Archives for February 2010

The long-separated Saint Julian (below) and Saint Anthony Abbot (right) belong together, and right now they are living just a couple blocks apart.

The two works are by Taddeo Gaddi, a student — the best? — of Giotto. Gaddi (1300-1366) painted the gold ground paintings (tempera on wood) in the 1340s, during his mature period — but they took diverse paths. Saint Julian, holding a sword, hangs in Gallery 3 of the Metropolitan Museum‘s European paintings galleries. Saint Anthony Abbot, staring soulfully, currently resides at Moretti Fine Art, on East 80th Street, just off Fifth Avenue. Moreover, it appears they are both part of an altarpiece in Italy, which will be revealed below.

Saint Anthony Abbot, Moretti says, had “long escaped the attention of art historians” and when it surfaced in Berlin in 1928, at the Lepke sale, it was labelled “Florentine school, 14th Century.” Only in the 1980s did it gain the Gaddi attribution. That’s about when experts  first noticed that Saint Anthony Abbot has comparable measurements, similar punch-work and the same design as Gaddi’s Saint Julian.

Saint Julian, which remained in Italy until at least 1949, found its way into the Heineman collection here and was bequeathed to the Met in 1996 by Lore Heinemann, in memory of her husband, Dr. Rudolf J. Heinemann (and accessioned in 1997). The Met describes the “well-preserved” work as “a cut-down lateral work from an altarpiece.”

Saint Anthony Abbot, meanwhile, has been in Europe. It’s for sale now for $1.5 million, and has attracted some serious interest. One potential buyer was allowed to take it home for a trial.

But wouldn’t it be great if….someone bought it for the Met?

The story wouldn’t end there, though, for Moretti believes that the two panels belong to this altarpiece:

 

[Read more…] about Time For A Reunion Of Two 14th Century Works? If Only…

A brand new Art Gallery of Alberta opened Sunday and Monday (fully booked!), and starting today the general public can visit.

How did a Frank Gehry look-alike building, with 85,000 sq. ft.(30,000 for galleries), designed by Los Angeles architect Randall Stout, costing $88 million, make its debut without much (any?) notice in the U.S. press? Edmonton is the most northern metropolis on this continent with a population over 1 million… but AGA has greater ambitions than serving the local population: As its website says, “this architectural icon will draw visitors from around the world with twice the former gallery space….”

But can Edmonton really be a Bilbao, or even close? This is not an auspicious start. 

The AGA, which dates to 1924, expects also to attract more “sought-after touring art exhibitions.” It holds a 7,000-item permanent collection, but there’s nary another word about what’s in it on the website.

The temporary exhibits now on view include Edgar Degas: Figures in Motion, drawings by Goya, photographs by Karsh, Building Art: Photographs of the Building of AGA, 2008-2010 by Edward Burtynsky, an installation by Janet Cardiff and George Bures Millers called The Murder of Crows, and a children’s exhibit called Play on Architecture that allows kids to experiment with building blocks.

Nice start. It’s hard to maintain programming like that. Maybe AGA can rely on government funding, or maybe it has a huge endowment.  

If not, I’d be worrying about those great expectations.

Photo: Courtesy Edmonton Sun 

If you aren’t tired of talking about deaccessioning, or listening to others talk about it — and I hope you are not! — please tune into to a program just posted on Rush Interactive on ArtonAir.org.

The show is hosted by Michael Rush (right), who was director of the Rose Art Museum at Brandeis until last spring, when he was dismissed in the mess over the university’s plans to close the museum and sell its collection. A couple of Fridays ago, he convened a very civil discussion on the subject with writer/critic/curator Eleanor Heartney, Charles Desmarais, deputy director of the Brooklyn Museum (the reward for posting comments on this blog), and me.

Here’s the link.

This gives me an opportunity to post a few more impressions, based on developments and discussions since the publication of my op-ed in The New York Times on Jan. 2.

• It’s sad, but true, that several people on both sides of the issue told me that I was “brave” to propose something at odds with the official AAMD/AAM position. It was as if I had voluntarily touched the Third Rail of the museum world.
• This sentiment was borne out at the Brodsky bill roundtable: People are afraid to discuss the very possibility. There was almost no dissent (except for objections to an unfunded mandate) until, at 1 p.m., two hours after the Committee on Tourism, Parks, Arts and Sports convened the roundtable, Brodsky satisfyingly looked around and said it was the last chance for people who differed with him to speak up. Only then did people rise to the mike to disagree or question the bill, and only then did the rumbles in the audience begin.
• More troubling still, one thing I’ve learned since Jan. 2 is precisely how little trust exists in the museum world. Directors don’t trust their trustees; trustees don’t trust one another; many trustees don’t trust their directors. I knew there was some amount of mistrust — but I didn’t know relations were this bad.
• Museum directors — even some you think are strong — fear their trustees, finding it hard to disagree with the powerful ones, ever. (I know, I know, trustees provide the money, and directors work for the board, but absolute obeisance is unhealthy.)
• While it’s no secret that trustees join boards because they contribute money or art, too many trustees have little interest in art — maybe none. If they’re there only for the prestige and the power, I blame the nominating committee and the board chairman.

 At the risk of sounding naive, I think we need to talk much more about museum governance. There are some parallels with corporate governance, about which I have written extensively, but not enough for me to make suggestions at the moment. More reporting, more discussion is in order.

Photo Credit: Dominic Chavez, Courtesy Boston Globe