Archives for November 2011

Nearly two months ago, the Brooklyn Museum’s* press office sent me links to two blog posts about its Russian paintings, saying I might be interested. I was, but not until now, as you will see shortly.

The first was about an exhibit of the museum’s modern Russian paintings collection, acquired starting in 1906. Russian Modern, “celebrates for the first time in over eighty years its renowned collection of modern Russian paintings,” wrote Richard Aste, Brooklyn’s curator of European paintings. Which makes one wonder why such a renowned collection hasn’t been on view for so long, right?

In the second post, Aste talks about refining the collection by deaccessioning one of three paintings by Vasily Vereshchagin called Crucifixion by the Romans, from 1887 (above). Explaining his decision to dump it, he wrote:

Crucifixion by the Romans is a wonderful example of Vereshchagin’s passion for late 19^th-century European academic painting. Theatrically staged in 1^st-century A.D. Jerusalem, the picture is typical of the dramatic historical spectacles–here of capital punishment under the Roman Empire–that wowed period audiences across Europe and America. Today the painting continues to impress the viewer with its monumentality and academic exoticism or Orientalism… [and] an awesome sense of realism.

Crucifixion is not, however, an example of Russian avant-garde painting–the focus of Brooklyn’s collection– which in Vereshchagin’s own lifetime meant critical depictions of modern Russian society or Critical Realism….[it is] a powerful expression of Vereshchagin’s foray into Orientalism, and as such it merits greater study and exposure than it could get here, where it was last on view in 1932.

There’s more at the link above. ArtDaily also published an article with information about the painting’s reception and exhibition history.

Brooklyn invited comments, and got them: of six (plus a final note from Aste), four came from experts opposing the sale for good reasons; one came from an unknown agreeing with them. A sixth — also from an unknown — said “The truth is the crucifixion is in terrible condition, and couldn’t be shown without heavy work, which the museum couldn’t afford on the spot.”

Aste responded by repeating his earlier points and concluded, “The Brooklyn Museum is neither physically nor curatorially positioned to properly celebrate this painting; it hasn’t been [sic] since 1932 and it will not be in the foreseeable future.”

But wait — the others haven’t been on view since 1932 either, have they? Why not is another pertinent question. And, if, as he wrote, the painting deserves greater study, how could that be accomplished by selling it, most likely, to a private collector?

Meanwhile, Christie’s, calling the work “incredible,” put the painting in its London sale of Russian art, which took place on Monday. Estimated at £1,000,000 – £1,500,000

($1,545,000 – $2,317,500), the work fetched £1,721,250 ($2,664,495), including the buyer’s premium.

Vereshchagin is having a bad, or good, depending on how you look at this, month. In early November, the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, also deaccessioned a painting by him — Pearl Mosque at Delhi fetched $3.1 million, including the premium, vs. an estimate of $3 million to $5 million. MFA had a bit of an excuse — at 13 ft by 16 ft, it had little room to show it and it was rarely on view. The proceeds will help the MFA purchase Caillebotte’s Man at His Bath.

At least there we know where the money will go. What will Brooklyn do with its new funds? I have no doubt that they will be used to buy art, but what kind? Will the funds stay in the European painting department, as they should? The museum hasn’t said.

Photo Credits: Courtesy of Christie’s (top); Sotheby’s (bottom)

*I consult to a foundation that supports the BM

 

 

 

 

There’ve been so many deaccessions this fall that they seem routine, hardly worth noting — but this one is a darn shame. Even the seller, the Birger Sandzen Memorial Gallery of Bethany College in Lindsborg, KS, admits that it’s selling one of its treasures, and a curator at another museum calls it the collection’s “crown jewel.”

I saw the painting myself over the weekend, at Sotheby’s American paintings exhibition, and although Sotheby’s gave watercolors by Winslow Homer and Edward Hopper the place of honor, this painting stood its ground, making a convincing case that it’s the best work on offer. (OK, perhaps the Martin Johnson Heade orchid/hummingbird painting contends. The top lot, a Homer oil called Reverie, is nice, but — it’s not his best in that genre either, imho.)

Marsden Hartley’s untitled still life from 1919 — which hung between two other Hartley still lifes that showcased the difference between good (them) and great — dominated the room. It’s one of some 40 window still lifes, Sotheby’s says, and perhaps not one of the very best — but it’s still very good.

The Birger Sandzen gallery is selling the piece, estimated at $700,000 to $900,000, to finance the renovation of what it calls an “outdated” building. The gallery’s capital campaign fell short of its goal, and it decided to sell to focus on “promot[ing] Birger Sandzen and his contemporaries and associates,” according to an article in the Kansas City Star.

The gallery owns no other Hartleys, but says it doesn’t care because he was not part of the Birger Sandzen group. But as Randall Griffey, a Bethany Alum who is now curator at the Mead Art Museum at Amherst, noted, Kansas is now losing “one of the finest paintings by a modern American artist in the state.”

The Witchita Art Museum, for example, has two Hartley paintings, according to a search of its collection online, but — see for yourself which painting is better here and here.

My view of deaccessioning is more liberal than others — cases like this should be arbitrated — but I can’t see the wisdom of this sale, at all. I believe it would have failed my arbitration process; the gallery does not appear to be in extremis.

UPDATE, 12/1: The painting sold today to a private American collector for more than $3.2 million, including the buyer’s premium — way above its estimate.

 

Photo Credit: Courtesy of Sotheby’s

 

It’s sometimes a little dangerous to compliment an exhibition from afar, but I’m going to do it anyway with a show that opened earlier this month at the Tate Liverpool — for two reasons.

One, I love the concept: Alice in Wonderland is, the museum says, “the first exhibition of its kind to explore how Lewis Carroll’s stories have influenced the visual arts, inspiring generations of artists.” It seems a no-brainer, doesn’t it?

And speaking of brains, that’s the second reason for highlighting this exhibition, more about which in a minute.

The exhibition goes to the source: Carroll’s original 1864 manuscript, which he wrote and illustrated as a gift for ten-year-old Alice Liddell; it’s on loan from the British Library. The images were, as the Tate says, “central to the story, creating a visual world which took on a life of its own.” Carroll’s drawings and photographs, as well as Victorian Alice memorabilia (biscuit tins, tea tins, figurines, etc.) and John Tenniel’s preliminary drawings for the first edition of the novel, are on view.

Next comes the art Alice inspired, works by Salvador Dalí, René Magritte, Peter Blake, Yayoi Kusama, Anna Gaskell, Kiki Smith (her Pool of Tears 2, left), Annelies Strba (her Nyima 438 above, right) and Torsten Lauschmann. (Five of them, the Tate says, are “not suitable for children,” alas.)  

The Tate has provided an 18-page educator’s pack, but that’s not all. It has also posted online “Wondermind,” a set of games and videos that “explore the science of your brain” — for kids aged 8 to 12. I played along and watched a few of the videos and they are fantastic. They neither talk above kids’ heads nor dumb things down. Here’s a blog post that explains some of what’s on offer. There are play stations in the Tate but everything is also accessible from any computer.

Endorsing Wondermind without going through it all is a little like reviewing a book without reading the whole thing — so let me just admit this upfront: I have not played all of what’s there. But if the start is a guide, I’m pretty confident you and your kids, or grandkids, will like it and learn from it. Here’s a press release I discovered after I played some games. It says, among other things, “this project is the first time that Tate has engaged scientists to work directly with children” and adds:

Players need to complete tasks such as finding out who painted the Queen of Hearts’ roses, helping Alice find the Cheshire Cat and White Rabbit, and making sure the Mad Hatter delivers a specific type of tea into the cups of his guests.  Through the games, players will learn about the development of cognitive functions such as memory, spatial awareness and language.

Bravo to the Tate Liverpool.  

Photo Credits: Courtesy of the artists 

 

I’d venture that a $25,000 prize means a lot to the author of an art book, and that’s what Mary L. Levkoff (below) just won: The Frick Collection’s Center for the History of Collecting* announced last Tuesday that Levkoff’s book, Hearst the Collector, was chosen as the winner of the second Sotheby’s Book Prize.

Levkoff, since 2009 the curator of sculpture and decorative arts at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, wrote the book while she was curator of European sculpture and classical antiquities at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art; LACMA present a show with the same title in 2008-09.

The award will be presented to Levkoff on Dec. 6, but in announcing it, the Frick’s new director, Ian Wardropper, noted that “The Center’s book prize further strengthens this area of study by acknowledging–and perhaps inspiring–relevant new publications.” Amen to that.

Sotheby’s committed to supporting the prize, awarded every two years, in 2009, and the first winner — Julia Meech, author of Frank Lloyd Wright and the Art of Japan: The Architect’s Other Passion — was announced that fall.

When I last wrote about the Center here, in 2009, is was after I’d attended an excellent symposium on the collecting of Dutch Golden Age art in the U.S. Since then, there have been many more symposia, forums and other events — I’ve attended parts of some of them — and it has grown in other ways, such as making available an online database of dealer and collector archives, offering fellowships, starting the Archives Directory for the History of Collecting, and making plans for oral histories of collectors.

The next symposium is set for March, a two-day event called “The Dragon and the Chrysanthemum: Collecting Chinese and Japanese Art in America.”

Want to know more? About a year ago, ArtInfo conducted an excellent interview with the Center’s director Inge Reist (whom I count as a personal friend).

*I consult to a foundation that supports the Center

 

Everyone loves a good restoration story, and here’s one: On Tuesday, the Dulwich Picture Gallery unveiled a 17th century painting of Saint Cecilia, which as you can see from the photograph below was in pretty sad shape.

The painter is unknown, although when the painting was purchased in 1790 by Noel Joseph Desenfans from the well-known French print-maker and dealer, Jean-Baptise Pierre Le Brun, it was thought to be by Bolognese painter Annibale Carracci. Desenfans hung it in pride of place at his home in London, which he shared with fellow art dealer and co-founder of Dulwich Picture Gallery, Sir Francis Bourgeois.

That’s when the trouble began. According to a press release,

Saint Cecilia hung in the lofty surroundings of the ‘Skylight Room’ amongst a cluster of masterpieces by other members of the Bolognese school. These included Domenichino (The Adoration of the Shepherds, now at the Scottish National Gallery and due for loan as December’s ‘Masterpiece a Month’ at Dulwich Picture Gallery) and Reni (The Martyrdom of Saint Sebastian, on display at Dulwich Picture Gallery). Significantly…it hung directly alongside a version of the celebrated Mrs Siddons as the Tragic Muse by Sir Joshua Reynolds (also now at Dulwich Picture Gallery). It is possible that Bourgeois and Desenfans paired the works according to their compatible themes – with Mrs Siddons being the most famous actress of the late eighteenth century and Saint Cecilia the patron saint of music – but it is also likely that this pairing was intended as a homage to Reynolds, placing his work amongst some of the best examples of the Bolognese school of painting he so admired. Either way, in order to make this a symmetrical pairing and the works equal in size, Bourgeois added wide strips around the Saint Cecilia canvas to enlarge it to the size of Mrs. Siddons. 

Those additions eventually began to disintegrate and come away from the original canvas. In 1842, the well-known art critic Mrs. Jameson wrote that she had “seldom seen a picture so shamefully maltreated – so patched and repainted…[Sir Francis Bourgeois’s] hand is clearly distinguishable.” Later that century, Saint Cecilia was removed from display at the Dulwich Picture Gallery and has not been on display since.

Since 2009, with the help of the Pilgrim Trust, the painting has been restored to the glorious condition shown here. It’s back on display, although attributed to circle of Annibale Carracci — perhaps until more scholarship reveals the true author.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of The Dulwich Picture Gallery