an blog | AJBlog Central | Contact me | Advertise

The Metropolitan Deaccessions, Ummmm, What?

What precisely did the Metropolitan Museum of Art* deaccession the other day? Apparently, a painting far more valuable than the museum had expected — and perhaps one with incorrect attribition.

NotRubensThe Met had decided to sell sixteen Old Masters paintings to benefit its acquisitions fund, and sent them to Sotheby’s, which put them in last Wednesday’s Old Master paintings auction. At the end, as Sotheby’s wrote in its press release, the Met had “achieved strong results, totalling $2.4 million.”

Everyone’s eyes were on one lot in particular, labeled “Portrait of a young girl, possibly Clara Serena Rubens by a Follower of Peter Paul Rubens.” During the sale, five or six bidder competed for the work, witnesses there told me. Against a presale estimate of $20,000 to $30,000, it sold for $626,500, including the buyer’s premium.

It’s a small painting, just 14 by 10 1/4 in., but with a long history. You can read the whole description here. It has an good exhibition history (long), figures in much literature, and has this catalogue note:

The sitter of this portrait resembles the younger subject of a similarly informal portrait by Rubens in the collections of the Princes of Liechtenstein in Vaduz. She also closely resembles the sitter in a drawing by Rubens, now in the Albertina, Vienna. The Vaduz portrait and Albertina drawing have both traditionally been thought to depict the artist’s daughter, Clara Serena, who died at the age of twelve in 1623. As Held observes (see Literature), such a repeated portrayal of apparently the same sitter does suggest a close personal contact between artist and model.

Held also, however, downgraded the painting from being a Rubens to being a Follower of. As for provenance, this is what’s listed by Sotheby’s:

Possibly Mme Camille Groult, Paris;
Possibly Sir Robert Henry Edward (Alabert?) Abdy, 5th Bart., Paris;
Mrs. Peter Cooper (Lucy Work) Hewitt, New York;
Her Estate sale, New York, American Art Association/Anderson Galleries, 6 April 1935, lot 613;
Frederick R. Bay, New York, by 1936 until at least 1939;
Charles Ulrick Bay, New York, by 1942;
His widow, Josephine Bay Paul, New York, 1955;
By whom given to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1960 (Inv. no. 60.169).

In the condition report, Sotheby’s discussed some retouching, but concluded “the painting is presentable and there is no need for further work. offered in an elaborately carved and gilt wood frame.”

Is it really a Rubens? Was Held wrong? That would be a happy ending, except, of course, for the Met.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of Sotheby’s

*I consult to a foundation that supports the Met

Comments

  1. I love to read your story. Auction House are interested in quick sale, they do not spend too much time to research or
    try to authenticate painting. The Met will be sorry. And to sell painting donated I think is wrong.

  2. Paul Jeromack says:

    Judith – Nice expension of my original report in The Art Newspaper!
    http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Surprising+records+set+at+New+York%e2%80%99s+Old+Master+sales/28597

    What was odd about this picture was that it was among the few pictures among the 16 Met castoffs that was in very good condition. The majority were in extremely damaged, unrestorable shape.
    The “Rubens” is puzzling as there are strong passages, but some very weak ones as well. The head and neck doesn’t quite click with the torso. And the green drapery is poorly done. Curious to see if that is original paint or additions meant to ‘complete’ the picture to make it more saleable.

    • Actually Paul I didn’t see your piece. I heard about this at a reception on Wednesday night. People were talking.

      And then, you forget, Sotheby’s heralded the price in the press release!

  3. Paul Jeromack says:

    No prob. It did generate a bit o’ buzz for sure!

    And a big price is a big price! :-)

an ArtsJournal blog