Category: Research

11,000 auction records have been published, bringing the total now online to 87,000 lots. Here are the main additions:

Three great collections

The library of Edward, 2nd Earl of Oxford (1689-1741) was 'the most choice and magnificent that were ever collected in this Kingdom'. His bound prints and illustrated books were sold by his widow in 1746 over 22 nights. The sale catalogue is the longest & most detailed of its kind from this period, by some way.

The South Sea Bubble triggered one of the greatest picture sales of the early 18th century, when the heavily-indebted Henry, 1st Duke of Portland (1682-1726) sold his paintings in 1722. One copy of the catalogue survives, in the Frick library. Its manuscript annotations, which list every buyer and price fetched, provide an invaluable snapshot of the major collectors and dealers of that moment.

The collection of old master drawings belonging to the Roman connoisseur Padre Resta was "the finest without doubt in Europe" according to John Talman. Resta sold almost 4000 sheets to the Whig Lord Chancellor, Baron Somers (1651-1716), which were auctioned in London in 1717.

Sales of artists, architects & a composer

Auction catalogues offer a window onto the careers, households and intellectual worlds of the vendors. In this update are the posthumous catalogues of architects Nicholas Hawksmoor (1740), William Kent (1749), Sir Christopher Wren (1749), and Leonard Wooddeson (1733); the painters John Robinson (1746), Louis Goupy (1748), Thomas Morland (1748), Joseph Vanhaecken (1751) and John Ellys (1760); the engraver John Dunstall (1693); and the composer George Frederick Handel (1760).

Auctioneer's copies

The Frick's Portland annotations are probably based on information from the auctioneer's office, given their completeness & the fact that the prices include the post-sale fee (by contrast, the Houlditch transcript of the Portland sale gives the hammer price only). Another catalogue published now - the heavily-annotated catalogue of the 1719 sale of the contents of the Duke of Ormonde's London house - appears to be the only auctioneer's working copy surviving from any sale before the foundation of Christie's.

It appears that what the scholarly study says is that the aerosol optical dispersion of particulates and visible  gases in renderings of sunsets by a range of artists and in many paintings made during the past five hundred years when compared at both high and low resolution are consistent within a narrow variation with scientific evidence regarding the visible effects of volcanic eruptions and Saharan dust storms on these substances in the atmosphere. 

Of great interest to us is the fact that eighty four percent of the paintings in the Tate sample were by J M W Turner and that this narrow sample produced results statistically nearly identical to those from a diverse sample from The National Gallery covering the study's full temporal and artistic range.

This has three implications-

First it further confirms scientific data regarding AODs,

Second it suggests that paintings might contain additional atmospheric information perhaps regarding climatic variations,

Third and principally,, it implies that painters painted what they saw rather than what they were imagining.

This one-day conference will address the issue of connoisseurship in relation to historic, modern and contemporary British art studies.  Speakers from different sphere - art dealers, museum curators, conservators, art journalists, and academics - will give personal 'position papers' based on their own professional perspectives and experiences of the role and relevance of connoisseurship in today's art world.  Issues to be explored include the question of the 'eye'; the value of technical knowledge and the role of conservation; the role of connoisseurship in the marketplace, including questions of attribution and market value; connoisseurship and collecting; connoisseurship and art theory; connoisseurship and art-historical scholarship; and connoisseurship's relevance to contemporary art.

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?

"[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."

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... ?

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?!

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.

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.

According to Mr Lenain, author of Art Forgery: The History of the Modern Obsession, the Italian frequently forged artworks in order to obtain the originals from their owners by giving them the copies. On one occasion, Michelangelo made a painted copy of a print representing Saint Anthony by the engraver Martin Schongauer, making his version so similar to the original it was impossible to tell which one was which.

Speaking at the VIEW festival of art history, Mr Lenain said: “He admired these originals for the excellence of their art and sought to surpass them.”

This is not the first time rumours of the artist’s forgeries have emerged. One anecdote describes how in 1496 a young Michelangelo copied a Roman sculpture, Sleeping Cupid. He buried it in the ground to give it the various stains, scratches and dents needed to make it look like a genuine antique. He then used a middleman to sell the piece to Cardinal Riario for a substantial sum.

The allegations regarding Michaelangelo emphasize the point that "fakes" are originals by the faker or copyist and may be by a very good or great artist.  Selling them as being by another artist is, if course, fraud.  However, if Michaelangelo's early fraud were detected and prosecuted we wouldn't have his sculptures of David and Moses, or his Sistine Chapel frescoes.

The Chagall Committee is based on the same sort of tunnel vision logic that led to the fall of France 74 years ago.

Three daunting facts confront anyone interested in buying one of Amedeo Modigliani’s distinctive elongated portraits. They tend to have multimillion price tags; they are a favorite of forgers; and despite an abundance of experts, no inventory of his works is considered both trustworthy and complete.

Christian Parisot, for instance, the author of one catalog and the president of the Modigliani Institute in Rome, is due in court this week in Rome on charges that he knowingly authenticated fake works.

Marc Restellini, a French scholar compiling another survey of Modigliani’s work, jettisoned part of his project years ago after receiving death threats.

And even those who swear by a listing of 337 works created by the appraiser and critic Ambrogio Ceroni acknowledge it has significant gaps. The effort to establish an authoritative record of Modigliani’s work “resembles nothing so much as a soap opera,” Peter Kraus, an antiquarian book dealer, wrote in an essay published a decade ago.

The subject of the portrait – believed to be worth hundreds of thousands of pounds – was a relative of Saskia van Uylenburgh, whom the artist wed in 1634. Dr Tico Seifert, senior curator for northern European art, said his curiosity was immediately piqued when he came across the etching in a box of prints because all known copies of the print are in reverse, unlike this one, which was nestled among dozens of copies of the artist’s work.

Further research, including authenticity checks with Rembrandt experts in Amsterdam, found the portrait of Sylvius was the only existing impression of the work in red ink.

Dr Seifert said: “These kind of plates were created through a chemical process which would see the artist polish the plate, cover it with a varnish and then take a very sharp, fine needle and scratch the varnish.

“The plate would then be put into an acid bath, so it was a chemical process rather than a mechanical process. You would take a wet piece of paper, put it on top of the plate and run it through a roller press. The big difference with this work is that it was printed in red ink. When I contacted colleagues in Amsterdam to find out about impressions in red ink, which are generally very rare, to my great surprise and delight they told me that this was a unique print.

A technical TV point AHN .. You love the jib shots in the National Gallery, booms are just for sound.

A one-day conference on relations between the art market in history and the art market today, organized by Sotheby's Institute of Art – London and The Burlington Magazine, to be held at Sotheby’s Institute of Art - London on Friday 31 October 2014.

The aim of this joint conference is to explore critically what the history of the art market can teach us about the behaviour of the art market today, and vice versa. We hope to bring together historians of the art market working on a wide range of historical periods and places, and utilising varying methodologies, and to engage them in creative dialogue, via thematic groupings, with present-day art market experts of different kinds. We hope that a wide range of expertise and interests will be represented from both the past and the present dimensions of this subject.

Many fundamental topics are implicated in this conference, for example the nature of consumerism in societies past and present, the history and nature of art collecting, and the role of art institutions. We have singled out four key themes for this event which we envisage will comprise discreet sessions: 

• Modes of artistic production, market strategies and sale
• Localities, networks and globalization
• Value and valuation
• Patrons and dealers

• Permalink
• 
  
  Filed Under:  
  • Research

The painting was previously thought to be a portrait of the king painted after his death. Now, after thorough scientific examination of the oak, experts believe Henry VIII may have posed for an unknown artist in 1544, three years before his death. The wood is believed to date back to 1529.

The painting has an inscription on it stating that it was painted when the Monarch was aged 54, in the 36th year of his reign, but it was common for information to be placed on later copies.

But a closer look at the inscription showed it had been added at the same time the portrait was created.

Elizabeth Norton, an author and historian of the Tudor monarchy, said: 'He died in January 1547 and suffered from ill-health for much of 1546. There aren’t any paintings of him depicted as as old man.

'It may well be the last painting that he posed for.'

I have the same reaction to all these portraits of Henry VIII: that was one very, very frightening man!!

'At the Royal Academy', by Thomas Hardy

These summer landscapes--clump, and copse, and croft - Woodland and meadowland--here hung aloft, Gay with limp grass and leafery new and soft,

Seem caught from the immediate season's yield I saw last noonday shining over the field, By rapid snatch, while still are uncongealed

The saps that in their live originals climb; Yester's quick greenage here set forth in mime Just as it stands, now, at our breathing-time.

But these young foils so fresh upon each tree, Soft verdures spread in sprouting novelty, Are not this summer's, though they feign to be.

Last year their May to Michaelmas term was run, Last autumn browned and buried every one, And no more know they sight of any sun.

Regarding the post on your blog on the poem for the Rubenianum (which, by the way, is as bad in Dutch as in English): there is W.H. Auden’s Musée des Beaux-Arts, although it is more about a painting than about the institution mentioned in the title.

In 2000, Didier Martens assembled a group of seven paintings around this serene altarpiece, which he considered to be the most important work by an anonymous Bruges painter active in the first half of the 16th century (op. cit.). Stylistically, these paintings resemble the mature work of Gerard David and Ambrosius Benson, yet are distinguished by the idiosyncratically rounded, full faces of the figures. On the basis of this key and consistent identifying trait, Martens named the artist 'The Master of the Plump-Cheeked Madonnas'.

Thanks for this really interesting link. Not only did it make me aware of the artist, it also made me realise that St Dominic had a dog as an attribute.

Even more interesting is the provenance of the paintings; being sold by the Met to raise money for their European paintings acquisitions fund.

A portrait of Dürer’s father [above], which has always been assumed to be the work of Albrecht the Younger, may in fact be a self-portrait by the master’s father, Albrecht the Elder. If so, it would transform our understanding of the younger artist. He may not have been the isolated genius he is believed to have been, but the son of a talented artist who has gone unrecorded as a painter.

The new theory comes from Stephan Kemperdick, the curator of early German and Netherlandish painting at Berlin’s Gemäldegalerie. He proposes it in an essay in the catalogue of the exhibition “Albrecht Dürer: His Art in Context”, at Frankfurt’s Städel Museum (until 2 February 2014).