Purple gloves!
October 27 2015
Video: Sotheby's
And black ones, and just plain hands, but no white ones - and no Press Officers pretending to hold anything. The above film shows Gentileschi's Danaeë arriving at Sotheby's New York.
Ai Wei Wei vs Lego
October 27 2015
Picture: via semipartisansam.com
Ai Wei Wei, of whom AHN is a fan, has launched an appeal to crowd source Lego bricks, after the Danish company refused to supply him themselves. More here.
Rubbish art
October 27 2015
Picture: Telegraph
From Italy, another one of those 'cleaner clears up art because they thought it was rubbish' stories:
An avant-garde art exhibition at a museum in Italy ended up being thrown in the bin after overzealous cleaners decided that it must be rubbish.
The installation, entitled “Where shall we go dancing tonight?”, was supposed to represent the hedonism and political corruption of the 1980s.
Created by Sara Goldschmied and Eleonora Chiari, artists from Milan, it consisted of cigarette butts, empty bottles, paper streamers, confetti and discarded shoes and clothing.
When cleaning staff turned up for work at the Museion museum in Bolzano in Italy’s German-speaking Sud Tyrol province, they assumed that the mess was left over from a party the night before.
They promptly started clearing up, throwing the objects into bin bags. They conscientiously divided the items into different recycling sacks for glass, plastic and paper.
I think the idea of recycling contemporary art could catch on.
Update - a reader writes:
I want an invitation to the party they hold to reconstruct the assemblage. Lots of Champagne bottles there.
Gombrich remembered
October 26 2015
Picture: Artlyst
I was delighted to see that a 'Blue Plaque' has been unveiled at the former home of E.H. Gombrich, whose clarity of thought and writing in 'The Story of Art' has inspired millions since it was first published in 1950.
Mid-season Old Master sales
October 26 2015
Picture: BG
The mid-season Old Master sales are on this week, and there are bargain pictures galore to be snapped up. A contemporary and unique portrait of Henry VIII, at £10k-£15k, just months after a Holbein studio portrait made nearly £1m? Click right here. Or a Gaspard Poussin landscape at £5k-£7k? A large and fine still life by Gerard van Berleboch at £5k-£7k, signed and dated 1650?
Sotheby's is tomorrow, Bonhams on Wednesday, and Christie's on Thursday.
I viewed the sales yesterday, and was delighted to meet a new collector who had seen Will Gompertz's programme on the art market, and how cheap Old Masters are. I alos thought Sotheby's window display, with a doll's house full of miniature lots from the sale was charming. Top marks to whoever came up with that idea.
Van Dyck preview at the Frick
October 26 2015
Picture: Frick
Excitement is building here at AHN towers ahead of the new Van Dyck portrait exhibition at the Frick, which opens March 2nd 2016. To give us an idea of what to expect, the Frick has brought some of its Van Dyck portraits out of storage, and hung them together:
A new installation in the Frick’s East Gallery is intended to evoke a British country house in its juxtaposition of painting, sculpture, and furniture. Among the highlights of the installation are three portraits of English sitters by Anthony van Dyck that have been in storage for several years*: Sir John Suckling; Lady Anne Carey, Later Viscountess Claneboye and Countess of Clanbrassil; andLord and Lady Strange, Later Earl and Countess of Derby, with Their Daughter. The return of these paintings to the galleries offers visitors a preview of next year’s special exhibition Van Dyck: The Anatomy of Portraiture (March 2 through June 5, 2016), which will place six of the Frick’s eight portraits by the artist in the context of more than ninety paintings, prints, and drawings from public and private collections around the world. The presentation has provided the occasion for renewed research into the Frick’s holdings by the artist, whose works were particularly sought after by Gilded Age collectors, including Henry Clay Frick.
More here.
* Great works by Van Dycks in storage, for 'several years'? Don't get me started...
£35m Rembrandt to stay in the UK
October 24 2015
Picture: via Grumpy Art Historian
Last week we had the news that an export licence application for the above portrait by Rembrandt, which was sold to an overseas buyer for £35m, was temporarily halted by the UK's arts minister, Ed Vaizey. Most people, I suspect, thought that the picture was too expensive for any UK institution to attempt to 'save' for the nation. But last night the Art Fund put out this statement:
‘The Art Fund, the national fundraising charity for art, had intended to announce on Monday 26 October a campaign to save Rembrandt van Rijn’s Portrait of Catrina Hooghsaet (1607 – 1685), 1657, from export.
Previously at Penrhyn Castle, it had been provisionally sold by the trustees of the Penrhyn settled estates in North Wales to an overseas buyer for £35million. However, the Secretary of State announced on 16 October that an export licence would be withheld (initially until 15 February 2016) to enable a UK buyer to try to raise the necessary funds to keep the work in this country.
At 3.30pm today the Art Fund received a call from Sotheby’s to say that they would be withdrawing their application for an export licence on behalf of their overseas buyer, and that the work would instead remain in this country for the time being.
The Art Fund believes that the future of the painting remains perilously unsafe. It has been in Wales for 150 years and in Britain for nearly 300 years, and is of supreme national importance. By mounting a public appeal at this critical point the Art Fund had aimed to ensure that this masterpiece could be acquired by a UK public collection, and at a favourable price: net of tax the price had been agreed at c.£22.5 million. Indeed significant funds from charitable sources had already been raised since the 16 October announcement.
The Art Fund is deeply concerned by this turn of events, and will leave no stone unturned in our efforts to ensure that the public interest is better served, in this and in other matters concerning the protection of our national cultural heritage.’
The first thing to say is that we must applaud the Art Fund, and whichever institutions it was planning to work with, for attempting to buy the picture. It would I think have been a record price for an acquisition in this manner. As I speculated last week, the deal would have involved a significant amount of tax foregone by the Treasury, bringing the price down to £22.5m. So we must also applaud the government for being prepared to make an effective contribution of £12.5m - a huge amount these days.
But I must say I am puzzled by the Art Fund's last paragraph in their statement, and the idea that the future of the painting is 'perilously unsafe'. What in fact has happened?
I'm told that the sale of the painting will still go ahead. The buyer has withdrawn the export licence, presumably because he or she thought the Art Fund's campaign had a chance of success, and they wanted to be sure of owning the painting. In return, they were happy for their picture to remain in the UK. I'm also told that the new owner will put the picture on public display. And as I understand the UK's export licence rules, the new owner cannot re-apply for an export licence for ten years. So the picture will remain in UK, and on show, for at least a decade. Finally, the Treasury will be £12.5m better off, as the new buyer will pay the full price, and the vendors will have to settle the tax due. It is likely that to help offset this tax amount, further pictures from the Penrhyn Castle collection will be offered to the nation 'in lieu', thus ensuring they stay on public display and in situ.
So does all this mean that the 'public interest' is not being served, as the Art Fund suggests? And is the future of the Rembrandt 'perilously unsafe'? I'm not so sure. It seems to me that the system for protecting our cultural treasures is working well here, balanced as it is by the UK's commendable fairness toward the owners of art. In this situation, a seller has been able to achieve the highest price for their work of art on the international market (in many countries this is not possible), but the picture will remain in the UK. The Treasury is better off. The Art Fund has more money to spend saving other works, and it is likely that at least one lucky public institution will get to hang a Rembrandt on their walls for free. And if we as a nation really want to save this picture, then we have a much longer time-frame in which to raise the money to buy it, with a much greater chance of success. Raising £35m (or £22.5m with the tax advantage) in 12 months was always going to be a difficult challenge - and if we had failed then the picture would have been gone forever.
In other words, I can't immediately see why the Art Fund put out such a doom and gloom statement. Am I missing something?
Update - the Grumpy Art Historian is not impressed:
One possibility, not to be dismissed lightly, is that the Art Fund is run by idiots. They seem more interested in marketing than in art, demanding that museums include prominent lurid acknowledgement of their support and following fashion in headlong pursuit of trendy contemporary art. Describing the Rembrandt as 'perilously unsafe' is absurd hyperbole that reveals their real focus: keeping stuff in the UK rather than developing our public art collections.
The other possibility is that they have just given up on the idea of developing collections and buying great works of art in favour of simply keeping in the UK whatever is already in the UK. The trope of 'saving our art' plays to the bias of loss-aversion, which as specialists in advertising rather than art they will understand well. But it's a sign of the stultifying monoculture of arts discussion here that it goes unchallenged. No one questions the absurdly distorted funding model, or makes the case for going out to buy art that is great rather than art that is here.
Another reader writes:
It is good news that the Rembrandt stays in the UK for now but it must be frustrating for the museum which was looking to acquire and calls for further reform to the UK export licensing system are perhaps understandable. Each applicant for an export licence must indicate their willingness to sell the work in question to a UK museum if a matching bid can be raised. If the applicant confirms that they will sell then relevant museums - typically with Art Fund assistance - embark on (often heroic) fund raising efforts, increasingly difficult in recent times. As the export process imposes no legal obligation on the applicant, an overseas owner can theoretically withdraw their application for an export licence right up to the last moment thus leaving the museum with an unfortunate ‘cost’ both in terms of time spent and goodwill potentially foregone with donors etc. I suspect this partly explains the Art Fund’s concern with the Rembrandt. It does not seem unreasonable that museums should be allowed to work through these cases with the benefit of certainty given the size of the sums involved.
Other similar cases in recent years include William Hoare’s Portrait of Ayuba Suleiman Diallo and Reynolds' Portrait of Omai. Hoare’s portrait is on display at the National Gallery (now owned by the Qatar) but I am unsure as to the whereabouts of the Omai portrait (owned by John Magnier), having been ferried backwards and forward between Dublin and London over the past 10 years.
Another reader writes:
It is good news that the Rembrandt stays in the UK for now but it must be frustrating for the museum which was looking to acquire and calls for further reform to the UK export licensing system are perhaps understandable. Each applicant for an export licence must indicate their willingness to sell the work in question to a UK museum if a matching bid can be raised. If the applicant confirms that they will sell then relevant museums - typically with Art Fund assistance - embark on (often heroic) fund raising efforts, increasingly difficult in recent times. As the export process imposes no legal obligation on the applicant, an overseas owner can theoretically withdraw their application for an export licence right up to the last moment thus leaving the museum with an unfortunate ‘cost’ both in terms of time spent and goodwill potentially foregone with donors etc. I suspect this partly explains the Art Fund’s concern with the Rembrandt. It does not seem unreasonable that museums should be allowed to work through these cases with the benefit of certainty given the size of the sums involved.
Other similar cases in recent years include William Hoare’s Portrait of Ayuba Suleiman Diallo and Reynolds' Portrait of Omai. Hoare’s portrait is on display at the National Gallery (now owned by the Qatar) but I am unsure as to the whereabouts of the Omai portrait (owned by John Magnier) [...]
It's true that there is no legal obligation for the buyer to accept a matching offer. In the export licence meetings the buyer, or their representative, is asked 'would you accept a matching offer if the money is raised'. If you say 'no' then the licence is refused immediately. If you say yes, and then change your mind then you cannot re-apply for the licence for ten years. I can see the argument for making accepting a matching offer more binding. But in practice, making a buyer wait a minimum of ten years to export a picture, with no guarantee of success, might be seen as penalty enough. It is indeed a shame for those insititutions who try to raise the money to see their efforts dashed at the last moment. Happily, in the present Rembrandt case the process was paused early on.
I can certainly understand the Art Fund's concern. They know what a tiny fraction of objects judged to meet the Waverly Criteria are actually saved, given the non-existent public funding for acquisitions and failure of the government's attempt to induce Britain's elite to embrace art philanthropy. If owners of the few items where a campaign proves possible just sit back and wait for a moment of greater weakness, history suggests they will not be disappointed. Our system gives more respect to buyers rights than many, and those rights would not be unduly eroded if the law was changed so that those seeking an export permit had to give a binding undertaking to accept a matching offer.
I'm not sure history does suggest that waiting for a moment of 'greater weakness' helps the buyers of art works like this - after all, when it comes to raising money for acquisitions we're at a pretty weak moment right now. I'm still not convinced the £35m (or effectively £22.5m after the Treasury's contribution) would have been raised in 12 months, in which case the picture would have been lost forever. Despite what the Art Fund avers, the picture seems less 'perilously unsafe' now than it did last week.
Update II - another reader makes this important point;
With regard to the tax issue though, I wonder if the Art Fund’s concern at the speedy withdrawal of the Export License application is because the tax deduction, bringing the price down to 22.5million GBP, is only applicable if the painting is sold by the original owner? If the Rembrandt is sold to a new owner for 35millionGBP, the Treasury will get the tax and should the new owner apply for an Export License in ten year’s time the price will not only be ( much ) higher but there will be no tax relief because the painting will not have been “conditionally exempted” for decades. At the best, there might be a small doucer for a Private Treaty sale—which rarely seem to happen at all these days.
So, from the Art Fund's point of view (but not 'the nation' as a whole), the picture will only get more expensive. Though this assumes prices will rise over the next ten years, and that someone else will be willing to pay more than £35m should the new owner ever wish to sell. Neither can be taken for granted of course.
Update III - the Museums Association has put out a report on the story on its website, which is full of basic factual errors (for example, reporting that the picture will soon be sold at Sotheby's by auction). It's as if they've just made bits of the story up.
Does museum exposure increase the value of Old Masters?
October 23 2015
Picture: Sotheby's
News that Sotheby's will sell a $25m-$35m Orazio Gentileschi of Danaë recently on display at the Met in New York has raised the eyebrow with eminent US arts writer Lee Rosenbaum, who, on her blog, says:
[...] It now appears that Danaë’s golden sojourn at the Met was an extended presale exhibition. [...]
Veteran dealer Richard Feigen‘s family trust was outed yesterday by the Wall Street Journal‘s Jennifer Smith as the owner cryptically identified on the Met’s “Danaë” label as “private collection.” The trust stands to reap rich rewards from gilt-by-association: Sotheby’s has announced that “Danaë” will be the star lot of its evening sale on Jan. 28, bearing a presale estimate of $25-35 million. [...]
Does a dealer/collector have a right to show works in a nonprofit museum’s galleries before dispatching them to auction? Of course.
Should museums allow themselves to be commercially exploited in his manner? Of course not.
Loan agreements should contain a clause imposing a several-year moratorium on selling a work after its museum exhibition. Otherwise, museums may appear to be complicit in market maneuvers and curators may see their scholarly prose instantly recycled as sales pitches.
So, does museum exposure add value to an Old Master painting? In my opinion (as a valuer of and dealer in Old Masters), not really. What we're dealing with in this case is essentially a chicken and egg situation: does the Met's decision to hang a Gentileschi on its walls make it a great (and thus valuable) painting, or does the fact that Danaë is a great painting make the Met want to hang it on their walls?
It seems to me that the latter is the case here - and in fact it is almost all the time. In my experience curators like those at the Met and other leading institutions are no pushover, and are hardly likely to take up valuable hanging space at their museums by installing a second rate work just to do a favour to - gasp - a dealer, or even a private owner. Curators curate based on a painting's individual merits. Indeed, look at an auction catalogue and you'll often see pictures that have been recently on long-term loan to museums, even major ones, sell for not much money at all. After all, museums and curators are often interested in pictures for their academic and art historical value, and this is frequently different from their commercial value.
The situation I think is different when it comes to contemporary art, where, because we have generally lost our collective ability to objectively assess art made from old spoons (and the like) we look for institutional and curatorial approval as a means of telling us what is good or not. Hence all those contemporary art catalogue entries which list reams of exhibitions, even really minor ones, as a means of saying 'this work is Good', and thus valuable.
But in the Old Master market the dynamic is very different. Lee Rosenbaum may think that the sort of person to drop $25m on a Gentileschi is encouraged to do so because it was recently on display at the Met. But I'm not so sure. In my experience, Old Master buyers are perfectly capable of assessing a work of art objectively. The Danaë is without doubt a great painting - you can tell that just by looking at it, whether it's on the Met's walls or Sotheby's. And like most great paintings it has at some point in its life been exhibited at a museum. Big deal.
There are so many other factors to take account of in the Old Master market. Sometimes, an Old Master painting can generate the most excitement, and bids, if it is seen to be 'new' and previously unseen. Hence all those auction house press releases that say 'not seen for X years', or 'never before publicly exhibited'. The Old Masters that really get the market going are often those which have come out of an eminent collection, have not been seen widely before, are a bit dirty, and so on, or are important new discoveries. In those circumstances you are likely get both trade and private buyers bidding. But when a picture like the Danaë comes along, and everyone knows it well from being at the Met, and also that it belongs to a dealer, then arguably it's a harder proposition to sell because you're chasing just the handful of private buyers able to spend that kind of money. And they tend to buy what they like, not what a museum curator likes.
But let us for the sake of argument assume that a spell on loan does indeed add significant value to a painting. Should, then, museums be careful not to display such works? Should we take seriously Lee's suggestion of a 'several year' moratorium on selling works that have been on loan?
Well, why? I certainly agree that it is unseemly to swiftly sell something which has been on public display. But should we say to the public, you can't see this great painting, because it belongs to someone who might one day sell it, and make money because you liked it? I suspect most museum visitors wouldn't give two hoots. People want to see great art because it's great art, and would rather it was on public display not in a private house. Most of them know that such art is expensive, whether it's sold today, tomorrow or in seven years time. (And don't forget that once upon a time Gentileschi himself was likely paid a fair sum for his Danaë.)
I certainly agree with Lee that care must be taken when considering the relationship between private lending and institutional probity. But I also think we should be grateful to Richard Feigen for putting his pictures on display, and applaud those curators and institutions prepared to run the risk of criticism by accepting (with care) such loans.
Update - a dealer writes:
It is an interesting discussion wheather museums are providing a seal of approval to works of art that come to the market. As you know, a similar discussion takes place when a painting, sculpture or drawing is being published in a first rate journal or exhibition catalogue.
At the request of the editor of The Burlington I have signed twice a statement that a work that was illustrated in one of my contributions was not due to appear on the market for at least five years. But when you think of it is a silly thing to do because, not being the owner it is not in ones hands wheather a work is going to be on offer for sale or not in the nearby future.
The Burlington is notorious for being windy about anything privately owned, or which might have anything to do with a dealer. Which is daft because a) dealers often make important discoveries, and The Burlington is merely recusing itself from the wider art historical debate and b) I fear, alas, that The Burlington is no longer important enough to really make a difference to the value of a painting.
Another reader writes:
And if having “displayed at the Met” does add value, the Met and the public have enjoyed the free display of a valuable work. The Met didn't rent the painting, as with some exhibitions, or have to invest in acquiring it so there was a quid pro quo if the display of the painting added any value. Lending to an exhibition might add some value and curators still seek and occasionally pay for exhibitions loans of important works.
It is all right if a private party benefits from public display so long as the public gets an adequate benefit as well. Lending doesn't come with [tax] eductions that donations create.
Another reader adds:
Yes, to an established old master, I agree the pull-up is minimal, but public benefit museums should be just that - pro bono. Time on the Met's walls undoubtedly has a commercial value - and sticking pictures on their wall prior to an auction or indeed any commercial sale is not what they're supposed to be for. It just wouldn't wash in other commercial areas - it would be seen as a conflict of interests.
And that grey area is being exploited - wthout anybdy questioning it - so supine is arts journalism. Dealers are using museums to lend credence and substance to private offerings in the most blatant way. The quid pro quo is obviously that the museum gets interesting exhibitions but the prime purpose of a museum should be objective presentation of material - not to tease the public into buying stuff.
The above reader then mentions a regional UK museum which recently staged two exhibitions on 20th Century artists which were sponsored by a commercial gallery. The commercial gallery, he says, had listed the works for sale on their website while the exhibition was on.
White glove shot (ctd.)
October 22 2015
Picture: BBC
Ok, this is getting ridiculous now. Above is a press shot accompanying the Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art's acquisition of a 1913 Picasso. It's wrong on so many levels.
So I think that if museum press offices are going to insist on these daft 'holding' photos, then it's time to introduce some rules:
1 - if you must wear gloves, let them be white and cotton. If you're going to perpetuate the myth that people in museums really wear white gloves, then have actual white gloves to hand. Rubber ones of the type worn by vets at the back end of a cow are Not Good.
2 - if you must pretend to hold the painting, at least try and make it look like you're really holding it. This means the picture must not be: (a) screwed to the wall with the screw visible; (b) obviously fifteen times heavier than the person holding it with one arm; or (c) hung so high above the 'holder' that they cannot reach it.
3 - Or better yet, actually just hold it, maybe with two people, before you actually attach it to the wall.
4 - And maybe, just every now and then, can we let the 'holder' be a bloke? Just for a change?
Update - THanks for all your emails on this. A reader asks:
Why is she on her knees?
Another writes:
Do you think "white glove shots" are more to allow us to appreciate the dimensions
of a particular painting or piece of art? And The use of the pretty lady "holding" the painting reminds me of how female scantily clad models were once used to sell cars!
Another:
Lord Chesterfield springs to mind, the expense enormous and the posture ridiculous.
And another:
[...] the running stream of ludicrous pictures of women pretending to hold up paintings, has me in stitches. Others love it too.
As a woman, I appreciate someone pointing out the way women are still used as bits of décor. I pass no comment on what it says about rubber/white gloves.
Could there be a campaign to wean these galleries and dealers off by suggesting an alternative, like switching to electronic cigarettes as a first step to avoid severe nicotine withdrawal symptoms? I offer……. why not obligatory Xmas lights draped over in a suitably luscious fashion? And as the addiction wanes, another step down to Xmas baubles …
Another reader sends in this specially taken shot - thanks!
And here's the definitive word from an art handler, who writes:
I am an art handler who has worked in several museums and auction houses.
1. All types of gloves are used and would therefore be "realistic," for a staff member to wear in a photo. As an art handler you are not just wandering a well lit gallery polishing the glass on pictures, you are moving and unpacking wooden crates, handling extremely heavy and challenging objects, unpacking boxes, fabricating plinths, and moving gallery furniture. We use builders grip "vet" gloves (as in the Picasso pic,) white gloves and nitrile gloves. Sometimes these are our choices, dependent on what we are working with, other times the glove is stipulated by the department we are working for. White gloves for old master, nitrile for contemporary art, etc. I think it is felt by the auction houses that old master clientele want to see their prospective purchases handled with old school white gloves. It's as much about conveying a message as it is protecting the work.
Staff in museums really wear white gloves. Again there is no blanket policy, it likely comes down to the best intentions of whoever the head of conservation is. In the museums I have worked in I again have worn nitrile and white cotton gloves, and for a variety of (sometimes confusing) reasons. Just to correct an earlier comment you made white cotton gloves these days have rubber dot grips on them and are not slippy.
2. These photo opportunities are always "directed" by the photographer, or sometimes several photographers at once. They are only interested in feeding into the cliched public perception of what goes on in museums and auction houses.
3. I have been photographed in all stages with a work - on the wall, off the wall, hanging the work, tilting it, holding it above my head and most enjoyably running sideways with a £10m painting to achieve the blurry "rushing staff member strides past stationary gallery visitors," cliche.
4. Blokes outnumber women in this business but if there is a female around they will want to use her in the photo. Sometimes if there are no females around they will use a female staff member from another department dressed up as an art handler.
In other words, in the Old Master world it's pretty much all for show. The white cotton gloves sans grippy bits are the ones brought to the photo shoots by the press office. In my experience of moving and hanging thousands of Old Masters, from £500 pictures to £10m ones, gloves (even proper ones) do nothing but get in the way and make life more difficult. You're far better off just using your hands. The archive sector realised this long ago.
Thought for the Day
October 21 2015
$3m-$4m Gainsborough
October 21 2015
Video: Sotheby's
A fine late Gainsborough will be a star of Sotheby's January New York sale, at $3m-$4m.
Dress like a contemporary artist!
October 21 2015
Picture: BG
If you've always wanted to look like a contemporary artist, but never knew how, then this week's Sunday Times 'Style' section has all the answers (above). The key thing is, apparently, to be an unkempt middle-aged man a bit bald and unshaven.
Perhaps next week they'll do the contemporary art historian look. Jumpers at the ready everyone.
$25m-$35m Gentileschi
October 21 2015
Picture: Wall Street Journal
The Wall Street Journal reports that Sotheby's New York will offer the above painting by Orazio Gentlieschi for $25m-$25m in the January sale:
Measuring more than 7 feet across, Orazio Gentileschi’s “Danaë” portrays a mythological scene in which the god Jupiter enters the title character’s chamber in the form of a shower of gold.
The painting’s estimated value is $25 million to $35 million, according to Sotheby’s, which plans to offer the work at its Master Paintings evening sale in New York on Jan. 28, 2016.
“It’s the most important Italian baroque painting to come on the market since World War II,” said Otto Naumann, an old masters dealer in New York. “If I had it, I would have offered it at $75 million.”
A friend and contemporary of Caravaggio, Gentileschi began his career in Rome and later moved to England, where he entered the service of Charles I. His daughter, Artemisia Gentileschi, was also a painter whose works have been rediscovered in recent years.
“Danaë” was commissioned by the nobleman Giovanni Antonio Sauli in 1621 for his palazzo in Genoa.
The picture belongs to Richard Feigen - the eminent New York Old Master dealer who, regular readers will know, is given to saying the Old Master market is dying. Au contraire, Richard: if your picture sells - which it should - it'll be another sign that in fact the best Old Master pictures are fetching prices never before achieved.
If you go down to the Louvre today...
October 21 2015
Pictures: BG
...take a baby, and a duster. The first helps you jump the huge queues to get through security (over an hour and a half when we went last week).
And the second to help you see some of the paintings, because they seem never to dust them (as seen above). Some of the pictures were thick with dust, and frames even worse. Especially the highly hung works which evidently haven't been moved for years. I'm all for the Louvre's traditional reluctance to clean paintings,* but surely a light dust wouldn't do any harm every now and then...
The crowds inside are pretty intense. The Mona Lisa room was naturally the busiest, and it always amazes me to see everyone straining to see her, but completely ignoring the Raphaels in the next door room. But to be honest most of the rooms were thronged with people. I was interested to see lots of Chinese visitors, many with tour guides, but many taking a genuine interest in art of all periods, including French 19th Century, Dutch and Flemish 17th Century, and even in the tiny English and American room. All of which makes me feel optimistic for the future of 'Old Masters', or 'Classic Art' as some now call it. People still like the old stuff as much as ever before, perhaps more so. And although some might find looking at great paintings surrounded by noisy, selfie-taking crowds a little trying, I personally find it rather energising. I love to see the art I love loved by so many.
Another reason to take your baby to the Louvre is that the unfailingly kind and charming room wardens will occasionally insist on an impromptu walking lesson, as below.
* I had a good look at the newly cleaned Leonardo Virgin and Child - wowee, what a mess they've made of that.
The Arts Council meets Alain de Botton
October 21 2015
Video: ACE
Regular readers may remember Alain de Botton's starring role in a series of excellent 'Guffwatches' a while back, when he re-labelled pictures in the Rijksmuseum. Now he has been enlisted by the Arts Council here in the UK (that's the government funded body which supports and champions arts institutions and museums) to help 'make the case' for the arts ahead of the next Spending Review due in November.
The case for arts funding in the UK seems to swing endlessly between art's 'intrinsic' value (that is, art for art's sake) and its 'instrumental' value (that is, we fund the arts because it makes us healthier, cuts crime, that sort of thing). The problem with the latter is that it sounds great, but a) isn't really true, and b) even if it was true, it is impossible to prove to the satisfaction of Treasury beancounters. How do you show that because Joe Bloggs saw a Velasquez, he was less likely to rob a bank?
De Botton has gone for the full 'instrumental' argument in the Arts Council's latest piece of arts lobbying:
The purpose of art isn’t always necessarily to help people to think for themselves. It might be to console or to enliven, to reopen eyes or rebalance character. But the underlying point is that the arts should be able to do something – however minor or diffuse – for you. And this is the point so often missed in our culture, which still clings mistakenly to an ‘art for art’s sake’ mantra – and refuses to accord to art the power it so patently possesses to guide and inform our lives.
I wonder how much taxpayer's money the Arts Council spent on this attempt to get more taxpayer's money. The video above is another curious example, and I'd love to know how much that cost. It's had just 567 views on You Tube since it was uploaded in December 2014.
It's a shame to see the Arts Council trumpeting the 'instrumental' approach to arts funding, because it was all the rage in the early 2000s, and most people (especially the Treasury) have moved on since then. We shouldn't be shy about supporting the arts because of their own intrinsic value. If we seek to find other ways to justify supporting the arts, with feel-good but spurious claims about health and crime, then by definition we concede that the arts are just a luxury, and can thus be cut.
Update - the Grumpy Art Historian looks at the question in more depth here.
Is it a bird, is it a plane....?
October 21 2015
Picture: via Grumpyarthistorian
No - it's Super Art Woman lifting up a framed Rembrandt all by herself. And without White Gloves!
The Grumpy Art Historian says that the recent export block to save the above £35m Rembrandt is a mistake, and there are better ways of buying paintings:
The UK government has placed a temporary export block on Catrina Hooghsaet (above), which is being sold from Penrhyn Castle. The Telegraph reports that a private buyer has agreed to pay £35m plus sales tax of £660k. The painting is exempt from sales tax, so presumably £660k is due on agent's fees of £3.3m. UK buyers have until 15 February to register interest in buying the picture.
I hope no one does. The picture has been openly marketed for years; the Rijksmuseum came close to buying it. There was ample opportunity to negotiate a friendly deal without the need to pay millions to Sotheby's. I don't begrudge dealers' mark-ups or agents' fees, which are fairly earned in a competitive market. But British institutions have a woeful history of waiting until the last minute and then declaring a national emergency, when a bit of foresight would save millions. If anyone wanted it, the should have said so earlier. They will seem incompetent if they only raise their hands now.
I do hope an institution or two does make the effort to buy this work. It's true that the export system is not an ideal way for museums to buy art, and that it places a value on things that happen to already have been in the country for a long time. But in my view the UK has best export system in the world, one which fairly balances the rights of both 'the nation' and private owners.
UK museums on theft alaert
October 21 2015
Picture: TAN
Martin Bailey reports for The Art Newspaper that:
A warning of a “severe and imminent” threat of attack on UK museums has been issued by Arts Council England. William Brown, the council’s national security adviser, says that museums should ensure that their collections are held in facilities with “the best available defence against any attack”. He warns that staff should now be “extra vigilant to visitors paying undue attention to collections”. Although “attack” might suggest a terrorist threat, a council spokeswoman says that the concern is over “theft of objects”.
The Scottish Council on Archives, a government-funded body, has elaborated on the danger. It advises: “The National Crime Agency are aware of an imminent threat of theft of collections across the UK. They are aware of a group who has made reconnaissance visits to a number of museums and other venues across the UK. It is thought that smaller, more portable items will be targeted rather than items such as large paintings”. The National Crime Agency, a UK government body, has previously warned that organised criminals are targeting museums and galleries.
How to keep a Van Gogh
October 21 2015
Picture: Yale
The Yale University Art Gallery has defeated a legal claim that one of their star pictures, Van Gogh's 'The Night Cafe', should be returned to the heirs of a Russian collector whose art works were seized by the Bolsheviks in 1918. More on the legal case here.
It seems on the surface curious that US courts are always eager to restitute artworks if the Nazis were involved, but not the Bolsheviks.
How to grow a Van Gogh
October 21 2015
Picture: Smithsonian.com
Via Danny Lewis on Smithsonian.com:
It took [landscape artist Stan] Herd six months of digging and planting to recreate van Gogh's 1889 painting, which currently on display at the MIA. To mimic the artist's iconic brushwork, Herd grew patches of pumpkins, squash, watermelons and cantaloupes, while arranging mulch, rocks and soil to create darker lines, according to Nick Mafi at Architectural Digest.
Apologies...
October 20 2015
...for the lack of posts - I'm in that London on business. Back Wednesday.
