Archives for August 2011

This week’s East coast earth quake prompted people to ask about the capital’s museums — what cracks occurred, and so on. The Smithsonian took a big hit, and its “castle” remains closed.

There’s a broader question, though, which was raised a couple of years ago by Heritage Preservation in the wake, I think, of 9/11.

Maybe that’s what prompted the Washington Post to write this article, “Curator Andrew Robison Decides What Goes into National Gallery’s Emergency Box,” published on Aug. 14. (At left is one work in the box; the WashPost has a slide show at the above link with more…) 

Truth is, America’s arts institutions were woefully prepared for disasters back then, when HP surveyed them with the help of the Institute of Museum and Library Services and developed the Heritage Health Index. Despite grants awarded since then, I wonder how much progress has been made, given the national tendancy to flit from one issue to another without actually solving problems.

So I commend the WashPost for raising awareness of the issue in a feature, though I wonder why it decided (agreed?) to focus on the NGA curator who handles only “prints, watercolors, drawings and rare illustrated books.” 

Still, the article provides some details of how Robison is caring for/planning for the works in his domain, to wit:

In the two storerooms that Robison asked not be photographed or their locations disclosed, the black, cloth-lined boxes, each the shape of very large books, bear the label “WW3,” drawn in calligraphy. These in-case-of-World-War-III containers lie ready for any possibility, and in Robison’s absence, security guards have a floor plan that shows their exact location, like an X on a pirate map.

…To merit inclusion in the box, each work gets a thorough going-over by Robison’s team. The first criterion is aesthetic: Is it pleasing to the eye, well-made in both concept and execution? Next, historic: does it say enough about when it was made and who made it? Of all the moments of human history to which art can transport us, is this one worth remembering?

And then he has a more nebulous but convincing factor that Robison merely calls “power.” Of all the things that could be demonstrated with lines on paper, does this — through imagery alone — have a pronounced psychological impact? Does it change minds, just by viewing it?

But it says nothing about the rest of the NGA’s collection, which is of far greater concern in a disaster.

The article also has this fascinating comment: “In fact, only 27 percent of what Robison first put in the boxes in 1979 is still inside them.” Has taste, value, really changed that much in 32 years?

With Hurricane Irene bearing down on the east coast, not to mention the coming 10th anniversary of 9/11, I hope arts institutions around the country are having deep discussions about their emergency preparedness. If they’re not doing what the NGA is, they should be doing something similar.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the NGA

 

 

The Art Institute of Chicago just announced that it has chosen Douglas Druick (left) as its next director, succeeding Jim Cuno, who left in June to head the Getty Trust. He has been serving as acting director since then then.

Druick is well-known and well-respected, and not a surprise.

As the press release recounts:

During his tenure at the Art Institute, Druick has conceived and organized or contributed to some of the most significant exhibitions in the museum’s history. These exhibitions include Degas (1988); Odilon Redon: Prince of Dreams, 1840-1916 (1994); Gustave Caillebotte: Urban Impressionist (1994); Van Gogh and Gauguin: The Studio of the South (2001); Manet and the Sea (2003); Seurat and the Making of La Grande Jatte (2004); Toulouse-Lautrec and Montmartre (2005); Cézanne to Picasso: Ambroise Vollard, Patron of the Avant-Garde (2006); and, in contemporary art, Jasper Johns: Gray (2007). Three of these exhibitions, Seurat and the Making of La Grande Jatte, Toulouse-Lautrec and Montmartre, and Jasper Johns: Gray, were named outstanding exhibitions by the Association of Art Museum Curators, and Jasper Johns: Gray was also named “Best Monographic Museum Show Nationally” by the American section of the International Art Critics Association.

That is a mighty impressive curatorial record. I hope he can make the switch to being a director, which is a different thing. The only trouble I see is that he is 66. That means he will be a transition director, unlikely to stay past, what, four years?

The announcement follows the news that the Jewish Museum has appointed Claudia Gould to succeed Joan Rosenbaum. Details here. Gould goes to the Jewish Museum from Philadelphia, where she was director of the Institute for Contemporary Art at the University of Pennsylvania. She says she’ll take the JM in a more contemporary direction.

According to the Chicago Tribune, Druick said his priorities involve exhibition planning and marketing, followed by a search for a new education director:

Among the priorities, Druick said, is a closer look at the way in which the museum plans and executes exhibitions, from subject matter to timing throughout the year. Also active is a search for a new head of marketing, following the quiet July dismissal of Carrie Heinonen, the museum’s vice president of marketing and public affairs.

…Druick mentioned his third priority as replacing the museum’s departed director of education, Robert Eskridge, who retired in June. The challenge in a new director of education, Druick said, is to think about how people learn now as opposed to 20 to 30 years ago, emphasizing the role of technology and how the museum might position itself to attract the next generation of art enthusiasts.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Art Institute

 

Art galleries come and go all the time in New York, but when was the last time you recall one opening to specialize in Impressionist and 19th century paintings?

Can’t remember one? Neither can I. A quick look at the Art Dealers Association of America website, which lists dealers by specialty, shows many members that handle “19th Century European” but most of them really specialize in something else, be it Old Masters or Modern. And all of them, seems to me, have been around a long time.

So I took notice when a press release arrived today announcing that London dealers Trinity House Paintings would in October open a gallery on East 64th St., just off Fifth (below). Did it mean that more good material from that era was becoming available? Or that the interest of NYC collectors was turning backward to that era?

Unfortunately, when I looked at the Trinity House website, I think it means neither. Unless the owners, Simon Shore and Steven Beale, who founded Trinity House in 2006, are holding their firepower back to reveal first in NYC, their offerings are disappointing. Click on the boldface entries on this artists’ list, and you’ll see what I mean. Cezanne is there, but with what? Likewise so many other great artists. And the list has many non-great artists. 

This seems to mean that owners of Impressionist and 19th Century paintings (Modern, too) will still see better material — for the most part — at auction, probably because there’s enough demand to sell publicly (not that every piece does, but the good ones get great prices).

It also seems to mean that a couple of young British dealers want to be in New York, which is a good thing. They’re ambitious. They have their original gallery in the Cotswolds (the pretty tourist town of Broadway) and one in Mayfair, London.

One of them, Shore, gives another reason in the press release, saying that he “foresees that the New York art market will be the strongest trading platform in the next two years, subsequent to the Droit de Suite laws imposed in Europe.”

Trinity’s opening exhibition is to be called From Constable to Cézanne | Inaugural Exhibition by Trinity House Paintings NY; it includes the George Stubbs Portrait of A Gentleman, 1781, which it’s offering for $3.8 million. Once owned by Paul Mellon, the painting was also up for sale at the 2010 edition of the annual British Antique Dealers Association — the highest price item on offer, with a price tag then of “over £2m,” according to the Financial Times.

That wasn’t in the press release.

 

 

The marvelous Mauritshuis in the Hague, renowned for its collection of 17th Century Dutch paintings, is taking on a modern look in September with a show called Dali Meets Vermeer: Modern Masters Come to Visit at the Mauritshuis.

“Modern” is to be taken seriously — these are not in any way contemporary. Their names include Van Gogh, Monet, Beckmann, de Chirico, and Dalí and all the works were made between 1860 and 1960.

But what makes the exhibit noteworthy to me is its design: each of the Modern paintings is paired with a Dutch masterpiece from the Mauritshuis’s permanent collection and they are shown one pair to a room. The curator, Carel Blotkamp, Professor Emeritus of Modern Art at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, is striving to encourage visitors to really look — and compare. As the press release puts it:

The confrontations will invite comparison and closer examination, revealing how painters of different eras grappled with the same artistic problems.

So, Vermeer’s Girl with a Pearl Earring, 1665, will be installed next to Dalí’s Couple aux têtes pleines de nuages, 1936 (below) — to encourage people to see “surprisingly similar silhouette and colouring effects.” In another room, Rogier van der Weyden’s Lamentation of Christ (above) will be hung next to Francis Bacon’s Fragment of a Crucifixion (at right), showing two interpretations of the passion of Christ. 

Jan Both’s Italian Landscape from 1645 will be juxtaposed with Cezanne’s La Montagne St. Victoire from 1888, illustrating two views of Mediterranean light, and Rembrandt’s Self-Portrait from 1688 will be contrasted with Charley Toorop’s Self-Portrait With Palettes from 1952.

There are 11 pairings in all in this exhibit, which opens Sept. 15. (I’ve emailed the press rep for a complete list and will post it when I receive it.)

UPDATE: Here’s the link to all the pairings.

This is a wonderful way for museums whose collections do not encompass modern and contemporary art to include those eras in their programs — and, I think, the other way around, too. Now wouldn’t that be nice, if a very contemporary museum brought in older works and made the comparison. (I touched on this subject in another recent post.)

The Mauritshuis press release signalled another possible wave of the future: Although there will be no catalogue for the show, a Dutch magazine called Kunstschrift will publish a special issue dedicated to the exhibit.

 

It’s not often that I receive a theft alert from the Art Loss Register — despite all the art that is stolen — so I’m posting here the one I received the other day. The ALR must have its reason, and I do also note that the FBI is on the case.

It simple read, along with the pictures here,

Stolen out of Westport CT, two Louhan sculptures, 15x10x15 inches. Estimated value $800,000 each, as reported to Westport Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Then it directed anyone with knowledge of the case or the whereabouts to contact Lt. VIncent Penna in the Westport police department (vpenna@westportct.gov) or Christopher A. Marinello, Executive Director of the ALR (chris.marinello@artloss.com).

The Hartford Courant had a little more information about these “extremely rare” works:

The pieces are 900 to 1,000 years, dating back to China’s Tang Dynasty, and are carved from sandstone. Each weighs between 60 and 80 pounds and is about 15 inches tall, 15 inches deep and 10 inches wide.

The owner had been storing the sculptues at an undisclosed location in Westport, police said. The theft was reported around noon on Monday, but may have been stolen any time during the past couple of weeks, police said.