Dobson's mystery sitter?

October 16 2017

Video: ZCZ Films

Regular readers will know that Waldemar Januszczak is an expert on English 17thC portraitist William Dobson - and in the video above he proposes a new identification for a mystery sitter in one of Dobson's best group portraits, Sir William Russell.

ArtUK

October 16 2017

Image of ArtUK

Picture: ArtUK

The invaluable ArtUK website has had over 3 million users since it launched in February last year. Director Any Ellis's newsletter says:

Since the website’s launch in February 2016 we have had over three million unique users with half of this traffic coming from overseas. Average time on the site is running at about 4½ minutes, which is high compared to most museum sites. Traffic in the last few months has been running about 10% up on equivalent months last year.

I've written a piece for the ArtUK's blog on how useful the site was for our second series of Britain's Lost Masterpieces

Running ArtUK is an expensive business, and they need all the help they can get. If you're minded to donate, you can do so here

Waldemar on Basquiat

October 16 2017

Video: Barbican

The Great Waldemar is on form in this review of the new Basquiat exhibition at the Barbican in London, which he describes as:

[...] a noisy hagiography at the Barbican that bills itself as “the first large-scale exhibition in the UK” of Basquiat’s work. In language that the Maezawas of this world would understand, the show airily describes him as “one of the most significant artists of the 20th century” and promises a radical new reading of his achievements.

I went into it chuckling in avuncular fashion about the hype. But I came out angry. OMG. This really is what the art world has become: a shallow, uneducated, disingenuous, over-moneyed, rapacious chewer-up of proper artistic values.

I like Basquiat as much as the next person - but I'll eat my trousers if, in ten year's time, his work is still selling for as much (in real terms) as it is today. AHNers, hold me to it.

TAN podcast no.5

October 16 2017

Audio: TAN

The latest Art Newspaper podcast is out, and it discusses the forthcoming auction at Christie's of Leonardo's 'Salvator Mundi'.

Birmingham's 'haunted painting'

October 16 2017

Video: Birmingham Mail

A pyschic in Birmingham has declared his painting 'haunted' after 'strange things' happened to people who owned it. Apparently one woman fainted, and dogs certainly don't like it. The thing is, he doesn't know who painted it, or what the subject is. Can anyone help? 

More here

'The Audacity of Christian Art'

October 12 2017

Video: National Gallery

This looks good - a new series of videos from the National Gallery in London on Christian art, with Curator in Art and Religion, Dr Chloe Reddaway. More here

'Britain's Lost... Galleries'?

October 12 2017

Image of 'Britain's Lost... Galleries'?

Picture: TAN 

Martin Bailey in The Art Newspaper reports that in Leeds Art Gallery, they've discovered a whole new gallery they didn't know about! More here

Leonardo's 'Salvator Mundi' to be sold at Christie's (ctd.)

October 12 2017

Image of Leonardo's 'Salvator Mundi' to be sold at Christie's (ctd.)

Picture: Robert Simon Fine Art

Sarah P. Hanson in The Art Newspaper reports that the Salvator Mundi has been guaranteed by a third party. This means that the painting is effectively sold - if the painting makes more than the reserve (I presume something near the $100m estimate), then the guarantor gets a slice of the upside. If nobody bids, the guarantor gets the painting. So Christie's have already pulled off quite a coup here - bravo. I think this must explain the confidence with which they're launching the picture into a contemporary art sale in November. This was a bold and risky move, and had the painting completely 'bought in' it would have been an epic fail.

Now, it's clear that the potential sale to the guarantor represents a sizeable loss to the vendor, Russian collector Dmitry Rybolovlev, who is believed to have paid around $125m for the painting in 2013. But that said, I think many would argue that $125m was a 'full' price, and in any case, we now know that it's a long way from the about $70m-$80m which Mr Rybolovlev's adviser, Yves Bouvier, allegedly paid for the painting. 

Of course, it's possible the painting may spark a bidding war, and prove us all wrong.

Half 'n half

October 12 2017

Image of Half 'n half

Picture: The Saleroom

Do not adjust your set - this picture is coming up at auction soon, with both the frame and the painting half cleaned! Yours for £30. More here

Tarnya Cooper joins National Trust

October 11 2017

Image of Tarnya Cooper joins National Trust

Picture: NPG

Congratulations to Tarnya Cooper, who has been appointed the National Trust's new Curatorial & Collections Director. Until now she has been Chief Curator at the National Portrait Gallery. Says the NT press release:

Tarnya will join the Trust’s newly expanded cohort of curators led by Director of Curation & Experience, John Orna-Ornstein. She will help shape and deliver the Trust’s ambitious new curatorial strategy, including high quality research, inspirational engagement, and excellent care for collections and buildings.

This means that the National Portrait Gallery will now be looking for a new Chief Curator.

'Britain's Lost Masterpieces' (ctd.)

October 11 2017

Video: BBC

In tonight's episode of Britain's Lost Masterpieces, Emma Dabiri and I are in Wales, at the Carmarthenshire County Museum. Two 17th Century portraits catch our eye...

Tonight, BBC4 9pm. More clips here

'The Last Da Vinci'

October 11 2017

Video: Christie's

Here's another video from Christie's on their forthcoming sale of the 'Salvator Mundi'. Some may not like the fact that Christie's are giving the picture as much contemporary kudos as they can. But there aren't many people trying to make Old Masters relevant to new audiences, so it's worth a go. One thing is for sure, if Christie's don't sell the picture there will be many people lining up to question their handling of it. Personally, I admire their courage in taking the risk of this innovative approach.

Leonardo's 'Salvator Mundi' to be sold at Christie's (ctd.)

October 10 2017

Video: Christie's

Christie's have got Alistair Sooke to make a short video on the picture.

Leonardo's 'Salvator Mundi' to be sold at Christie's

October 10 2017

Image of Leonardo's 'Salvator Mundi' to be sold at Christie's

Picture: Robert Simon Fine Art.

Big news (via Eileen Kinsella at ArtNet) - the recently discovered 'Salvator Mundi' by Leonardo da Vinci is to be sold by Christie's in New York. The painting had been acquired by the Russian billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev in 2013 for a reported $127.5m. The painting became a matter of some controversy, however, when the Russian discovered that the price he paid included a mark up of between $40m and $50m. Rybolovlev is currently suing his former art adviser, Yves Bouvier.

Rybolovlev appears to have fallen out of love with much of his art collection. He has begun to sell a number of 20th Century works through Christie's, some of which have earned him hefty losses. Earlier this year I had speculated on whether he would also soon sell his Leonardo.

Christie's are evidently pushing the boat out for the Leonardo sale - they're including it not in an Old Master sale, but a modern and contemporary sale. The painting will carry an estimate of $100m. Evidently, buy eschewing the Old Master auction, Christie's are signalling that it's not likely to be bought by any of the usual Old Master collectors, or even museums. The money is in the contemporary end of the market, so that's where they'll pitch the picture. If they sell the painting for something close to that amount, it will be a tremendous coup - one of the auctioneering feats of the century so far. This is, after all, a recent discovery, which has been the subject of some unjustly deserved but unwelcome publicity, and was last on the market only five years ago. In usual Old Master terms, that's not a good start. 

For more on the picture's history, put 'Salvator Mundi' into AHN's search box. I first saw it in 2011, and was impressed. It's now going on a worldwide tour.

New UK ban on antique ivory (ctd.)

October 9 2017

Image of New UK ban on antique ivory (ctd.)

Picture: V&A

The UK's on-off ban on Ivory sales has hoved back into view, with a new Department for the Environment consulation paper on a new ban. This would eliminate virtually all the trade in anything antique made with ivory. At the moment, there is an exemption for items provably made before 1947.

As AHN has said before, further restrictions on the trade in ivory products seems sensible, if it is the case that these 'antique' loopholes are being exploited by modern day ivory buyers/sellers/poachers, and their devastating effect on African elephants. But I've also written before about the unfortunate impact this ban will have on one important area of British art history; the portrait miniature.

One of Britain's few contributions to art history is the portrait miniature. From the late 17th century onwards, these were habitually painted on thin pieces of Indian ivory. British artists like John Smart produced some of the most extraordinary examples of the genre painted anywhere in the world (example above). Institutions like the V&A have extensive collections, as do many private collectors. The new ban will make it impossible to collect these, and will render private collections practically worthless overnight. 

Now I would agree that this is one of those 'first world problems' people like to point out on social media. But what's interesting about the government's proposed new ban is just how illogical it is. For example, there will be exemptions for:

  • Musical instruments
  • Items with only a 'de minimis' amount of ivory
  • Items of 'genuine artistic, cultural or historic value'.
  • And the 'continued sale of ivory to museums.'

Not much of this makes any sense, if you are into portrait miniatures. First, the exemption for musical instruments is not (though this surely cannot be the case) explicitly restricted to antique musical instruments. Second, the 'de minimis' exemption as suggested could not apply to portrait miniatures, since by proportion they consist of well over 90% ivory. Third, the exemption for 'cultural value' would be (says the DEFRA document) 'strictly defined to ensure that only the rarest and most important items are exempted.' If that is the case, then that by definition excludes the majority of portrait miniatures (and who will decide 'rarity' - a new government committee?). Finally, the exemption for museum sales is the most illogical of all. Here's the text from that part of the DEFRA document:

While we are clear that our proposed ban would not impact the display of items by museums, or prevent museum-to-museum loans, we recognise that there may be some cases where museums may want to sell or exchange items containing ivory to/with other museums. We also recognise that there may be some items owned by private individuals that are of such importance they may be valuable to museums. As such we could continue to allow sales between, or to, museums under the proposed ban.

Why should museums be allowed to buy, say, a portrait miniature by John Smart, but not you or I? What makes it ok for a museum to want something, but not the public? And can you imagine what a privately owned John Smart miniature will now be worth after the ban? A private owner may well be 'allowed' to sell it to a museum, but why would they? With only one or two institutions in the whole country likely to be interested in collecting such a work, and private buyers unable to buy it, such a miniature will be worth peanuts.  

'Frieze 2017'

October 9 2017

Video: Vernisaage TV

It's been Frieze week in London. Above, Vernissage TV shows us what we have (or have not) been missing. 

'Monarch of the Glen' on tour (ctd.)

October 9 2017

Video: National Gallery of Scotland

There's much excitement up here in Scotland about a nationwide tour of Ladnseer's 'Monarch of the Glen', which was recently acquired by the National Gallery of Scotland. Inevitably, the first stop on the tour (Inverness) sees the picture hung beside a 'contemporary response' (below). A far more interesting 'response' to the picture is I think explained in the video above by Sir Peter Blake, who made a copy of the picture for Sir Paul Macartney.

More on the tour locations here.

$78m Bacon fails to sell

October 9 2017

Video: Christie's

Does this mean anything? A Francis Bacon 'Pope' painting failed to sell at Christie's contemporary and modern evening sale in London last week. The picture had been hailed as a discovery when unveiled to the press last month, having not been exhibited for 45 years. The catalogue carried the mystical 'estimate on request', but in The Guardian, Christie's boss Jussi Pylkkänen said:

“We’re talking about £60m,” says Pylkkänen. That’s actually quite a bit less than Bacon’s record of £89.3m for Three Studies of Lucian Freud, so the estimate may be exceeded if bidders get excited enough by the painting’s intense combination of aesthetic and human drama.

“It’s got all the elements that collectors are looking for,” says Pylkkänen.

Still, as Artnet News says, the sale was 'Christie’s second highest total for a contemporary art sale in Europe, and the highest ever for Frieze Week.' A Hirst at £1.2m - £1.8m failed to sell. A Basquiat 'Red Skull' made £16.5m. A Doig made £15m. An excellent Auerbach painting after Rubens' 'Samson & Delilah' made £3.7m against an estimate of £1.8m-£2.5m. 

Incidentally, here's a piece in the FT on whether you should buy art as an investment, quoting yours truly saying 'nope'.

Hockney - rubbish!

October 9 2017

Image of Hockney - rubbish!

Picture:

The co-curator of Tate's recent Hockney exhibition has said that while the artist is a great draughtsman, he's not all that when it comes to painting. Speaking in The Times Chris Stephens says:

“I don’t think he’s a terribly highly skilled craftsman when it comes to paint,” said Chris Stephens, co-curator of David Hockney, which became the second most successful show in Tate history after Henri Matisse: The Cut-Outs.

“He’s one of the most brilliant draughtsmen of all time, but the painting is less accomplished.”

Mr Stephens, who was lead curator of modern British art and head of displays at Tate Britain, added that Hockney was “brilliant at capturing people’s psychological aspect, their psychological demeanour”.

Shrewdly, Stephens has waited till after the Tate show is finished to say all this. In Britain, we call this kind of thing a 'Gerald Ratner' moment.

More here and here

Museum image fees - a call to arms (ctd.)

October 5 2017

Image of Museum image fees - a call to arms (ctd.)

Picture: Tate

Further to my post on excessive reproduction fees charged by UK museums, here's some more image fee daftness. Tate will even charge academics to use an image in a lecture. For one free lecture, given by an academic, the fee is £20 (see above). If you want to give the same lecture more than once, it doubles to £40 (but that fee only buys you one year's use). If you were giving a lecture for which people paid an entrace fee (but for which you might not be paid yourself), then the fee is £30 (or £80 if you give the lecture more than once).

All of which is excessive. A single lecture could end up costing hundreds of pounds to assemble. 

Defenders of the practice (well, the one that I've heard from) say, 'but Tate state in their Creative Commons licence that image use is free for academic lectures'. But not so fast. First, that only applies to lower resolution images, which is really quite limiting. Why can't we talk freely about the detail in paintings? And second, look at the restrictions:

Use it in a Non-Commercial (NC) context only. The image can be used only in contexts that are free from monetary gain or commercial value. Images cannot be used to sell or promote something; they cannot be used in or on something that is charged for or associated with money; nor can they be used in advertising or design contexts. Images cannot be used by commercial companies, charities or organizations that charge entrance fees, membership, or subscription to a service.

Not everyone who gives a lecture for educational benefit is an academic. I regularly give lectures (for which I am not paid) for things like the Art Fund, museum 'friends' groups, or other similar events to help raise money for good causes. Of course, people pay to buy tickets to my lectures, so these count as 'charged entry' in the eyes of Tate, and you'll have seen that Tate has no sympathy for charities. Tate may say they cut academics a break, but they give no concession to 'educators' in general. What mean spiritedness from a public institution.

I've also heard tales of how institutions like Tate are wilfully ignoring the realities of digital life. In the old days, an academic lecture was just something you gave to students physically, with a projector. Now of course they can be distributed and stored online. But again, not so fast. That's a publication nowadays, for which you must pay.

One person working to publish an academic book got in touch to give another case of museum intransigence on this issue:

I am currently working on a book for a UK University press who publish their academic books online under an open-access policy i.e. they publish them digitally online and offer them free of charge. I have been picture researching a jacket image for them for an academic text, and wanted to use a painting by an out-of-copyright artist which is in the National Martime Museum’s collection. Despite the fact that the book is not actually sold, and that the nature of the book means that in the absence of a crystal ball, I have no idea what the ‘print run’ might be i.e. how many people might download it (free of charge), I could not persuade them to acknowledge that the book was ‘academic’ - it didn’t fit their institution’s assertion that academic books can only be academic if there is a print run of ‘less than 1,000 copies’. They therefore quoted us their commercial rate of £350+VAT. Needless to say, we had to refuse.

Some of those defending museum's charging practice point out that if you ring up and ask nicely, they'll often let you use an image for free. But - again! - not so fast. Another absurdity I've heard about is museums saying they are unable to give discounts to small print runs or academic journals because of something called the Public Sector Information Directive. This 'PSI', say museums, means that publicly-funded institutions are not allowed to offer preferential rates to any clients and instead must apply standard rates to everyone. So don't bother asking for a discount. 

And in any case, just imagine how much museum staff time is wasted dealing with individual enquiries from academics wanting to give a lecture? The whole system is an absurd aste of everyone's time and money. Which brings me onto this 2016 Smithsonian report on opening access to museum images published in 2016. The report makes many points in favour of open access, not least brand awareness and saving staff time, but also cites this unarguable conclusion from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation:

A recent Andrew W. Mellon Foundation study, “Images of Works of Art in Museum Collections: The Experience of Open Access, a Study of 11 Museums,” found that among the museums studied, none that enforced copyright restrictions made any significant surplus or profit against their expenditures. It concluded, “real and perceived gains far outweigh the real and perceived losses for every museum in the study that has made a transition to an open access approach.”

It really is time to extend the principle of free museum entry into the digital sphere. 

Notice to "Internet Explorer" Users

You are seeing this notice because you are using Internet Explorer 6.0 (or older version). IE6 is now a deprecated browser which this website no longer supports. To view the Art History News website, you can easily do so by downloading one of the following, freely available browsers:

Once you have upgraded your browser, you can return to this page using the new application, whereupon this notice will have been replaced by the full website and its content.