CultureGrrl

Talking to me when I'm in full investigative-reporter mode is a bit like going to the dentist---lots of abrasive drilling. Not much fun for the person sitting in the interviewee's chair.

That's why I was so appreciative and admiring of Richard Koch, former deputy director of the Museum of Modern Art, who died last month. He was forever gracious, patient and forthcoming in guiding me through the very complex arrangements surrounding MoMA's 1984 expansion designed by Cesar Pelli, which he helped supervise and about which I wrote for both Art in America and ARTnews magazines.

Koch, an attorney, was a prime mover in drafting the legislation that established the Trust for Cultural Resources, a public benefit corporation that was initially defined in such a way that it could issue bonds to finance only this particular MoMA expansion. But its scope was subsequently expanded to cover a wide variety of major capital projects by New York cultural institutions. It has had a far-reaching impact on the city's cultural life.

Richard was a class act whose cheerful openness and transparency could still serve as a model for museum administration today

Unfortunately, MoMA was unable to supply me with a photo of Koch. If any reader is able to e-mail me a usable image, please let me know by clicking "Contact me" in CultureGrrl's middle column. I'll add it to the top of this post, if I do receive one.

UPDATE: A representative from MoMA's press office took exception to my saying that the museum couldn't supply me with a photo. She had, in fact, informed me that the museum could send me one image, but added that I would have to contact the photographer for permission before I could use it. She said she only had the photographer's "last known mailing address." This heroic detective work was a bit too cumbersome for a quick blog post, even though I'd still like to enhance this with Koch's distinguished mien. Can anyone facilitate that? (Shoutout to James Snyder, Donald Elliott, Richard Oldenburg, Cesar Pelli, Joanne Koch...)

Anthony Tommasini, NY Times' chief classical music critic, at the press conference for the new Alice Tully Hall

At the time of the reopening of Lincoln Center's Alice Tully Hall, when I was sharply critical of Diller Scofidio + Renfro's makeover, I felt like the lone dissident. As architecture critic Ada Louise Huxtable said in her article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal about Lincoln Center's campus-wide rebuilding program:

The renovation of Alice Tully Hall, now complete, is already considered a smashing success.

Ada Louise spoke admiringly of the hall's exterior, but never directly addressed the success, or lack thereof, of the interior of the reimagined concert hall.

Now along comes music critic Allan Kozinn, in a piece appearing in tomorrow's NY Times (but online today), making me feel, at last, a little less lonely. He dislikes the hall even more than I do. But his words echo mine.

Kozinn writes:

Pretty much everyone seems to love every aspect of the new Tully, designed by Diller Scofidio & Renfro.

I hate the new Tully Hall. To me it is everything Lincoln Center and its enthusiasts insist it is not. I find it corporate, sterile, claustrophobic and as acoustically arid a hall as I've ever heard.

You've read similar gripes before---back in February, from me. In one post, I complained:

The sound was too often brittle, not resonant. It's easiest to gauge the quality of a performance and its sound on very familiar pieces. The two warhorses on yesterday's inaugural program were Beethoven's "Grosse Fuge," for which the sound seemed dry; and Stravinsky's "Pulcinella Suite," which lacked the requisite sparkle.

In another post, I described:

Lots of glass and hard corporate-looking surfaces; not much charm, let alone cushy comfort.

And in this post:

After the concert, I...ran into architect Liz Diller, who said the hall sounded great to her from her perch in the balcony. When she asked what I thought, I tactlessly observed that, from where I sat in the rear orchestra, the sound seemed a little dry.

"Dry??? I know you have problems with our work, Lee."

Kozinn had given a brief early warning of his contrarian take in his Mar. 3 concert review:

The hall itself was shockingly impassive....If you've been dreaming that the dryness of the old Tully Hall has been banished, and that the new hall, with its rich hues, will yield a lush, vibrant tone, it's time to wake up.

By contrast, most of the reviewers during the opening weeks, including the Times' chief classical music critic, Anthony Tommasini, gave raves. It's nice to see that reasonable Times critics can strongly disagree (although at a four-month distance).

I will say this, though: The architects' and Lincoln Center's goal of attracting passersby has succeeded admirably. On pleasant days (of which there were remarkably few last month), both Tully Hall's outdoor bleachers and its indoor, glass-walled café are crowd magnets. It's an enhancement to the urban experience, if not as much as it should have been to the musical one.

Timothy Rub, posing in front of the new Rafael Viñoly-designed wing of the Cleveland Museum, which he's about to leave

Maybe it was a good thing that I couldn't teleport myself to the Philadelphia Museum in time for Monday morning's press conference introducing its new director (for which an invitation stealthily arrived in my inbox in the dead of night).

To hear Peter Dobrin of the Philadelphia Inquirer tell it, Rub's first meet-the-press moment in his new capacity as director-designate was no more revelatory than Tom Campbell's close-up at the Metropolitan Museum.

But CultureGrrl, while not there in body, was in Philadelphia in spirit. Rub DID answer the question I had posed here, regarding his peripatetic ways: "Can they keep him?"

Dobrin reports Rub's sacred vow:

I am here for as long as Philadelphia will have me and I can do wonderful things [like maybe roll back today's $2 admission increase?]. There is no other place I would like to be, no other place I can imagine myself. This is one of the great museums in the country. There is a lot of great work to be done here in terms of the [architect Frank] Gehry project. So much work in terms of strengthening the staff and resources. There is no better place for me to be.

Not even Washington, if the National Gallery directorship eventually opens up? Let's not even go there!

Peter Dobrin, Philadelphia Inquirer's culture writer

I was steamed when Robin Pogrebin's NY Times story broke the news embargo I'd agreed to (regarding the Brodsky Bill), and now Peter Dobrin of the Philadelphia Inquirer is steamed about a similar run-in with the same newspaper's Carol Vogel, regarding the announcement of Timothy Rub's appointment to the directorship of the Philadelphia Museum of Art.

Dobrin is SO steamed, in fact, that he sent me the following note, for quotation and attribution:

What happened was this: The Inquirer and Times agreed to the embargo. Later the [Cleveland] Plain Dealer was brought into it. We all agreed to 12:30 a.m. Monday publication. I had warned the museum's PR person that sometimes the Times rolls out news in a kind of stealth way---that is, it is not on the online layout, but you can find it if you search for it and, of course, if you have Google News Alert, the alert will link you to the item.

He [the museum's PR person] got an assurance from the Times this would not happen. So at about 7 p.m. the museum's PR person called to say the Times had published the story. We had our story up about 10 minutes later; the Plain Dealer, maybe a 45 minutes after that.

The story was not appearing on the Times layout at any point last night as far as I can tell. But what happened was exactly what the Times said would not---that Google News Alert linked to it, and anyone who looked for the story could find it.

I'd call that violating the embargo, and I think the Times would have a hard time arguing otherwise.

So what DOES the Times argue? Let's find out. Here's what cultural news editor Sam (Get-it-First) Sifton told me in an e-mail responding to my query:

We're a big organization, with multiple publishing systems for print and digital, and we need to work hard to make sure everyone on each side is talking to the right people on the other, particular in the case of "embargoed" information. You'll note the quote marks. I don't have anything in particular against embargoes except that I'd prefer not to have them.

When we do have them, I'd prefer that they not be tied to morning publication in the newspaper. Here's why: The newspaper is printed at night, and as the finished files for the newspaper are shipped to the printing plant they are also shipped to the digital newsroom, where they are published rather faster than they are at the plant. If someone misses a flag on the file and posts to the Web, I'm stuck explaining myself to the blogosphere. No fun.

I thank you for flagging it.

I wonder if the Times is a little more careful in instances where the Office of the President demands an embargo. In any event, I do agree with Sam about preferring not to have these encumbrances: In my experience, embargoes are almost always broken.

My solution? Give us the news we can use (right now) and let the "scoops" fall where they may. Speed of publication isn't everything, after all. Accuracy and substance are. (Just compare my two-part coverage with Robin's piece.)

No matter how speedy I am, though, I couldn't teleport myself to the Philadelphia press conference called yesterday to introduce the newly named director. In keeping with the bizarre and inopportunely timed nature of the roll-out of this important museum news (on the same weekend when Rub's current museum, the Cleveland Museum of Art, was opening its new wing), the Philadelphia Museum's invitation for its 10:30 a.m. event hit my inbox yesterday at 1:59 a.m.

Even the blogger-who-never-sleeps sometimes gets caught napping in the wee hours!

UPDATES: Dobrin takes issue with my description of his mood: "It's a small point, but I wasn't 'steamed.' 'Slightly annoyed' is probably a better way of putting it. But it is hard to tell emotion in an e-mail!"

And Steve Litt, who wrote the article about Rub's imminent departure for the Cleveland Plain Dealer, takes issue with Dobrin's account of the relative timing of their pieces: "Philadelphia posted at 7:02 p.m. Sunday. We followed at 7:18."

Bernard Tschumi, architect of the New Acropolis Museum just opened in Athens, responds to my criticism of new installation of the Greek-owned Parthenon marbles, chock-a-bloc with replicas of the British-owned slabs from the same frieze:

One of the special aspects of the new Acropolis Museum is that it reconstitutes the original narrative continuity of the Parthenon frieze. For nearly a century and a half, no one has seen it "whole," until now. Divided between Athens and London, no one could follow the extraordinary story-telling achievement that was important to Phidias and to the people of Athens. The frieze is not a series of discrete "tableaux," but rather a kind of cinematic continuum.

So when the architects of the Acropolis Museum and its curators were confronted with dealing with the fact that it was unlikely that the British Museum would return the Marbles in time for the opening, we studied a number of alternatives. One included taking the very white, exact plaster molds given to Greece by the British Museum and putting a scrim in front of them, so as to give the absent segments a ghost-like presence.

While this worked somewhat when the viewer was standing, motionless, exactly perpendicular to the frieze, it created a dense and opaque mask as soon as the viewer saw these same segments at an angle. (The original frieze was conceived to be seen in motion, as viewers walked alongside the temple, inevitably looking at it at an angle.)

Additionally and not unimportantly, the scrim made these segments hard to read, occluding the narrative, and interposed an extra layer of material that violated the planar limit of the marble, which Phidias and his crew had worked hard and skillfully to respect.

Rather than having the long opaque patches resulting from the scrim, we felt that out of respect for the artist as well as the viewer, it was preferable to show the copy next to the original. The two cannot be mistaken. The original has the density of heavy, two-foot-deep stone, with 2500 years of yellowish and orange patina and darkened areas where fires raged over the temple. The reproduction of the Marbles currently in London is plaster-white, unmistakably a copy, but a highly respectful copy that gives the visitor a sense of the continuity of the extraordinary narrative that can be read only combined with the motion of the viewer's body in space. We think it was the correct decision.

I hope this clarifies our thinking, but most importantly, that you'll have a chance to go and see the completed installation in person.

My reaction to Tschumi's thoughtful explanation is this: To the extent that the current real-and-fake installation does succeed in giving the viewer a satisfying "sense of continuity," it fails in its attempt to underscore the imperative that all the authentic marbles be reunited. The Greeks are, in a sense, subverting their own argument. It's also worth noting that Tschumi himself previously advocated the idea of veiling the replica marbles behind a scrim, the installation strategy that I also favored.

That said, I'm violating my own rule of not reviewing something that I haven't set eyes on. I've seen the authentic marbles in both London and Athens, and I've seen the new Parthenon gallery in Athens (a year ago, before the marbles were installed), but I haven't seen the New Acropolis Museum since it opened this month.

Maybe one day. In the meantime, here's an article from today's Wall Street Journal by Athens-based Christine Pirovolakis, who DID recently visit the newly opened museum.

Okay, I'll start you off with with one name:

Everett Fahy, chairman of the department of European paintings, 22 years of service

CultureGrrl has just obtained the complete list of the 96 Metropolitan Museum staffers who accepted the museum's recession-driven offer of voluntary retirement. (It's not 95, as reported in the Met's press release of June 22.)

My list comes from an unimpeachable source---the museum's own Met Matters (above), its biweekly newsletter for its staff (not released to journalists). The Met's press office had declined to give me any of the names of those who would be leaving the building.

In their "Special Message" on the cover of the newsletter, Tom Campbell, the Met's director, and Emily Rafferty, president, invited "all staff to offer more personal good wishes and thanks by joining us at a coffee reception in their honor on Tuesday [tomorrow], June 30, from 8:30 to 10:00 a.m. in the Temple of Dendur in the Sackler Wing."

Let's end the suspense. Here's a roster of 22 of the more prominent names who joined Fahy on the retiree list (which also includes people in such positions as assistant travel coordinator, housekeeper, senior store sales person and associate accounts receivable coordinator):

Colta Ives, curator, drawings and prints, 43 years
Christine Lilyquist, curator in Egyptology, 38 years
Susan Allen, associate research curator, Egyptian art, 16 years
Kevin Avery, associate curator, American painting and sculpture, 20 years
Lucy Belloli, conservator of paintings, 27 years
Takemitsu Oba, conservator of Asian Art, 31 years
Sondra Castile, conservator of Asian art, 31 years
Richard Stone, senior museum conservator of objects, 34 years
Rudolph Colban, conservator of objects, 40 years
Tina Kane, conservator, The Cloisters, 21 years
Margaret Lawson, associate conservator of paper, 33 years
Barbara Ford, research curator, Asian art, 28 years
Johanna Hecht, associate curator, European sculpture and decorative arts, 39 years
Elizabeth Milleker, associate curator, Greek and Roman art, 24 years
Virginia-Lee Webb, research curator, arts of Africa, Oceania and the Americas, 34 years
John O'Neill, publisher and editor-in-chief, 30 years
Mahrukh Tarapor, associate director for exhibitions and director for international affairs, director's office, 25 years (continuing through next May as "advisor to the director")
Doralynn Pines, associate director for administration, director's office, 31 years
Jeff Daly, senior design advisor to the director, facilities management, 29 years
Herbert Moskowitz, chief registrar, 38 years
Nick Cameron, vice president for construction, 30 years
Hilde Limondjian, general manager, concerts and lectures, 48 years

And then there's my personal favorite, Hilda Rodriguez, senior production coordinator in the communications office, who for 17 years was unfailingly friendly and helpful in satisfying all my requests for materials and catalogues (even anticipating what I might want before I had asked).

And finally, adieu to that perennial thorn in the Met's side on cultural property issues, Oscar White Muscarella, senior research fellow, ancient Near East art, 44 years.

What we still don't know, and may never know, is the names of those who got the unsolicited and unwanted pink slips.

Is this what it's felt like to work at the Met recently?

Timothy Rub in the entrance hall of the Philadelphia Museum of Art

Having only this weekend opened its new East Wing designed by Rafael Viñoly, the Cleveland Museum dropped a bombshell in my inbox at 9:25 p.m. today (Sunday):

The Cleveland Museum of Art today announced the decision of its Director and Chief Executive Officer, Timothy Rub, to resign after three years of service to the institution. In September, Rub will take up the position of George D. Widener Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Philadelphia Museum of Art, succeeding the late Anne d'Harnoncourt.

"It has been a great privilege to serve as director of the Cleveland Museum of Art, as it is rightfully considered one of America's finest museums with a great collection, strong financial resources, a commitment to excellence and loyal support from the community it was founded to serve," said Rub. "With the remarkable transformation of its physical fabric now underway, the museum will, I am sure, continue to prosper in the future."

"I am deeply honored by having been chosen to lead the Philadelphia Museum of Art," said Rub. "This was a very personal decision because I have always felt a deep fondness for Philadelphia and its wonderful museum. It is the place where, as a young adult, I first looked at art in a meaningful way and considered a career in museums. At the same time, the decision was also a very difficult one to make as it means leaving a great museum and a community to which I have become deeply attached."

The news hit the Cleveland Plain Dealer a couple of hours earlier, in a piece by Steven Litt, who reported:

Rub's decision, coming after a productive but relatively short tenure..., caught trustees of the Cleveland museum off guard.

"It was a total surprise," said Alfred Rankin Jr., president of the Cleveland museum's board of trustees. "Surprise is probably an understatement."

Shock may be more like it, although Clevelanders had previously heard their man mentioned as a possible candidate for the Metropolitan Museum's directorship. At that time, I had asked:

Can he really get up and leave Cleveland before its renovated and expanded facility is functional?

I guess the answer is yes: The newly opened space is just the first of three new Viñoly-designed wings in the works.

Rub's announcement comes in the wake of the museum's May 4 announcement of budget cuts that included a "stepped reduction" in the director's salary. Will he now do better than the previously underpaid d'Harnoncourt? No one would say what his salary will be, "citing Rub's request to keep it confidential," according to a report by the Philadelphia Inquirer's Peter Dobrin.

Litt noted that "the sudden change adds a jolt of uncertainty" to Cleveland's capital projects:

Work on the Cleveland expansion and renovation will continue until late this year. Trustees will then vote on whether to build the next major phase, including the structures for a new West Wing, a new office area and a vast, skylighted atrium.

Trustees have said they are determined to finish the project by 2013, a slight delay from the original deadline of 2012.

While Cleveland is in shock, Philadelphia is jubilant. Gerry Lenfest, who plans to step down soon as the Philadelphia Museum's board chairman, told Dobrin:

I think he'll hit the ground running with his experience and background, and it's a real coup to get him.

But can they keep him?

This latest instance of museum-hopping gave me traumatic flashbacks to another move of a museum superstar from a community that had just come to know and love him---William Griswold's even speedier departure from Minneapolis to the Morgan. Bill has asserted that the New York post is his dream job and that no other position could ever tempt him. No such assurances have yet been heard from Timothy.

UPDATE: Was this story another NY Times embargo-breaker? The Inquirer's Dobrin, in his ArtsWatch blog, suggests yes. I myself couldn't find the Times story on its website, either on its arts page or on its front page (which posts breaking news). But Dobrin's piece links to Carol Vogel's. Could it be that, called on its jump-the-gun scoop, the Times took it down? (It WAS accessible, however, by searching for Rub's name on the Times' site.)

Last night I picked up the tangible evidence of my Front Page Award for "Best Blog" from the Newswomen's Club of New York.

Here's the award:

Harold Holzer, Metropolitan Museum's senior vice president for external affairs
Photo by Don Pollard

While I give NY State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky high marks for his efforts to craft legislation regulating museum deaccessioning, he loses some points for being more abrasive than diplomatic in his attitude towards museums that are understandably unenthusiastic about being subjected to increased government regulation and reporting requirements.

The museums that would be most significantly affected by the Brodsky Bill are the small minority that were chartered by the State Legislature, rather than the State Board of Regents---those that received their charters before 1890.

Those venerable institutions are not subject to the deaccession regulations promulgated by the Regents. That body just renewed, for a period expiring Sept. 14, its emergency amendment (scroll down to text of "PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF SECTION 3.27"), which lists the allowable reasons for deaccessioning and which bars use of the proceeds for to pay for operating expenses, capital expenses or debt.

New York's National Academy, censured for its secret deaccessions by the Association of Art Museum Directors, is one of the institutions chartered by the legislature and therefore not subject to Regents regulations. Another is the Hispanic Society of America, which strongly objects to the Brodsky bill for (among other things) instigating a jurisdictional "turf war" with the (usually laissez-faire) State Attorney General. The Metropolitan Museum of Art is also among the legislatively chartered institutions. The Assemblyman feels that the Met, not happy about increased regulation, has been dismissive of his overtures to resolve any differences.

And Brodsky's steamed:

What we got from the Met and other institutions [including the Hispanic Society] was the back of their hand. Their position, as I understand it, is not an objection to a specific provision of the bill. Their objection is they don't want, in the end, to be accountable....

If the bill doesn't pass, there will be a two-tier system, where the privileged few [the older institutions] escape any public accountability, and everybody else will live under a regulatory system [created by the Board of Regents] which can't be as good as the bill. It's about the notion that collections are held in public trust. At a time when the bean-counters are gaining primacy at many institutions, there have got to be rules that preserve these collections for the public....

In the end, the Met's longstanding hostility to transparency and accountability is what has driven this dispute....When they said they had problems [with the bill], I asked them what they were, because we solved problems for the Metropolitan Opera and the Museum of Natural History. What it came down to in the end is that they [Met officials] don't want to be publicly accountable to the legislature or the Board of Regents.

One of the things I said to them was, "If you want to have a discussion, let's not wait till the fall; let's have it now. I'll call a meeting for June 5." The Met said, absolutely yes. And then all of a sudden, all of them were busy [as were invited representatives from the Museum of Modern Art, Guggenheim Museum and Whitney Museum, according to notes the sent to Brodsky]. There clearly was a coordinated attempt to delay.

Here, in full, is a letter sent to Brodsky by the Met's director, Tom Campbell, dated June 3:

Thank you for your letter of June 2 [inviting museum officials to the June 5 meeting---short notice]. We greatly appreciate your interest in important museum issues. As you know, I would welcome the opportunity to further discuss your proposed legislation pertaining to deaccessioning.

Unfortunately, neither I nor my senior advisors on this matter are able to attend the meeting on June 5th. But I have asked Emily Rafferty, president, Harold Holzer, senior vice president for external affairs, Thomas Schuler, chief government affairs officer, and Sharon H. Cott, senior vice president, secretary and general counsel, to work with you on further exploration of this issue and the proposed legislation. Of course, I plan to keep myself closely informed on this matter and its ultimate resolution.

And here's what Holzer told me when I spoke to him on Monday:

We thought that the bill, as we first saw it, had some serious flaws....To tackle one problem, the bill would place the legislatively created, larger institutions of this state under the jurisdiction of the Board of Regents. That is a sea change in the governance of museums. Our position is that this requires very serious discussion.

At the same time, this museum follows the same ethical practices that the Board of Regents asks of the institutions that report to it, and that is AAMD rules on deaccessioning....The Met, Natural History, other big museums are already following best museum practices. There's such a thing as over-legislating and over-regulating.

The bill requires the creation, rather promptly, of a registry of works of art. The Met has two million works of art. In this moment in the economy, we don't have the millions and millions of dollars it would take to do this....To devote staff, limited staff at this point, to transferring from ink on index cards to a computer system is going to take a very long time....

This bill seeks to undo 139 years of reporting as it existed, and of a board running this institution impeccably, under best museum practices. I think it's going to take a serious and long and exhaustive discussion---not to delay the legislation, but to discuss this sea change in governance that is being proposed here.

It's not just the legislatively chartered institutions that have expressed reservations about Brodsky's bill. Here's a letter commenting on the bill by the New York City Bar Association's Committee on Art Law and here's a June 1 letter sent to Brodsky by 13 institutions (including the Metropolitan Museum, Museum of Modern Art, Whitney, Guggenheim, Jewish Museum and Studio Museum of Harlem), asking that the bill "be tabled at this time" to allow more time "for further comment and dialogue."

Perhaps the most extensive exchange of letters on this occurred between Brodsky and Richard Armstrong, director of the (Regents-chartered) Guggenheim, who objected to the bill's "legislating the particular criteria a museum must consider in determining whether to deaccession an item in its collection." This, he said, would "stifle academic freedom."

If that's the case, then the deaccession criteria of AAMD must also stifle academic freedom, because the bill's criteria closely track the museum association's professional guidelines. As far as I'm concerned, anything that might discourage Armstrong from selling off some of his museum's celebrated Kandinskys is a good thing. He expressed an interest [via] in culling the museum's 114 works by that artist, in a recent online conversation (at the 39-minute mark) with Max Anderson, the Indianapolis Museum of Art's director.

"The collection needs to be shaped. It's partly misshapen," Armstrong explained to a somewhat startled Anderson, who quickly recovered his poise, perceiving an opportunity for his own institution: "We're very interested in Kandinskys!" he exclaimed.

And I'm very interested that the University of Iowa Museum of Art finally got the initially resistant NY Times to print a needed correction (scroll to bottom) for Robin Pogrebin's Brodsky Bill article.

Albrecht Dürer, "Hare," 1502

This from today's Austrian Times:

Heavy rain also came close to causing a catastrophe at Vienna's Albertina Museum. Water leaking into its storage area threatened serious damage to a number of priceless works by artists such as Gustav Klimt, Egon Schiele and Michelangelo.

The museum issued a statement saying: "Appropriate measures have been taken to guarantee the security of the works of art. Nothing has happened. A total of 100 works of art have been moved to a secure site."

The Vienna fire department has covered the museum's roof with waterproof material to prevent more leakage.

And this from Reuters:

Vienna's Albertina Museum, home to landmark Impressionist works by Monet and Renoir, will start removing 950,000 artworks from its leaking underground depot following some of Austria's heaviest downpours in 50 years.

The gallery, which remains open, will start moving the works on Thursday, including pieces by Flemish painter Rubens and Italian master Michelangelo.

"There has not been any damage to the works so far," gallery spokeswoman Verena Dahlitz said on Wednesday.

One of the 200-year-old gallery's most important pieces, a delicate watercolour of a hare by Albrecht Dürer from 1502 [above], has already been saved.