, as a Londoner, away from the King and Queen. Poor mother and baby were raced over rough roads, and just got to St James' Palace in time for a healthy birth.
Now, the newly discovered portrait of the Princess hangs just opposite the very stairs that her pregnant mother raced down, as she and Frederick prepared to leave Hampton Court. I'm dead chuffed, and, if you'll further indulge my boasting, I'm also pleased to have balanced my recent Jacobite portrait discovery (of Bonnie Prince Charlie) with this Hanoverian one.
Rijksmuseum: all photos free for use, and free of copyright
April 25 2014
There's a good interview in The Art Newspaper (the latest print edition, but not online)* with Wim Pijbes, director of the Rijksmuseum. He says -I'm summarising - that in his view all images held in public museums should be free for use, free of copyright, and that museums who charge for image rights only ever just about break even, once the cost of issuing those charges is taken into account. He also adds that within five years all major museums will have abolished image charges. To which, AHN says a loud hurrah, and well done Wim.
I often wonder if the expensive restrictions on reproducing images has led in part to the rise of guff in art history books. Because publishers cannot use images, and because art historians know this, we end up with books full of words instead of images. Is this too conspiratorial of me?
Update - a reader writes:
I am pleased to read that the Rijksmuseum allows free use of online images from its collection and that other museums will eventually follow suit. I hope that this will lead to a reinstatement of their ban on public photography, now that there is no need to take a lesser quality photo with shadows, glass and other visitors in the way. On my recent visit to the Rijksmuseum I was harangued by a woman repeatedly calling out 'Meneer!' (Sir) at me, to get me to move out of the way of her photo. Finally unable to ignore her loud cries any longer I turned round and replied, 'I don't understand you, I'm English!' and was pleased to see that her photo was just a white blur of reflections.
* The print edition of TAN is well worth subscribing to by the way -always packed full of goodies.
Another noble disposal
April 25 2014
Picture: Arts Council
I see with sadness that the Duke of Northumberland (or more accurately, his trustees) are selling a number of fine works in the forthcoming summer Old Master sales. Inlcuded on the Arts Council's Notice of Intention to Sell lists are the above portrait of Frances Devereux by Van Dyck, and also Gilbert Stuart's famous portrait (below) of Joseph Brant, the mohawk leader Thayendenegea who was the best known American Indian of his age.
The Van Dyck is 'priced' at £600,000, which probably suggests a likely estimate of £400,000-£600,000 (on the cheap side I'd say, it's a fine picture, which I've seen up close at Syon House). The Stuart portrait is listed at £1.5m, and I can also see that making more, with US interest. That said, it would probably be export-stopped if bought by an overseas buyer.
As I've said here before, increasing prices for Old Masters mean we are likely to see more sales from country houses, and consequently sales outside the UK. Happily, however, bodies like the Heritage Lottery Fund are now able to help keep some of these treasures in the country.
The greatest forger of all time? (ctd.)
April 23 2014
Picture: NY Times
US prosecutors have now decided to charge the artist who made a string of fakes sold by the now-closed Knoedler gallery in New York. Pei-Shen Qian (above) made over 60 paintings and drawings to order for Gloria Rosales, the dealer who claimed to have 'discovered' previously lost works by the likes of Pollock, Rothko, Motherwell and Diebenkorn, but who has since pleaded guilty to operating a fake scam.
However, it seems Mr. Qian is now safely holed up in China, which has no extradition treaty with the US.
The New York Times reports:
Mr. Qian’s home in Queens, which was searched by the F.B.I., yielded an intriguing collection of materials, the indictment says, including “books on Abstract Expressionist artists and their techniques; auction catalogs containing works by famous American Abstract Expressionist artists; paints, brushes, canvases and other materials, including an envelope of old nails marked ‘Mark Rothko.’ ” [...]
Efforts to reach Mr. Qian [...] were unsuccessful on Monday. Mr. Qian, in an interview with Bloomberg Businessweek in December, said he had no idea his work was being sold as the real thing, calling the case “a very big misunderstanding.” He said he had been told his paintings were being sold to art lovers who could not afford works by the masters.
Mr. Qian was [also] charged with lying to F.B.I. agents during an interview last June, when he said he did not recognize Ms. Rosales’s name, had never painted in the style of Jackson Pollock or Barnett Newman, and did not recognize the names Richard Diebenkorn, Mark Rothko or Sam Francis.
Guffwatch - 'Art as Therapy'
April 23 2014
At last, the British philosopher Alain de Botton has completed his re-labelling of the Rijksmuseum's collection. This is billed as 'Art as Therapy', and seems to be a giant plug for his latest book. And, dear readers, prepare yourselves for an orgy of unparalleled Guff. I'll treat you to Alain's efforts sporadically over the next few days.
First, here's what Alain has to say about Adriaen Van Utrecht's 1644 'Banquet Still Life', above.:
It's easy to feel that consumerism is a bit evil. Yet it doesn't have to be stupid. A good response to anxiety about consumerism isn't to live without lobster and lemons, but to appreciate what goes into providing these at a just price. If the route to your table were truly honourable, a lemon would cost more, but our appreciation of its zest would be all the keener.
Priceless. The Rijksmuseum's website tells us why de Botton (and his co-author John Armstrong) think informative and factual labels are just so pointless:
De Botton and Armstrong feel that by providing the name of the artist, the material used, the period in which the object was made/created, etc., traditional museum text boards already suggest what the visitor should think about a certain object. The exhibition Art is Therapy, however, wants to question what the purpose of art is and highlight the therapeutic effect that art has on visitors who simply look at art and enjoy it. As far as the British philosophers are concerned, the focus should be less on where an art object comes from and who made it, and more on what it can do for the museum visitor in terms of issues that concern us all: love & relationships, work, status, memory and mortality.
Update - a reader writes:
They all miss the point. Art Museums may provide therapy to visitors. They certainly provide it to this writer. Art, however, wasn't produced principally for display in museums until quite recently. This point is made clearly by Andre Malraux in the opening chapters of “Voices of Silence.”. Perhaps the need for therapy has increased or art museums should become licensed to provide medical services.
How much of de Botton’s writing and philosophy would be published and read if the publisher or reader received it without an indication of authorship. What would readers think of the work if it were published anonymously and without context (probably online). It seems that the main therapeutic benefit of this philosophy is to its authors.
Another reader adds:
I think it's dumb to see art as a theraphy as well, because I don't want to be a patient !
Rare UK de-accession
April 23 2014
Picture: TAN/Compton Verney
Martin Bailey in The Art Newspaper reports that Compton Verney, the new (opened in 2004) art gallery in Warwickshire founded by the philanthropist Sir Peter Moores, is to sell the above work by Bernardo Strozzi. Sir Peter bought the work in 1998 for £1.3m before the gallery's collection strategy became more focused. Now that it's the only Genoese Old Master in the collection, the picture, The Incredulity of St Thomas, is being sold for a figure of around £2.5m. The sale will go towards new acquisitions.
This is still not Shakespeare (ctd.)
April 23 2014
It's Shakespeare's 450th birthday!* So cue national newspapers running photos of the wrong man. This time, however, the 'Cobbe portrait' is making fewer appearances than usual (though it creeps in here at The Guardian as 'believed to be the only authentic image of Shakespeare made during his life'). Instead we have both the Telegraph and the Independent, above, publishing a portrait, via Alamy images, from the Versailles Museum. The Versailles portrait shows a man aged 34 in a portrait of the early 1620s. Shakespeare died in 1616 at the age of 52.
The continued use of incorrect but more flamboyant images is due, I presume, to our collective reluctanct to accept that the plain, humdrum man in the Chandos portrait shows the greatest writer of the English language. Even the Chandos portrait was fiddled with in later times to make it look more bohemian (such as the long hair).
PS - The last time I mentioned 'not Shakespeare' portraits, certain people got very cross with me. But fear not, AHN-ers I am undaunted.
Update - the Cobbe portrait features in The Sun.
Update II - a reader writes:
Interesting you said there's been less of the Cobbe portrait this year. I wonder if it's because, unlikeness aside, it has no personality. Portrait of a hipster, as someone made it.
He makes me think of Osric:
'Thus has he - and many more of the same bevy that I
know the dressy age dotes on - only got the tune of
the time and outward habit of encounter.'
The Chandos has beauty and real power. You can imagine him writing:
'graves at my command
Have waked their sleepers, ope'd, and let em forth
By my so potent art.'
* Sort of. We don't know exactly when he was born. He was baptized on 26th April 1564.
Matisse - the movie
April 23 2014
Goodness, isn't everyone getting excited about these Matisse scissor-y things. The critics have been eulogising Tate's new show as never before. My favourite so far is this film by the BBC, in which the rapper Goldie goes entertainingly bereserk over the whole thing.
If you can't get to the new blockbuster show, then fear not, for on Tuesday 3rd June a 'live' film of the exhibition will be shown in cinemas across the UK. More here.
In the meantime, here's the Great Brian urging us to enjoy Matisse's jottings, but to keep our feet on the ground:
Enjoy the gaiety of colour. Be moved by the myth of the old genius, victim of a botched stomach operation, discovering new inspiration when told that death was on his doorstep. Be astonished by this sensualist turned saint, finding God in his own work, lying a-bed and drawing on the wall with a six-foot pole, cluttering every surface with the worst drawings this worst of draughtsmen ever did. Delight in the jaunty amusements of the infants’ school, but do not discard your critical faculties. Is what you see in this Matisse really a match for Michelangelo’s Adam, his nude youths, his prophets and sybils, his Last Judgement? What nonsense.
Enjoy these seductive trivialities for what they are — insubstantial, deceitful, fraudulent and, we must hope, transient, rather than some spiritual and mystical essence of art. Having no doubt that the number of visitors between now and September will break the record for Tate Modern (and so, perhaps, it should), I hope only that, unlike the early critics, they will cling to reason.
The Met buys a sleeper
April 22 2014
Picture: Metropolitan Museum
Above is an interesting new acquisition for the Met in New York, a Salvator Mundi they say is by the Spanish painter Fernando Yanez de la Almedina, and painted in c.1505. In case you're thinking the picture looks a bit Leonardo-esque to be by a Spaniard, then the Met explains in its informative note:
Yáñez clearly spent time in Italy prior to his highly successful career in Spain and he rather than Llanos is usually identified with the "Ferrando Spagnuolo" who in April and August of 1505 collected money for work with Leonardo da Vinci on a mural depicting the battle of Anghiari in the Palazzo della Signoria in Florence ("Ferrando Spagnolo, dipintore, per dipinguere con Lionardo da Vinci nella sala del consiglio florine 5 larghi e a Thomaso di Giovane Merini, su garzone per macinare e colori, florini 1 in oro"; see Benito et al., Los Hernandos, pintores hispanos del entorno de Leonardo, Museo de Bellas Artes de Valencia, 1998, p. 18). Besides Florence, he must also have spent time in northern Italy, where perhaps not coincidentally Leonardo was active prior to his return in Florence in February 1503. This remains highly speculative, however, and is based purely on the stylistic features of Yáñez’s documented work in Spain. The most thorough as well as convincing reconstruction of his early activity in Italy is that of Ibáñez Martínez (1999, pp. 221–40), who rejects earlier conjectures and attributions and considers the Metropolitan’s picture one of two done in Italy by the artist under the influence of Leonardo da Vinci.
The picture was recently offered by Christie's in New York as a work by Jacopo Barbari (1450-1515), where it bought in against an estimate of $400,000-$600,000. I don't know enough about either painter to make even a guess on the attribution, but I remember thinking it was of exceptional quality when I saw it, and was surprised it failed to sell.
A new Raphael discovery!?
April 22 2014
Picture: Cordoba University
Well, actually no... The Art Newspaper alerts us to claims by the University of Cordoba that it has discovered another version of Raphael's Madonna of Foligno [Vatican Museums]. The newly found work belongs to a private collector in Spain. Says TAN:
The Italian High Renaissance painter Raphael did not, it is generally believed, make copies of his own works. However, the University of Granada, in Southern Spain, says it has found an authentic copy of Raphael’s Madonna of Foligno (around 1511), which is displayed in the Vatican Museums (Room VIII). Luis Rodrigo Rodríguez Simón, a conservator and lecturer at the university, says that the rediscovered work has come to light in a private collection in Cordoba.
Known as The Madonna of Foligno, Small, the work was painted on a wooden panel and later transferred to canvas at the end of the 19th century: pages of a book printed in 1872 were pasted on to the reverse of the canvas. Simón says that the transfer was made in France.
So far so good. But here on the University's own website are more details, and some decent quality images.* And oh dear. Raphael it ain't. It looks like a later, not especially good copy. But no matter, we still have breathless 'scientific' evidence that it's not just another version of the Vatican picture, but the first version:
A researcher at the University of Granada has successfully attributed to the great Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino, Raphael the famous Renaissance painter, a work belonging to a private collector in Cordoba, Spain. The painting, entitled the ‘Small Madonna of Foligno’, depicts a scene identical to that of the ‘Madonna of Foligno’ and was probably a preliminary version of Raphael’s painting, which is exhibited in the Vatican Pinacoteca.
Luis Rodrigo Rodríguez-Simón, lecturer in the Faculty of Fine Arts at the University of Granada, has identified and reliably attributed the work, hitherto by an unknown artist, following a minutely detailed study lasting several years.
He has conducted a technical, scientific study applying a series of advanced instrumental techniques and analytical methods: X-ray, infrared photography, infrared reflectography, fluorescence under ultraviolet light, analysis of paint layers, scanning electronic microscope linked to an Energy-dispersive X-ray microanalysis system, gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and micro Raman spectroscopy.
I see this a lot nowadays - paintings presented with a long description detailing all the various tests a painting has been subjected to, as if the mere mention of these convoluted procedures is somehow evidence itself. But sadly it's usually just proof of the old saying, 'bullsh*t baffles brains'. We're clearly dealing here with over-enthusiastic interpretation of scientific 'tests', many of which have limited use. If only the boffins at Cordoba had asked a collection of Raphael experts to look at the picture first, they'd have saved themselves much time, and money.
*click 'save image' to download high-res versions.
New UK Culture Secretary
April 22 2014
While I was away, Maria Miller was 'resigned', over an expense claim. I once wrote a book called 'Crap MPs', so I take a dim view of this sort of thing. But regular readers will already know that AHN disagreed with her approach to arts funding. So a new Culture Secretary brings new hope.
Step forward former Treasury minister Sajid Javid, above. There's been a hoo-ha on the left, which claims he isn't cultured enough because his Who's Who entry doesn't list 'opera'. This strikes me as both patronising and pompous, and I agree with the Grumpy Art Historian in his response to the likes of Michael Rosen.
Let's wait and see what Mr Javid has to say for himself - and I'd wager that as a successful businessman, and son of an immigrant bus driver, it'll be impressive. In any case, with only one year until the election, there isn't much time for him to do a great deal, and I suspect that loftier matters like regulation of the press will take up most of Javid's time. In the meantime, we have the continued good stewardship of Arts Minister Ed Vaizey. He has been in the job since 2010, and has therefore had time to effect meaningful change.
WW1 restitution for France
April 22 2014
Martha Lufkin in The Art Newspaper reports that a French museum has successfully reclaimed a painting taken by the German army during World War One:
The painting [Apres La Lecture,* above, by Alix Marie de La Perelle-Poisson] was stolen from the musée de la Chartreuse in Douai in September 1918, during an emergency evacuation by the German army of its collections to Valenciennes. Deemed “disappeared”, the work was listed among the war damages suffered by the museum in the First World War. Provenance researchers in Germany connected Après la lecture, which was donated by a private collector to the Alte Nationalgalerie in 1959, with the work lost by Douai and the Foundation of Prussian Cultural Heritage, Berlin returned the painting after conservation.
* Hardly the most scintillating picture, you'd have to say.
New Veronese drawing discovered?
April 22 2014
I've come to this a bit late, but it's worth noting, given the current Veronese exhibition at the National Gallery in London, that there was a potential Veronese sleeper in the shires recently. The above drawing came up in a house clearance sale in Oxfordshire as attributed to Veronese, and made £15,500. In the same sale, and presumably from the same clearance, were some handsome pieces of jade, which made over half a million quid. Quite a house clearance!
Update - it may not be by Veronese... A sharp-eyed reader spotted the drawing when it came up for sale, and writes:
Just a thought, but I think the drawing that was sold as Attributed to Veronese in the regional sale in Oxford, was actually by Jan van der Straet [or Stradanus] (1523-1605). The British Museum hold a reverse engraving after the drawing [below], the print making up part of the series 'The Course of Human Life'.
I had a punt at buying it, but lack of funds meant I had to drop out...