November 2010 Archives

[Part II is here.]

Almost three months before the Morgan Library and Museum reopened its newly restored and reinstalled McKim building---the former refuge of financier J.P. Morgan---William Griswold, the fifth director of this historic treasure trove (and its 2006 Renzo Piano-designed add-on) took me on a whirlwind tour to discuss the activity swirling around us.

Because I knew I'd be writing about the restoration for the Wall Street Journal, I was editor-barred from posting my videos of the work-in-progress at the time. But now that Morgan in a New Light has hit the stands (and the web), I can take you behind the scenes.

Today, we'll wander with Griswold around the Library's actual library---the vast room where some 14,000 richly bound books are arrayed on three tiers of shelves. Then I'll throw in a mildly irreverent photo essay. There will be a second video and photo essay in a future post.

Here's the museum director previously known as Griddle Griswold. I suggested to Bill that after this challenging project, he might earn the sobriquet, "Grizzled Griswold." But he remains as ebulliently youthful in looks and demeanor as he was during his flapjack-flipping gig in Minneapolis:



Bill took me on a second tour, the day before the McKim building opened to the public, when a few last-minute finishing touches were in progress. He was a hands-on guide, twice whipping a cloth out of his pocket to remove smudges from vitrines, while simultaneously rattling off myriad details about the decor and displays.

Here's the replacement carpet that Bill had mentioned during our videoed August conversation. It's 19th-century Persian (Sultanabad), purchased from the Nazmiyal Collection, a New York gallery:

My fifth annual Art Basel Miami sour grapes soufflé

I don't know about you, but I find that my experience of artwork online is nothing like my experience of artwork on site. There have been many, many times when I thought that a piece looked very intriguing on my desktop, only to be greatly disappointed by an encounter with the real thing. Brightly backlit pieces on my computer monitor often fall flat when lit from the other side. The converse has also proven true: What digital image can possibly do justice to a masterpiece?

So in this, my fifth annual Art Basel Miami sour grapes soufflé (I'm not going again!), I hereby declare that while I'm no fan of the bewildering artistic agglomerations that overload the eyes at mega-fairs, I'm even less enamored of collecting-by-clicking. It's fine to preview works online or to bid at online auctions after first viewing the actual objects at a presale exhibition. It may even be fine to buy a work online that is a multiple with which you're already very familiar (provided that you can get a complete and reliable condition report).

But while I can see the clear advantages for dealers in broadening their client base, I don't believe that intelligent collectors will be well served by the upcoming VIP Art Fair, Jan. 22-30, which has just announced its very prestigious, international 139-gallery roster.

Lest its name beguile you into believing that you'll be granted privileged treatment by Gagosian (one of the fair's founding galleries) in his online guise, be advised that "VIP," in this case, doesn't connote access to a dealer's choicest holdings. It's meant to be an acronym for "Viewing in Private" (or perhaps "Vetting in Pajamas").

Some private experiences just can't be satisfactorily digitized. Lovemaking and the delectation of an original art object are two of them.

Snap of unflappable Steve Martin on inside flap of his book jacket

Oh, all right. I admit it: Although I'm still not finished reading it, I'm enjoying my gift from author/actor Steve Martin a lot more than I had expected. As those of you who have read about my recent losses already know, I can use a lifting of my spirits.

I could also use a click or two on my "Donate" button. I refrained from begging for blog-support while my travel schedule and my personal situation were so complicated that my posting was bound to be sporadic. (So I was pleasantly surprised today by the ad that landed in my middle column.)

It was strange to lose a father, 96, and mother, 89, within three months' time. But I can't say it was unexpected: My parents were inseparable, and I always felt that they kept each other going. I've inherited one painting---a landscape that I had picked out for them, many years ago at a now defunct Manhattan gallery. The late artist's ungainly last name, like that of my parents, is three syllables long, begins with the letter "F" and ends with "stein"---fodder for quips from my father.

Speaking of inherited paintings, I expect to have more to say about An Object of Beauty, Martin's savvy comedy of artworld manners (with its pointed but sometimes problematic social satire) once I finally make it to P. 292. (It's a light, fast read, but my life right now is neither light nor fast.) An inherited painting figures prominently in Steve's story of the rise and fall of an amoral art-market adventuress.

I'm getting a kick out of the book's astute analysis of artworld follies and foibles, as well as its telling descriptions of art buying, art selling and art making. Many real-life art characters are mixed in with the made-up ones---a conflation that must create confusion for readers who may not know, for example, that dealer Andrew Crispo's stranger-than-fiction trajectory is not a literary invention.

"An Object of Beauty" would benefit from better quality art reproductions and more complete information about the reproduced works (including their owners) in the list of credits at the back of the book, Unless its target audience is only artworld denizens, the book also could use an appendix identifying the "real" characters for non-cognoscenti.

But wait a minute! What's that colorful painting behind Martin in the book's publicity photo, above?

As he indicated yesterday on his Twitter page, it's by Stanton MacDonald-Wright. My guess is that it's "Synchromy, Cubist Head," 1916, the MacDonald-Wright painting that was reportedly included in the exhibition of The Private Collection of Steve Martin (with Steve narrating its audio guide). That 2001 show was mounted at the Bellagio Hotel and Casino's art gallery in Las Vegas.

Speaking of Martin's collection, remember the Lichtenstein that was the $42.64-million top lot at Christie's recent contemporary sale (reportedly consigned to the auction by Las Vegas casino mogul Steve Wynn)? The record-breaking Lichtenstein had previously been owned by Martin, as detailed in the painting's provenance history (scroll down), published in Christie's catalogue.

Director William Griswold in J.P. Morgan's library at the Morgan Library and Museum

Yesterday was the day of my mother's funeral.

It was also the publication date for my Wall Street Journal assessment of the restoration of the original McKim building of the Morgan Library and Museum, which has put the "Morgan" back in the Morgan (redressing the imbalance created by the Renzo Piano-designed expansion).

Maybe, in a way, this coincidence was fitting, since it was from my mother that I got my love of art and museums.

I will not be blogging until next week. Meanwhile, if you miss me, here's my WSJ article---Morgan in a New Light.

Should I shelve my gift here?



Or here?



By now you've now all enjoyed the hit video, Jeffrey Deitch Takes Hollywood. Now it's, "CultureGrrl Takes Hollywood"!

I don't think I'll be moving into the mansion formerly owned by Gloria Swanson in nearby Englewood, NJ, any time soon (although I do reside in the former apartment of a celebrated singer, whose Grammys were displayed where my books are now arrayed).

But I got an early surprise birthday present yesterday (today's actually my day) when a book personally addressed to me by a movie star I admire (not sent by his publicist or publisher) arrived by priority mail.

A fellow journalist had e-mailed me for my address, because a friend of hers wanted to send me a book. Since I already get too many unsolicited tomes, my first thought was to ask for more information. But I decided to play along and waited to learn the identity of the mystery author.

By now you've probably guessed who it was.

I was tickled to get a book with Steve Martin's handwritten address in the envelope's upper righthand corner. But I was sorry that his new artworld novel, "An Object of Beauty" (Grand Central Publishing) was unaccompanied by a note.

Wait a minute! I quickly flipped to the title page:

To Culture Grrrl [sic]---
I enjoy your column.
Steve
Martin

Okay, maybe this autographed copy was a mere ploy for publicity. But if Steve thinks my blog is important enough to merit promotional attention, that's still a kick for me! I didn't get the full NY Times courtship---a stroll through Manhattan galleries---but a friendly note was good enough. (Through our intermediary, I asked for and received his permission to blog about this.)

I've flipped through the book, which is liberally peppered with references to dealer Larry Gagosian and includes a couple of references to New Yorker art critic Peter Schjeldahl, who at one point kills all conversation by solemnly pronouncing: "All cocksure movements of the last century have collapsed into a bewildering, trackless here and now." (Why do I think that Peter never said that?)

It may be a bad sign that the story is told from the perspective of an art writer---surely an unreliable narrator!

I've skimmed through quite a bit, but I'll need to read it. (My last obligatory slog through a topical artworld novel didn't go so well.) In the blurb on the back of Martin's book, author Joyce Carol Oates said that while reading his novel, she was "reminded of Edith Wharton's 'The Age of Innocence.'"

From what I've seen so far, this might be a fun (or even juicy) read, but I doubt Edith (or her friend Henry, for that matter) has anything to worry about.

Anyway, for me tonight (if all goes according to plan), it's surefire Shakespeare.

Crystal Bridges Museum's construction site, November 2010

Book your flight to Bentonville, art-lings. This just in from Alice Walton's in-construction Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art:

During an update today on the progress of Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art at the monthly meeting of the Arkansas State Parks, Recreation and Travel Commission, Don Bacigalupi, Crystal Bridges' executive director, announced that the Museum will open to the public on Friday, Nov. 11, 2011. [That's Veterans Day.] The announcement took place at the Doubletree Guest Suites and Convention Center in Bentonville. Numerous regional leaders were in attendance.

In September, Leslie Newell Peacock of the Arkansas Times was among those allowed to tour the site. Peacock wrote:

Once envisioned as a museum with 100,000-plus square feet of public space, Crystal Bridges has grown to 217,000-plus square feet....Bacigalupi said only about 10 percent of the collection has been made public. So far, 62 works have been announced or talked about.

On Sept. 15, Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times published an update on the ever-expanding collection:

Some $2 million worth of new acquisitions were announced today, including Andy Warhol's 1985 painting of Dolly Parton. (The polymer and silkscreen ink on canvas was sold by Sotheby's in May for $914,000.) Acquisitions also include Roy Lichtenstein's sculpture, "Standing Explosion (Red)," sold at Christie's in May for $722,500, and Benjamin West's "Cupid and Psyche." The Corcoran Gallery once owned it [see below], but sold it at Christie's last year for $458,500.

Sold by the Corcoran, bought by Crystal Bridges: Benjamin West, "Cupid and Psyche," 1808

The Corcoran was actually the consignor of the West to the Jan. 28, 2009 Christie's auction. The D.C. museum had included it in several special exhibitions (scroll down)---most recently in its 2004-2005 show of "The Human Form in American Art"---before deeming it expendable. As part of its "refining and strengthening" of its collection, the Corcoran had offered 10 additional American paintings at Christie's American art auction on Dec. 4, 2008. The West was included in the following month's sale of "important old masters."

But back to Bentonville: Here's the museum's 10-page online compilation of selected acquisitions. Warhol's "Dolly" and Lichtenstein's "Explosion" can be viewed here. The West has not, at this writing, been posted.

The awards ceremony next year for President Obama's 15 newly designated Medal of Freedom recipients, named tonight, will bring together some strange bedfellows.

Here are the White House's descriptions of two disparate awardees:

American artist Jasper Johns has produced a distinguished body of work dealing with themes of perception and identity since the mid-1950s. Among his best known works are depictions of familiar objects and signs, including flags, targets and numbers. He has incorporated innovative approaches to materials and techniques, and his work has influenced pop, minimal, and conceptual art.

Stan "The Man" Musial is a baseball legend and Hall of Fame first baseman for the St. Louis Cardinals. Musial played 22 seasons for the Cardinals from 1941 to 1963. A 24-time All-Star selection, Musial accumulated 3,630 hits and 475 home runs during his career, was named the National League's Most Valuable Player three times, and was a member of three World Series championship teams. Musial also served as the Cardinals' general manager in 1967, when the team once again won the World Series.

Other all-stars in the distinguished group include cellist Yo-Yo Ma, author Maya Angelou, former Boston Celtics captain Bill Russell, mega-investor/philanthropist Warren Buffett and two heads of state---current German Chancellor Angela Merkel and former U.S. President George H.W. Bush (father of Obama's immediate predecessor).

Last time around, Obama described his Medal of Freedom designees as "agent[s] of change" who "saw an imperfect world and set about improving it." This time, perhaps reflecting Obama's disillusionment about his own ability to effectuate "change we can believe in," it's less about "breaking down barriers," more about making "our country and our world a better place."

Elyse Topalian, the Metropolitan Museum's vice president for communications, responds to Brooklyn's Costume "Transfer" to the Met: A Huge Deaccession-in-Disguise:

The Metropolitan Museum and the Brooklyn Museum have openly discussed, with both press and the public, the decision to sell certain pieces that would not come to the Met because they duplicated items already in the Met's collection or did not meet our collecting criteria, and it was made clear that any proceeds would go to the Brooklyn Museum's acquisitions fund.

We refer you to Eve Kahn's New York Times column [scroll down] from Oct. 30, 2009, and a New York Post article dated Oct. 4, 2009, as well as a symposium [my links, not hers] held last summer at both the Brooklyn Museum and the Metropolitan Museum. The symposium, in particular, included description and discussion of the decision-making process.

The decisions about which items would be sold were made following a major Mellon Grant assessment that predated the agreement between the two institutions, as well as a complete item-by-item assessment by the Met's Costume Institute that was conducted after the agreement went into effect.

NOTE FROM CULTUREGRRL: I would only observe that the original announcement of the costume transfer---which mentioned only collection-sharing, not collection-selling----predated the NY Post article by 10 months. (I linked to the Post article, to my knowledge the earliest published mention of disposals, in my CultureGrrl post yesterday.)

The above-linked announcement of the speakers and planned topics for the symposium, which took place less than six months ago, made no mention of planned sales---only the "historic collection-sharing collaboration" and the "innovative arrangement" between the Met and the Brooklyn Museum. I gather (from Elyse's comments) that the actual discussion did get into disposal details.

Clearly these plans weren't to remain secret forever: The items are being offered openly at public auction. What was missing, though, was complete candor and transparency from the beginning.

No one troubled to send me a corrective note in December 2008, when I wrongly inferred from the press release that the Brooklyn/Met deal was a straight transfer that involved no sales.

I regret the error.

Screenshot from Jeffrey Deitch's video tour of what he calls his "movie-star house," formerly owned by Cary Grant

Did anyone besides me gag while reading this press release from LA MOCA?

Max Anderson, director of the Indianapolis Museum of Art, apparently did. On his Twitter page today, Max allowed himself an implied dig at a colleague, LA MOCA's director Jeffrey Deitch, whose vision has evidently been blinded by the flashy Hollywood lifestyle. This was demonstrated, yet again, by the parody-ripe video (unabashedly titled, "Jeffrey Deitch Takes Hollywood") that MOCA has proudly posted on its website.

Here's the tweet that I read as Max's poke at MOCA:

Indicator of a museum's contributions more germane to mission than no. [short for "number"] of A-list celebs at parties. http://tinyurl.com/37cd4f7

Max's "indicator," at the link, takes us to a webpage on his museum's site identifying 256 artworks loaned by IMA to other institutions, as of Sept. 10. I'd say, though, that Max went easy on Jeffrey: A goodly portion of the bold-faced names listed under the heading, "Star Arrivals" in MOCA's breathless recap of its fundraising gala rank down the alphabet from the A-listers. The party, which raised more than $3.2 million, was dubbed "The Artist's Museum Happening," after the title of MOCA's current exhibition of 146 LA artists from the 1980s to the present.

I suppose Jeffrey might argue that Max, hunkered in the heartland, has a touch of celebrity-envy. But I'd say that Deitch has a touch of cluelessness about professional decorum. One example: We learn from MOCA's press release that "legendary French fashion house and international brand CHANEL Fine Jewelry" not only sponsored the gala, but also did some product placement:

Maria Bell [co-chair of MOCA's board], Rachel Bilson, Kate Bosworth, Elodie Bouchez, China Chow, Kirsten Dunst, Liz Goldwyn, Ginnifer Goodwin, Chloë Sevigny, and Gwen Stefani wore CHANEL and CHANEL Fine Jewelry to the event. [The CAPS are theirs.]

Was this press release written by MOCA's own PR scribes or ghost-written by publicists for movie premieres? Wait a minute! One of the three PR contacts listed at the bottom of the release is Slate PR, which characterizes itself as "a top PR agency representing high-profile actors, directors, producers, and production companies." Makes sense.

All of this comes as no surprise, since Deitch did tell Artforum (scroll to bottom) that there is "great potential for [museum] partnerships with luxury and consumer brands." Chanel could be the first of many. (Or did I miss one already?)

What we all really want to know is: Will manic ex-dealer Deitch be admitted into the solemn fellowship of the Association of Art Museum Directors? I recently asked for an update from AAMD's executive director, Janet Landay, who on Nov. 9 replied that Deitch had not yet applied for membership in the field's leading professional organization and ethics arbiter.

Another one of life's mysteries: How did the Wall Street Journal's detailed report of the West Coast museum's gala manage to land in the newspaper's "Greater New York" section? Did LA become a New York suburb when I wasn't looking?

UPDATE---Max Anderson responds:

Thanks for the mention. Actually, I was thinking about the media's mad scramble to cover parties more than about how museums look for much-needed support. I like parties as much as the next director---which the opening festivities for the U.S. Pavilion in Venice [my link, not his] will prove.

Beaded velvet ball gown with fur-edged hem, Paris, 1890s, offered from Brooklyn Museum's costume collection at Augusta Auctions' Nov. 10 sale in New York

I've got a major correction to make:

I was wrong in unconditionally extolling the transfer of the Brooklyn Museum's costume collection to the Metropolitan Museum, back when that deal was announced two years ago. My chief assumption about what I called a "win-win arrangement"---that the collection would be preserved rather than sold---was grossly in error.

Here's what I so gullibly wrote in December 2008, when I heaped praise on the Brooklyn-Met "transfer":

Another financially pressed institution might say that a long-held collection, which it could not properly conserve or display, fell outside its present mission and should be sold to benefit other acquisitions.

Would the Brooklyn Museum do this? Fuhgeddaboudit!

Actually, that's exactly what the Brooklyn Museum DID do. It just fuhgoddaboud telling us that that the Met was going to send a large part of the trove to auction, with the proceeds benefiting Brooklyn's collection.

I wasn't the only one who had the wool pulled over her eyes by the misleading press release heralding this "landmark collection-sharing partnership." Carol Vogel's spoonfed "scoop" about the transfer, published in the NY Times, also asserted that Brooklyn's collection would be "be properly cared for and exhibited" at the Met, which would "integrate the collection into its own Costume Institute." Nothing was mentioned about future sales.

Now it turns out that the Met will "integrate" only part of the collection into its Costume Institute. The rest is being sold---a winnowing described as "vast" by Bob Ross, co-head (with his wife, Karen Augusta) of Augusta Auctions, which is handling the disposals. Last week in New York, Augusta offered, by Ross' count, some 96 lots from Brooklyn's costume collection---the auction house's sixth sale containing some of the museum's castoffs. The NY Post a year ago published an early article about the disposals, here.

Ross told me that he expects to post the price list for the Nov. 10 sale (which also included property from other consignors) "later this week." But meanwhile he revealed to me that this closet-cleaning is far from over:

The collection is vast and it will take at least three or more years to complete the deaccession. Our next sale of Brooklyn objects in New York will be on Mar. 30, 2011 and we will have another sale in Sturbridge, MA, on May 10-11.

Sally Williams, the Brooklyn Museum's public information officer, a few weeks ago sent me this written response to my queries about the deaccessions:

The Brooklyn Museum transferred the collection to the Met with the understanding that they would review the collection and that they would need to make enlightened deaccessioning choices after they studied the collection and compared it with what they already have.

The agreement sets out a process by which the Met proposes objects they wish to remove from the collection and they give the list to the Brooklyn Museum for review. If the Brooklyn Museum finds objects on the list that we believe should remain in the collection, we can make a case to the Met that they not be deaccessioned.

If the Met agrees with us, they remain in the collection. If the Met disagrees and still wishes to eliminate the object, the Brooklyn Museum has a limited number of lifetime vetoes through which we can insist that something remain in the Brooklyn Museum Costume Collection at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Even though the proceeds from the sale of objects removed from the collection, by the terms of the agreement, come to the Brooklyn Museum to benefit the collection, all of the arrangements for the sale are made by the Met....The Brooklyn Museum has a degree of oversight in this process, but the details of deaccessioning and sales are in the Met's court.

I'm not enough of an expert to know whether any of the sold works are worthy of a museum's collection and should have been retained or transferred to another institution, rather than monetized.

What I do know is that there was no transparency whatsoever about this clothes-for-cash gambit when the Brooklyn/Met agreement was announced. This runs counter to the following stipulation in the Association of Art Museum Directors' Policy on Deaccessioning:

Attention must be given to transparency throughout the process.

That manifestly did not happen here. The public was not informed that the vaunted "collection-sharing" also involved collection-selling. Nor did anyone disabuse me of my misconceptions about the deal, after I published my laudatory post.

If the Met and Brooklyn had nothing to hide, they shouldn't have hidden it.

Stevie pops the top lot? Warhol, "Coca-Cola [4] [Large Coca-Cola], 1962

Making the Internet rounds is this link to Judd Tully's Friday ArtInfo piece, which outed megacollector Steve Cohen as the buyer of the top-priced lot in Sotheby's evening contemporary sale last week---the nearly seven-foot-high Warhol "Coca-Cola," 1962, which bubbled to an estimate-defying $35.36 million.

Tully said he learned from an "unimpeachable source" that the hedge fund mogul had slaked his thirst for pop (and Pop) after temporarily removing himself from a get-together at his "palatial Greenwich estate." The guests reportedly included Glenn Lowry, the Museum of Modern Art's director, and collectors Eli Broad and Leon Black.

For me, the big "news" in Tully's piece wasn't that Steve likes Coke. It was that he was schmoozing with "fellow trustees" from MoMA.

Where are the fact-checkers when we really need them? Apparently Judd's "unimpeachable source" hadn't mentioned that, unlke Broad and Black, Cohen is not, in fact, on MoMA's board...at least not yet.

Thinking that the museum's website listing of it trustees might not have caught up with late-breaking news, I contacted MoMA's spokesperson, Kim Mitchell, who told me:

Steve Cohen is not currently [emphasis added] a trustee of MoMA, but is on our Painting and Sculpture Committee.

Wish you could have attended the protest "Crab Fest" that was hosted in absentia by Chinese dissident artist Ai Weiwei at his soon-to-be-demolished Shanghai studio?

Now you can!

Ai Weiwei / River Crab Feast @ Shanghai Studio from An Xiao Mina (An Xiao) on Vimeo.

On a much less celebratory and more personal note: I had to do a U-turn yesterday on my way to Boston, where I was planning to attend today's press preview of its Norman Foster-designed expansion, because of my mother's suddenly deteriorating condition. My daughter is flying in today from her post-doc gig in Germany.

All of which is to say that, depending on unpredictable circumstances, I may be away from my computer and not blogging for a a number of days in the near future.

Amy Cappellazzo, talking to a recalcitrant bidder?
No, its Roy Lichtenstein's "Ohhh...Alright...," 1964

Auctioneer Christopher Burge checked his watch as he descended from the podium after tonight's contemporary sale at Christie's and saw that he had clocked a speedy two hours for his 75-lot marathon---an average of about 1.6 minutes between hammer thwacks.

It was a brisk, efficient moving of merchandise with solid results but few fireworks. Christie's self-congratulatory claim (in a press release dispatched an hour before the sale had concluded) that it had "made history" tonight seemed more than a little exaggerated.

The "history" it was referring to was the auction record for a Lichtenstein---$42.64 million for the painting pictured above, which casino mogul Steve Wynn is thought to have tried to sell through dealers for considerably more---about $50 million---a few months previously (as reported in Carol Vogel's pre-auction report for the NY Times). The painting's $39-million hammer price fell short of its $40-million presale estimate, provoking not applause but murmurs.

The big lots were front-loaded in this overstuffed sale. Although I "attended" only virtually, through Christie's live webcast, I could imagine that soon after Lot 23, a Koons "Balloon Flower (Blue)," had found its $16.88-million buyer (L & M Arts, the New York gallery), many of the salesroom attendees had found the exits. (The Koons' seller was the Daimler Art Collection of Mercedes-Benz fame.)

The second-highest price, achieved just three lots after the Lichtenstein---$23.88 million for Warhol's "Big Campbell's Soup Can with Can Opener (Vegetable)," 1962---failed to excite, with a $21.25-million hammer price that fell considerably short of the $30-million low estimate.

The truly breakout performer in the sale was non-superstar Richard Lindner, whose previous auction record was broken three times by paintings from the group of 14 works consigned from the collection of the late Max Palevsky. The ultimate Lindner record-holder was "West 48th Street," 1964, at $1.02 million. [CORRECTION: In my originally posted version, I misstated which was the highest-priced of the sale's Lindners.]

Perennial favorite Alexander Calder, with five works in the sale that trounced their estimates (and one that didn't), also achieved a new auction record---$6.35 million for "Red Curlicue," 1973, which had been acquired by Palevsky the year after its creation from Perls Galleries, Calder's longtime dealer.

The hammer total for the auction was $238.89 million, at the low end of the $236.98-345.82 million presale estimate. With buyer's premium, the sale totaled $272.87 million. Only five of the 75 lots fail to sell, but three of them---by Rothko, Johns and Stella---were relatively expensive failures, doing some damage to the sold percentage by dollar: It was 92%---not as spectacular as the 97% at Sotheby's the night before, but still a highly successful showing. With 21 more lots than Sotheby's, Christie's bested its rival's total by about $50 million. Christie's sale was 93% sold by lot, compared to Sotheby's 91%.

In all, both houses hit their marks and proved their point: The market for contemporary art by well established names appears to be in recovery.

For Christie's complete price list, go here.

Auctioneer Tobias Meyer, caught between a $14.08-million Bacon and a $35.36-million Warhol

Should Michael Taylor get a commission?

It seems likely that tonight's record at Sotheby's for a work on paper by Arshile Gorky---$3.67 million ($3.2 million hammer price, against an estimate of only $800,000 to $1.2 million) owes something to the spurt of interest in such works created by the Philadelphia Museum curator's landmark Gorky retrospective. "Housatonic," 1943, an ink-and-crayon drawing, wasn't in Philly's show, but did have an extensive museum exhibition record.

Likewise, it's possible that Willem de Kooning's "Montauk III" climbed to a hammer price of $8.8 million (against a $5-7 million estimate) in part on the strength of its having been requested by John Elderfield for his 2011 retrospective for the artist at the Museum of Modern Art. Similarly, the estimate-defying record price of 48.8-million last week at Christie's for a posthumous cast of one of Matisse's monumental bronze reliefs of a woman's back may have owed something to the prominence of such works (albeit lifetime casts, not posthumous) in MoMA's recent Matisse show, co-curated by Elderfield.

The highest price at Sotheby's contemporary art sale tonight came for Warhol's nearly seven-foot-high "Coca-Cola," 1962, partially pictured above, whose bubbly $31.5-million hammer price ($35.36 million with buyers premium) easily beat its $20-25 million estimate. That couldn't come near the $63.3 million (including buyers premium) lavished Monday night at Phillips de Pury & Co. on a Liz Taylor painting by Warhol from the same year.

Monster prices for Warhol are getting so routine! I'd rather focus on the $2.32-million record auction price at Sotheby's for a 2004 Julie Mehretu. And what about the wild response that greeted a spider sculpture by Louise Bourgeois, who died earlier this year? Showing no patience for the $600,000-800,000 presale estimate, one arachnophile bumped the bidding in one fell swoop from $400,000 to $1.1 million. The price rapidly climbed to $3.1 million ($3.55 million with premium).

In all, Sotheby's sale brought a hammer total of $195.15 million ($222.45 million with premium), against the hammer-price presale estimate of $151.7-214.4 million. It was a strong result, but cannot be accurately described as "exceeding the high estimate," as Sotheby's claims in its press release (not online at this writing). The estimate refers to hammer price and must be compared with the hammer total of $195.15 million---within the range of the presale estimate. Have you ever heard me say this before?

On the same grounds, it is not accurate to say (as the press release does) that "almost half the sold lots brought prices in excess of their high estimates." In truth, only 30% did. Isn't that good enough?

Only five of the 54 works in the sale failed to find buyers. None of the buy-ins were among the highest estimated works, so the auction was a whopping 97.1% sold by dollar, 90.7% sold by lot. There were five auction records for artists---four with relatively brief auction histories but one market veteran---Larry Rivers at $1.14 million.

You can find the complete list of prices (including buyers premium) here.

Paolo Ferri, Marion True's torturer

I used to worry about how long it was taking. But the more it lasts, the more will be the shame.

So said Paolo Ferri, then Italy's prosecutor in the Marion True antiquities trafficking trial, during our chat in Athens two and a half years ago. Ferri was right, but not in the sense that he intended.

What's shameful is making the Getty Museum's former antiquities curator twist slowly in legal purgatory for five years, only to drop the case because the statute of limitations had run. The guilty party here is the Italian government: If it had a case for its criminal charges, it should have proven it. It's a strange judicial system that allows this senseless scenario to drag on for so long with no final act.

This unceremonious dropping of charges (reported while I was away in China) unleashed a vitriolic tirade from True against her former employer, the J. Paul Getty Museum, where her acquisitions as antiquities curator got her into Italian hot water.

In an interview on the New Yorker's website, True said this to reporter Hugh Eakin about the Getty:

Ai Weiwei

The only surprise to this story is how Ai Weiwei managed to stay not arrested for so long.

So writes Elaine Chow of the Shanghaiist blog (part of the Gothamist network), regarding the news, published by the Chinese dissident artist on his Twitter page, that Chinese police have put him under house arrest. (My above link to Ai's post is to the site of the tumblr-based English translation of Ai's Chinese-language Twitter site.)

The audaciously outspoken Beijing-based artist, whose new Shanghai studio is about to be demolished by authorities, is playing a clever but very dangerous game with the authorities. He spoke candidly to several media outlets (the last is Michael Wines' detailed NY Times report) about his cat-and-mouse negotiations with security officers. According to the above-linked news accounts, the authorities first suggested that Ai not really be under house arrest but only claim to be, as an excuse to his supporters for canceling this Sunday's planned "crab fest" party at his moribund Shanghai studio.

Would his supporters, not knowing the house arrest was fake, be any less inflamed than by a real one? In any event, Ai says he refused to lie, which got him slapped with the real thing, complete with a "phalanx of Beijing police officers" at his home, according to Wines' account.

It will be interesting to learn what, if anything, occurs on Sunday at the Shanghai studio, where "eight bands volunteered to play at the event," as Wines reported.

At least I now know why I wasn't able to access my Twitter feed during my own visit to China last month, even though Ai manifestly manages to get the word out. According to this account of the Weiwei Fray, Twitter is "a medium banned in China but accessible to the Internet-savvy who can jump over the Great Firewall."

I'm just not that agile.

UPDATE: A Saturday report on the Weiwei Fray by Christopher Bodeen of the Associated Press, here.

UPDATE 2: The BBC reports that the party took place on Sunday without Ai, "without incident," but with the crabs.

Davidson County Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle

In her latest astonishing Memorandum and Order, issued today, Davidson County Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle ruled that Fisk University can sell a half-share in its Stieglitz Collection to Alice Walton's planned Crystal Bridges Museum for $30 million. But what Lyle giveth with one hand, she taketh away with the other: The financially struggling university can use only $10 million of the windfall "for its viability."

The remaining $20 million must be "removed from Fisk and used to endow a Nashville connection for the collection." Income from that endowment, estimated by the judge at "$1 million or less each year," would be paid to Fisk to maintain and display the collection. If the teetering university were to close, the money would stay with the collection, securing its future in Nashville.

This 35-page ruling would let Crystal Bridges get its hands on Fisk's modernist American masterpieces (contrary to the no-sale stipulation made by the collection's donor, artist Georgia O'Keeffe), but would deny the university most of its desired "large infusion of cash," without which, Fisk has repeatedly maintained, it "cannot continue to operate." This is a lose-lose decision.

Over the Tennessee Attorney General's vigorous objections, the judge has allowed this violation of donor intent on the grounds that Fisk needs money to survive and that "without Fisk, Nashville would never have been the beneficiary of the Collection." Hobbs Lyle believes that the $10 million is enough to keep the place afloat, while other funds are sought.

In its initial response to the ruling, the AG's Office has stated:

We are disappointed with the approval of the Stieglitz Collection's sale to the Crystal Bridges Museum in Arkansas contrary to the express wishes of the donor....This is a lengthy and intricate opinion, which we will continue to analyze as we review our options.

The AG has, over the course of this case, endorsed several Nashville-only solutions for the collection, the most recent being the establishment of a new endowment, to be funded by Fisk alumna Carol Creswell-Betsch, which would, in the AG's words, "allow the art to be displayed on the Fisk campus full time at no cost to the university."

Fisk asserts that it needs much less (a mere $130,000 a year) to maintain its collection than the $1 million that might be generated by the court-mandated $20-million Crystal Bridges-funded endowment. What's more, in a statement reponding to the latest ruling, the university revealed that some additional Walton largesse may be in the offing:

Alice Walton has agreed to fund an endowment of $1,000,000 which is to be used for the support and maintenance of the Collection. Clearly, the funds that will be produced from this endowment will generate many times the amount actually needed to maintain the gallery, support the Collection and provide for art education.

This reopening of Alice's coffers suggests a new question: Might Walton decide to sweeten Fisk's pot with additional funds to defray debts and support general operations, if the collection-sharing gambit, green-lighted by the court, goes through? And who, we wonder, is defraying the impecunious university's legal bills through years of litigation?

Let the appeals begin! On second thought, let's just forget the whole thing. Crystal Bridges' unseemly megabucks collection-raiding campaign has dragged on way too long.

The Association of Art Museum Directors, which has publicly decried Fisk's planned monetization of its collection, must immediately assert---not just to the university, over which it has little sway, but, more importantly, to the Arkansas museum's officials---that this deal violates professional museum guidelines. Any effort to induce another collecting institution to violate ethical standards is in itself a violation.

Furthermore, the association should unequivocally declare that if this deal goes through, any application by Crystal Bridges' director, Don Bacigalupi, to join the ranks of his colleagues at AAMD will be dead on arrival.

Ai Weiwei's "Sunflower Seeds," now at the Tate Modern
Tate Photography, © Ai Weiwei

[More on the Weiwei Fray: here and here.]

Speaking of Chinese dissident artist Ai Weiwei, this just in from Agence France-Presse:

Outspoken Chinese artist Ai Weiwei says he is offering his supporters 10,000 river crabs---an autumn delicacy---to "celebrate" the government-ordered demolition of his new Shanghai studio. Ai...was invited to build the $1.1 million studio in a new art district in the city's north, but officials have now declared it an illegal structure....

Shanghai called a six-month moratorium on major demolition and construction projects during the World Expo to improve the city's air quality, but since the event concluded on Sunday, halted projects have resumed.

"Now the Shanghai city government has spare time to demolish Ai Weiwei's studio," the artist wrote on Twitter.

Ai's Chinese-language Twitter site is here.

And in other disheartening news on this artist: I had neglected to mention in my China report of yesterday that visitors to Ai's "Sunflower Seeds" installation in the Tate Modern's monumental Turbine Hall were barred from treading upon the 100 million individually crafted "seeds," very soon after the show's Oct. 12 opening. On Oct. 14, Mark Brown of the British Guardian reported that the installation was closed to foot traffic.

In an Oct. 22 update on its webpage for the exhibition, the Tate explained why:

Although porcelain is very robust, we have been advised that the interaction of visitors with the sculpture can cause dust which could be damaging to health following repeated inhalation over a long period of time. In consequence, Tate, in consultation with the artist, has decided not to allow members of the public to walk across the sculpture.

The Tate's description of "Sunflower Seeds" states that the work "invites us to look more closely at the 'Made in China' phenomenon"...

...maybe in more ways than originally intended!

Xi Jinping asLiu Xiaobo Nelson Mandela, the Dalai Lama and Václav Havel---the screen went dark. Another blackout, later in my trip, curtailed this segment on the dissident Chinese artist Ai Weiwei (pegged to his current Sunflower Seeds installation at London's Tate Modern).

At about 3:13 into that clip, CNN's reporter, Eileen Hsieh, quoted the artist saying that it came as "no surprise" to him that his blogs were blocked in China, since (among other provocations) he had posted the names of children killed, as a result of substandard school construction, during the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. That broadcast observation brought Hsieh's report to a premature end (immediately before Liu Xiaobo's name was mentioned in the unexpurgated version).

It seems to me that the form of press censorship most dangerous to a dictatorship is partial censorship, allowing people to get a tantalizing taste of what they're not supposed to see, and then frustrating and demeaning them by denying free access to the rest of the story.

This brings us to the CultureGrrl Blackout: The first site that my tour group visited after arriving in Beijing was Tiananmen Square, perhaps best know today for the famous pro-democracy protests of 1989. We arrived there only a week after Liu had been awarded his Nobel Peace Prize---an honor decried by the Chinese government as rewarding a convicted criminal.

As we approached the portrait of Mao that presides over the square, we gaped at a huge plume of billowing black smoke directly in front of the Chairman's iconic visage. I wondered if I had stumbled upon a news story---perhaps a political demonstration inspired by Liu, who, previous to his current incarceration, had spent 21 months in detention for his role as a leader in the Tiananmen uprising. So I impetuously whipped out my mini-camcorder and indiscreetly began intoning, "This is CultureGrrl..." (Who did I think I was, Christiane Amanpour?)

One of our guides, a Beijing native (whom you'll hear in the video clip, below) mentioned that she had never before seen anything like that ominous-looking eruption, during her many visits there as a tourist guide. Upon hearing me babble to my camera about CNN's Liu-related blackout, our tour's leader, also from Beijing, instructed me to pocket my device immediately or risk its confiscation. A fellow American traveler later told me he had witnessed men being put into police cars at the scene of the fire. I never learned more.

In any event, here's my aborted video snippet. You can glimpse Mao's portrait at the center: