Archives for January 2010

How did the advent of the camera, and specifically the development of fine art photography, spur the new approach to painting known now as Impressionism? Not just the camera, of course — it was coupled with other social, artistic, technological, and commercial changes that began along the Normandy coast in 1850s France. Especially the development of tourism.

That is the point of what sounds like a great exhibit organized by the University of Michigan Museum of Art. The Lens of Impressionism: Photography and Painting Along the Normandy Coast, 1850-1874 closed on Jan. 3, but is now moving to the Dallas Museum of Art, where it opens on Feb. 21 and runs ’til May 22. Sounds good — and there’s more: Dallas is adding its own touch. 

In the show organized by Michigan, Dallas will display about 100 works by the likes of Courbet, Degas, Monet, Le Gray, Manet, Whistler and Boudin. The twin images here are by Monet — The Sea At Le Harvre, 1868 — and by Le Gray — The Beach at Sainte-Adresse, View of the Cliffs (Plage de Sainte-Adresse, vue de la falaise), 1856. The Michigan museum has more examples here (as well as a video about the show).

Then, Dallas is doing something smart: On April 25, it will open Coastlines: Images of Land and Sea, an exhibit drawn from its collections that displays how artists throughout the past century–from Hopper to De Kooning to Richter to Opie–have depicted land and seascapes, from Miami Beach to Maine, North Africa to Nice, into their work. That’s Lynn Davis’s Iceberg #25 (Disko Bay-Iceland), 2000, at left. (Couldn’t find a twin.)

You can read more about Coastlines here.

Obviously, I haven’t seen either exhibit, but I love the pairing, and the idea that visitors will see 160 years of art in two distinct but related shows.

Thanks to my deaccessioning op-ed in The New York Times (see here and here), I pretty much had to go downtown today to a “roundtable” hosted by New York Assemblyman Stephen Englebright, chairman of the Committee on Tourism, Parks, Arts and Sports. It was designed to “review” Assemblyman Richard Brodsky’s bill, which forbids the deaccessioning of collection materials for any other purpose than buying more items for the collection. It’s a broad bill — covering libraries, historical societies, historic houses, and zoos. Brodsky called me himself — first to make nice (we’re not that far apart, let me explain it to you, he said) and to invite me to the roundtable, and then to try to persuade me to agree with him. Didn’t work.

I’m not going to give you my impressions today — I’ve been busy on a deadline article (paying work has to take precedence) and am not available tonight. Besides, Robin Pogrebin was there for the Times, along with a photographer, and I expect a full report in tomorrow’s paper.

UPDATE: here’s the link to the Times article.

Afterwards, I’ll add –or subtract. For now, suffice it to say that the Brodsky bill, he promised, will be going back to the drafting table for revisions.

Brodsky said he would make sure that he didn’t place any unfunded mandates on New York’s collecting institutions, which it does with the current language — though he disagrees. He made other promises, too.

And btw there certainly wasn’t unanimity on the key point of the bill — preventing deacessioning for purposes other than collecting. Some people offered support for my position — though they called it “peer review” instead of arbitration.

Nor was there agreement by other Assembly members present that there need be any new law.

So the Brodsky bill is in no way a done deal.

More when I am not on deadline (or out).  

 

 

The Louvre is once again claiming the title as most-visited art museum in the world. On Monday, when most eyes here in the U.S. art world were aimed at the West Coast, the Louvre (below) announced that 8.5 million people passed through its doors in 2009. That’s the same as last year, and the fourth year in a row the total has topped 8 million.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art, according to an article in the U.K. Independent, also achieved the same total as last year — about 4.8 million. But attendance at the world’s second most popular museum, the British Museum, dropped in 2009 — to almost 5.6 million, from more than 5.9 million in 2008. (In 2008, two other museums outranked the Met: the National Gallery in Washington ranked third with more than 4.96 million and the Tate Modern in London came in fourth with 4.95 million — leaving the Met in fifth place worldwide. They haven’t reported their numbers for 2009.)

What does this mean for the rest of the museum world? I won’t be surprised if the pattern is more like the British Museum’s than the Louvre’s or the Met’s — with totals lower than last year.

Aside from my own anecdotal reporting, I base that on the numbers reported to The Art Newspaper in its December issue. The article said museum attendance here was on the rise, and the three-year-trend is up. But in many cases the actual numbers show that’s wishful thinking for 2009. Only the Art Institute of Chicago, with its new wing, and the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, with its exceedingly popular Kandinsky exhibit, are obviously having blockbuster years.

This is a dent to morale. Museums mounted a lot of great shows last year, planned before the recession began; 2010 offerings are looking a little less spectacular — and in many cases they are occupying galleries for longer periods of time.   

So I think museums should brace for another difficult year, on several fronts — not just in attendance. Two recent surveys showed that consumer confidence remains low: the index for the “current situation” is at a 26-year low; another confidence survey dipped in January after rising slightly in December. People aren’t planning to return to previous spending levels — memberships may be expendable. Bloomberg, tallying a group of economic projections into a consensus forecast, suggests that the U.S. GDP is likely to expand by 2.6% this year, but philanthropy tends rise long after the economy starts to climb.

The upside, if there is one, is that the art market also lags the economy. If museums have money — or willing donors — this would be a year to buy. 

Monet’s Beach at Pourville, stolen from the National Museum in Poznan, Poland, about 10 years ago, has been recovered. And police have arrested the thief, who has apparently confessed to the crime.

According to the Art Loss Register, the painting has been on many “Top Ten” lists of stolen works for years. At the time it was stolen, the painting was valued at £615,000, and it’s probably worth more today.

In the theft, the painting was cut from its frame and replaced with a poor copy (painted on cardboard, ALR says). Fingerprints from the suspect, who is 41, helped police nab him, as did other traces he left behind in the museum.

Monet painted the work, one in a series, in 1882, and the museum — then in Germany — bought it in 1906.

Here’s a link to the article in The News, Poland.

Photo: Via Art Loss Register

Connoisseurship, as I’ve mentioned here before, is one of those loaded words in the art world. Still, from time to time, it’s amusing to test your eyes. The other day, Gerald Stiebel, a New York/Santa Fe gallerist who deals in Old Masters, European works of art, French 18th century furniture, and the like, posted an entry on his (new) blog, Missives From The Art World, called “What’s It Worth?”

Before you go there, exercise your eyes here. The entry examines two 18th Century French sideboards, one priced in the mid five-figures and the other in the low seven-figures (that’s as specific as he will get). This should be very easy for RCA readers.

Here they are:

1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, I’m pretty sure you answered correctly — for the why, and a close up of a key reason, go to Gerald’s post.

Photos: Courtesy Stiebel Ltd.