Category: Research
Hollywood meets art history
January 26 2012
Video: Sullivan Entertainment
A new film has been released which explores the scientific analysis of hidden masterpieces. There's a review by Judith Dobrzynski here, and more on the film's website here. Looks like it's worth ordering - not least to hear the great Donald Sutherland, who narrates the film, make nerdy terms like 'multi-spectral photography' and 'pigment analysis' sound enticingly exciting.
On the sackings at Tate Britain
January 18 2012
One of Britain's top art historians writes:
I see you did a short piece in the blog on the Tate curators, but I think it deserves more - they are the single repository for historic British art, and it sounds as if the cuts are a way of abnegating that responsibility...? Many friends whom I saw yesterday at the Hockney opening were in a state of shock about the Tate situation.
Axes fall at Tate Britain
January 16 2012
In The Sunday Times yesterday, Dalya Alberge had details of some impending redundancies at Tate Britain. I won't name any names here before the news is confirmed (find them behind the paywall if you must), but it seems that the gallery is about to discard some serious scholars, including world-renowned experts on Constable and Turner. This seems a shame to me, for Tate is essentially junking their investment in building up a generation of expertise on two of Britain's most celebrated artists. Some have said for a while now that Tate no longer seems interested in being a centre of expertise; these redundancies might appear to confirm that.
An art historical cornucopia
January 16 2012
Picture: University of York
Richard Stephens of The University of York has been in touch about the website of The Art World in Britain 1660-1735. The project aims to put as many primary materials on the web as possible from the period in question, and has begun already with invaluable sales catalogues, newspaper adverts, and a checklist of some 8000 paintings in Irish and UK collections. It is a fantastic resource - and another demonstration of why the future of art history is online.
Richard also asks me to mention that if anybody out there has any additional sources the project might find useful (like, say, Sir Peter Lely's 'List of Paintings made by my Studio Assistants but Which I Signed as my Own'),* then he would be grateful if they could please let him know.
*I made this up. Tho' there should be such a list; Lely was rather naughty late in life, and quite a few later signed works are largely studio productions.
A new Rubens discovery in Oslo
January 16 2012
Picture: National Gallery, Oslo
Rubens scholar Dr Nico Van Hout has published a newly discovered early sketch by Rubens in an excellent article in the Rubensbulletin (the image in the bulletin can be magnified in great detail in pdf). The sketch, which belongs to the National Gallery in Oslo, has for many years been catalogued simply as 'Flemish School'. Van Hout, however, is convinced that it is by Rubens, and dates it to 1610-11. He believes it may relate to Rubens later painting of 1618, the Rape of the Daughters of Leucippus in the Alte Pinakothek, Munich (below), as a ‘first draft’.
The picture has had a chequered attributional history. Julius Held, the late guru of all Rubens sketches, believed it was ‘not autograph’. He noted that ‘the gamut of colours is darker than is normal with Rubens, and the paint film lacks the characteristic use of delicate glazes’. Van Hout argues that some of the ‘darkness’, such as in areas of the background, is due to later over-paint and the fact that the sketch appears to be painted over another composition. He also suggests that the original study has been worked up into a finished picture, and this may be why it has lost some of the fluidity of a normal Rubens oil sketch.
I can see elements of both arguments here. The brushwork is first class, and the expressions of the male figures are very Rubensian, as is the drawing of the horse. On the other hand (and obviously I am far from being an expert on Rubens and his studies), the handling of areas such as the flesh tones in the daughters does seem to me to be a little unusual. A layer of darker than usual ground (Rubens studies are usually on a pale imprimatur) gives the flesh tones a grey and slightly heavier quality than the deft and rapid application one might expect, and the face of the central daughter might almost be described as laboured. And perhaps the overall composition is overly lyrical at the expense of the subject’s narrative power, something Rubens so often focuses on, as seen in the 1618 Rape. For example, in the Oslo study the figures are finely arranged in a harmonious, rising cascade from left to right, which gives rise to a very pleasing composition – but it gives no obvious explanation as to how the figures got there. They seem to be floating, which is something noted by Elizabeth McGrath in her volume of the Rubens Corpus Subjects from History, where she did not identify the sketch as being by Rubens. In the 1618 picture there is no such ambiguity - the daughters are clearly being hoisted up by the twin brothers Castor and Pollux, called the Dioscuri. Perhaps this is why Rubens abandoned the earlier composition. Hopefully more technical evidence will be available; it would be good to see an x-ray of the panel to see what lies beneath.
The composition is known in five other works, including this drawing in the Musee Conde ascribed to Rubens but not by him, and intriguingly a panel previously called ‘Van Dyck’ in the Roselius Collection in Bremen. I'll see if I can find an illustration of this.
Friday amusement - adult edition
January 13 2012
Video: Etam
Art History doesn't get much racier than this: a French lingerie firm has filmed an undercover advert in the Musee D'Orsay. The museum is upset at this breach of their strict no photography rule, a reaction which seems a little... de trop. I wonder if the National Gallery in London would be upset too - anyone care to find out?
ps - when you play it again (which I know you will) see if you can spot the peeping pierre whipping his phone out for a cheeky snap. Must have made his jour.
An important Van Dyck discovery in Scotland
January 6 2012
Picture: Scottish National Portrait Gallery
Since today is assuming a bit of a Van Dyck theme (see below), it may be a good time to mention an important re-attribution at the Scottish National Portrait Gallery. The above portrait of Civil War hero James Graham, Marquess of Montrose, was for a long time thought to be by William Dobson. But the Gallery's sixteenth and seventeenth century senior curator David Taylor has now changed the attribution to 'Studio of Van Dyck'.*Â
This is a bold step, and an absolutely right one. In fact, I'd go further, having seen the picture recently, and say that it is very probably by Van Dyck himself, albeit rather damaged. Later over-paint gives the picture the appearance of a less skilled work from Van Dyck's studio. The canvas had been heavily re-lined in the past, and this combined with some abrasion had given the picture a slight look of being painted on the type of thick canvas that Dobson ocassionally used.
I'd say it is a late Van Dyck, and I note that Montrose was in London in 1636. If he did sit to Van Dyck then, this picture would accord reasonably well with the artist's style at that time. It is similar to his portrait of Lord Goring, which was recently on the market, and which Sir Oliver Millar dated to later in Van Dyck's career, and as late as 1638-40. There is, incidentally, no other surviving candidate around to be Van Dyck's original of Montrose. So Scotland seems to have lost a Dobson, but gained a Van Dyck. With any luck, the SNPG may one day have the picture cleaned, and take off the later restorations. Then we can see what it is really like.
*The SNPG's website is a little muddled - it attributes the picture to Van Dyck in full, but dates it to 1644, after Van Dyck died. The label on the wall at the SNPG says "Studio of Van Dyck".
New information on Jane Austen
January 5 2012
Picture: Guardian/Dr Paula Byrne (detail)
Dr Paula Byrne, the Jane Austen scholar who featured in the BBC2 show on the possible portrait of Jane, has been in touch with an interesting new fact, not broadcast in the programme. Jane's brother, Francis Austen, was appointed a Companion of the Order of the Bath in September 1815. Now the chapel of the Order is the Henry VII Chapel at Westminster Abbey. So this could mean that the view of Westminster Abbey seen in the drawing does have a connection to Jane's life, which was one of my main questions over the picture. One of Jane's visits to London was in late 1815. Furthermore, Francis Austen was officially gazetted as Francis Austin.
My other questions on the picture remain, and it seems that perhaps the view in the background is centred more on St Margaret's than the Abbey. But it means I was wrong to state below:
The main clue in the drawing, the very obviously placed background showing Westminster Abbey and St Margaret's, Westminster, bears no relation to anything in Jane's life.
A Saenredam discovery, and the power of the web
January 3 2012
Picture: BG
Here's a very satisfying discovery with which to begin the year - a rare exterior landscape by Pieter Saenredam. You may remember that I recently posted an article on the picture when it was at auction last year, catalogued as 'follower of Saenredam' at Christie's South Kensington. It was estimated at £3-5,000. It looked to me a little better than 'follower of' (I wrote that 'it shone out at the viewing') and I was hoping to bid on it myself.
Sadly, it was withdrawn (perhaps another dealer paid too much attention to it), and the picture was expunged from the online catalogue. But happily Saenredam scholar and noted art historian Gary Schwartz saw the picture here on AHN. And now he has written a fascinating entry on his own blog about the picture. His conclusion, along with that of his colleague Marten Jan Bok (co-author of Schwartz's 1989 book on Saenredam), is that there is little doubt the painting is indeed by Saenredam.
How then, if they have only seen the image on Art History News, can they be so sure about the attribution? Through excellent research. Read their analysis in full here, but the crucial facts are these:
- The scene shows the town of Assendelft, where Saenredam lived. The main building is the town hall. In front of it is the scourge post to which local villains were tied. The church is that of St Odulphus.
- The house in which Saenredam grew up can be seen in the painting, to the left of the church.
- The picture is dated 1634, when Saenredam is documented as returning to the town, and making a series of drawings that relate to the painting.
Obviously, this is not only a fantastically rare work by Saenredam, but a highly important document in relation to the artist's life. While it will always be a shame I couldn't buy it for £3,000 (tho' I suspect it would have made far more), it is wonderful that the full story behind the picture has now come to light.
The story is also an example of how the internet is driving art history forward at an unprecedented rate. Further proof of this can be found at the end of Gary Schwartz's blog post, for after reading Gary's post, a reader got in touch with news of some early provenance for the picture - dating to 1784. Sounds like the auction houses need to start their own blog...
PS - top AHN tip, if you think you've seen a sleeper at auction, don't stare at it for too long. It may get withdrawn.
PPS - curious coincidence: my post on the picture being withdrawn from CSK was made on 8th December, exactly one year after the last Saenredam sleeper sold for over a million pounds at Bonhams.
National Trust paintings go online - can you find any sleepers?
December 23 2011
Picture: National Trust
At last! The UK's greatest single collection of paintings has gone online. The site apparently went live last week, but I've only just stumbled across it today. What a resource. I can barely contain my excitement; it's nirvana for anyone interested in British art history, and this particular British art history anorak will now be spending a lot of time on his iPad over Christmas. Well done to everybody involved. With this and the Public Catalogue Foundation putting museum pictures online, Britain now leads the way in digital access to its art.Â
Being slightly obsessed with Van Dyck, I searched immediately for works by him. As you might expect, there are many fine things. But also some more mysterious works. I'm taken with the above Portrait of an Unknown Lady at Petworth, called 'attributed to Van Dyck'. It is not in the 2004 catalogue raisonne, but looks to me as if it has a good chance of being 'right', probably done in the mid 1620s in Italy.Â
For all you budding connoisseurs, it's a great site for playing guess the attribution. Have a search for unattributed works, by entering 'English School' for example, and let me know if you find anything good. Below are a few pictures that have caught my eye in the last hour or so... [all images (C) National Trust]
This painting of a Madonna and Child, is attributed to the 'Studio of Willem Wissing'. The Trust catalogue correctly notes that it is a partial copy of Van Dyck's painting of Cesare Scaglia adoring the Virgin and Child [National Gallery, London], albeit without Scaglia, and an altered Madonna. However, the original of this composition is in fact by Sir Peter Lely, and is now in an American Private Collection. It's one of the nicest Lelys I've ever seen, fluidly painted and richly coloured, and evidently done for his own pleasure. Lely was fascinated by Van Dyck, and copied many of his works. Intriguingly, a ghostly pair of hands in Lely's copy reveals that he initially planned to paint Scaglia too, but then changed his mind and left him out. Â
Other things that briefly caught my eye include the above 'English School' portrait at Erddig in Wrexham, of whom the Trust is unsure of the identification, calling it 'Supposedly Joshua Edisbury, or ?James Hutton'. It is in fact a copy of Benjamin West's Portrait of Governor James Hamilton, which hangs in Independence Hall in Philadelphia. How a copy of Hamilton's portrait ended up in Wrexham masquerading as a welshman is a mystery...Â
This 'English School' Unknown Gentleman is by John Riley.Â
And Mary of Modena, wife of James II, would have been most displeased to find her portrait at Chirk Castle (above) identified as Charles II's mistress Moll Davis. The Chirk portrait is based on this original by Lely.
And going really off piste, the above Portrait of John Throckmorton is called 'Circle of William Larkin', but looks to have a chance of being by Marcus Gheeraerts.Â
So if you have a few idle moments this Christmas, have a look at the site and see what you can find. Between us we should be able to wrap up all those unattributed pictures... The only sad thing about the site is the tiny photos. You can zoom in a bit, but they really should be larger. Presumably it's the old 'we must protect our copyright' fallacy.Â
More Tudor stuff
December 16 2011
Picture: Royal Collection
Thanks for all your feedback from the Anne Boleyn post yesterday. It's interesting that although we first published the research in 2006, it made little wider impact, mainly I suppose because it never went online (and because the news story publicising it is behind The Times paywall). These days, unless something is online, it doesn't really happen!
So, now I'm going to publish some more of our Tudor research online. And this time we're going hardcore. Below the jump is the full transcribed inventory of Catherine Howard's jewels, from the manuscript in the British Library. It's a great resource for anyone interested in the period. We commissioned the transcription from Tudor historian extraordinaire Alasdair Hawkyard, and it was first published in our exhibition catalogue for 'Lost Faces: Identity & Discovery in Royal Tudor Portraiture'. It now goes online for the first time. The inventory was compiled by Nicholas Bristowe, who was clek of the King's wardrobes.
Why is the inventory useful for art historians? Because it may allow us to identify Catherine's portrait, long a source of contention. Above is a miniature by Holbein in the Royal Collection. Its early history is uncertain, but when it was first certainly recorded in the Royal Collection in c.1837, it was called Catherine. It was engraved by Houbraken as her in 1743. Earlier than that and we have no certain reference to it. In the later 20th Century the identity was questioned, and dropped. Then David Starkey, in his Six Wives of Henry VIII, resurrected the idea based on the inventory of Catherine's jewels. David was guest Curator of our Lost Faces exhibition, and so we decided to publish the full inventory.
Each of the jewels seen in the miniature can be found in the inventory. For example, on her head her French hood is trimmed with the 'upper habulyment of Goldesmytheswerke ennamuled and garneshed with vij ffeyr daimondes vij ffeir rubyes and vij ffeyr Perles' which is the first item listed in the inventory. On her bossom, over a translucent chemise, she wears a shaped necklace called a square 'conteynyng xxix rubyes and xxix clustres of Peerlles being iiij peerlles in every Clustre' and an 'ooche [that is a pendant] of golde hauyng averey ffeir table diamond and a verey feir ruby with a long peerle hangyng at the same'.
Coincidence? The same argument has been used to identify the full-length portrait of Katherine Parr in the National Portrait Gallery, which had previously been called Jane Grey. All the jewels seen in that portrait are in the inventory of Katherine Parr's jewels. The Royal Collection online catalogue is still cautious about the attribution of the miniature, however, citing the uncertain early provenance of the work, and the possibility that royal jewels were lent to other ladies at court, who may have been painted by Holbein wearing them. Jewels were indeed lent, but I find it hard to accept that a lady-in-waiting, say, would scoop the jackpot with an entire outfit of royal loans of such importance and value - and then have the impertinence to be seen wearing the King's jewels. As you can see from the inventory below, those royal jewels that were sent out to ladies of the court tend to be the lesser ones. Also, there is something decidedly queenly about the miniature above - in fashion, jewels and approach it is far more sumptuous that any other Holbein miniature of a lady at court. So, for me, she's Catherine Howard. What do you think?
[If on the homepage, click 'Read on' for the full inventory].
104,000 down, 96,000 to go...
December 16 2011
Picture: Your Paintings / National Trust
The fabulous folks at the Public Catalogue Foundation are over half way through putting the nation's oil paintings online for us to enjoy for free. They've just finished uploading another 40,000 since the project went live earlier this year, including the above landscape by Thomas Gainsborough in the collection of the National Trust.
When the project is completed, Britain will be the first nation in the world to have our entire publicly owned collection of oil paintings online. How cool is that? And how lucky are we? It's all been done for free, with no government support. We owe a debt of thanks to the PCF, its director Andrew Ellis, and the man who came up with the idea in the first place, Dr Fred Hohler. More details on the latest milestone here. There's still a way to go, however, and the PCF needs to raise the final funding for it - to do your bit, please donate here.
Happy birthday Katherine of Aragon
December 16 2011
Picture: Philip Mould Ltd
The happy coincidence of it being Katherine of Aragon's birthday today*, and the recent sale at Christie's of a portrait of her, allows me to continue my impromptu feast of art historical Tudoriana. The portrait above was found by Philip Mould in 2004 in a minor auction, where it was thought to be a much later copy of a miniature by Lucas Hornebolte. Last week it was sold again by a client of ours at Christie's, where it made a healthy £151,000. It's one of my favourite Tudor portraits, full of symbolism, and we borrowed it for our 'Lost Faces' exhibition in 2006.
The Christie's catalogue summarised the meaning of the picture very well:
...the marmoset is shown reaching for the cross on the Queen's breast, rather than for the proferred coin. In addition to the obvious allegory of the choice of spiritual virtues over worldly gain, the gesture has been interepreted as reflecting the circumstances of the later years of the Queen's marriage to King Henry VIII, during which the King sought various means of ending the marriage, including offering her money; her steadfastness was explained by her piety.
However, I've always though there may be an extra dimension to this picture. Why? Because the coin being rejected by the monkey is clearly an English coin, in this case a groat (as you can see if you zoom in on it). And on the other side of a groat, as you can see below, is a portrait of Henry VIII. The portrait of Katherine may therefore be seen not only as her rejection of riches in favour of faith, but of Henry himself. In which case, it is one of the most daring images of the Tudor period.
Picture: BG
Update: By the way, the groat on the left is from Henry VII's reign. You can see how Henry VIII's frequent debasing of the currency resulted in his groats, on the right, shrinking.
*with thanks to TudorTutor for alerting me to this.
23 Gwen Johns found at Princeton
December 15 2011
Picture: BBC
An extraordinary cache of 23 watercolours by Gwen John has been found uncatalogued in the library at Princeton University. They were discovered by Professor Anna Robins of Reading University in an old box containing an accordian. From BBC Wales:
Prof Robins said her first reaction was to go to the librarian on the desk and tell him she thought it absurd that the university library had 23 Gwen John watercolours that it clearly knew nothing about.
"He said: 'There's a complaints form over there. If you are unhappy with the library you should make a complaint'."
Anne Boleyn regains her head
December 15 2011
Picture: Royal Collection
This isn't 'news' as such, but in a foray into the Tudor realms of Twitter last night I mentioned the drawing of Anne Boleyn by Holbein in the Royal Collection (above). I said that although in the past the identity was doubted by art historians, the sitter was now catalogued with certainty as 'Anne Boleyn', as you can see on the Royal Collection website. This prompted a flurry of curious tweets on the evidence behind the identity. So here it is.
There used to be an article online in The Times detailing how research by myself and David Starkey had helped confirm the identity. But it has now disappeared behind the paywall. So below the jump, and online for the first time, is the article I wrote for an exhibition at Philip Mould in 2006 called 'Lost Faces - Identity & Discovery in Tudor Royal Portraiture', which was guest curated by David. The article was in the context of a fine but posthumous portrait of Anne we had borrowed from Hever Castle, Anne's childhood home (below). The Royal Collection have found all the evidence compelling enough to change their cataloguing of the drawing (saying 'this is a rare surviving portrait of Anne'), which is very pleasing. Let me know if you agree (or disagree)!
The text is taken from the catalogue, so ignore figure numbers etc. I cannot reproduce all the supporting illustrations, but where possible I have included links to them. The footnote numbers are in bold.
Catalogue No. 12 English School, Sixteenth Century. Portrait of Anne Boleyn. Oil on Panel: 31 × 25 inches, 79 × 65 cm. Provenance: Mrs K Radclyffe; On loan from Hever Castle
There is only one of Henry VIII’s wives for whom we have no life portrait, and ironically she is the most famous of them all: Anne Boleyn. Instead, her identity is known to us only through a handful of later ‘corridor portraits’, of which this is the finest, and most probably the earliest. As with all posthumous portraits, however, they are subject to the historical, political, and visual prejudices of those who created and commissioned them. They cannot give us an accurate picture of what Anne really looked like.
[If on the homepage, click 'Read on' for the whole article]
New Raphael acquisition at Staedel
December 13 2011
Picture: Staedel Museum, Frankfurt, [called] Raphael & Workshop, 'Portrait of Pope Julius II', 1511/12, Oil on poplar panel, 105.6 x 78.5cm.
The Staedel Museum in Frankfurt has acquired what it says is a newly discovered version of Raphael's portrait of Pope Julius II. The original is in the National Gallery, London. The Staedel says their new version is painted by Raphael and his workshop. Full details available in the press release here.
Key to their conclusions are the apparent changes visible in the picture, as revealed in the x-rays and infra-red photographs: [more below]
Biro sues more people
December 13 2011
Picture: Steve Pyke
The art investigator Peter Biro (above) has widened his attempt to sue The New Yorker for defamation. In July 2010 David Grann published an article in the magazine (which is still online) about Biro's work finding fingerprints in artworks from across the centuries, from Leonardo to Jackson Pollock. To save me from being sued, I shal just say it didn't make for happy reading for Mr Biro. He sued, and has now added a host of other publications to the roster for repeating Grann's conclusions.
Rijksmuseum images available for free
December 12 2011
Picture: Rijksmuseum, Sir Anthony Van Dyck, Portrait drawing of Charles I (detail)
Splendid news*: the Rijksmuseum have now joined the growing band of museums that allow people to use their images for free, even in publications. The only proviso is that the work must be correctly attributed and captioned. As you can see from the Rijksmuseum's excellent website, good high-resolution images are available online already. To celebrate, here is a detail from one of Van Dyck's finest drawings, of Charles I.
*via art historian Hannah Williams
Fakes, fakes everywhere
December 5 2011
Picture: NY Times - a disputed Jackson Pollock.
At last the scandal that has been waiting to hit the modern and contemporary art world is gathering momentum. Recently we've had the news of the German fakers, and now the NY times has broken news of another possible forgery ring, this time in the US:
Federal authorities are investigating whether a parade of paintings and drawings, sold for years by some of New York’s most elite art dealers as the work of Modernist masters like Robert Motherwell and Jackson Pollock, actually consists of expert forgeries, according to people who have been interviewed or briefed by the investigators.
Most of the works, which have sold individually for as much as $17 million, came to market though a little-known art dealer from Long Island, Glafira Rosales, who said she had what every gallery dreams of: exclusive access to a mystery collector’s cache of undiscovered work by some of the postwar world’s great talents, including Mark Rothko and Richard Diebenkorn.
The story may be related to the sudden closure of the legendary New York gallery Knoedler last week, after 165 years in business. Knoedler has been hit with a lawsuit from client Pierre Lagrange, who alleges that a Jackson Pollock he bought from the gallery in 2007 for $17m is a fake. Tests conducted by Mr Lagrange have established that two pigments found inthe picture were not invented till after Pollock's death.
New Rembrandt discovered
December 2 2011
Picture: BBC News
Professor Ernst van de Wetering and his team at the Rembrandt Research Project have unveiled a newly discovered work by Rembrandt. It belongs to a private owner, and will go on display in Antwerp between in May and June next year. Looks like a nice picture, full of pathos.
Apparently an unfinished self-portrait by Rembrandt can be detected beneath the painting, outlined in red below. That self-portrait is only known through a copy, below left. But, personally, I'll need to see better photos to be convinced of this...
