Real Clear Arts

Judith H. Dobrzynski on Culture

Artworks

Constable’s Salisbury Cathedral “Saved for the Nation” — But How?

The British have again struck preemptively to keep an important art works from being sold abroad, but this time it makes perfect sense. One can agree that John Constable’s Salisbury Cathedral from the Meadows — which depicts the cathedral under both a heavy cloud and a rainbow from across the River Avon and is thought to be a metaphor for the status then of the Church of England — is is inherently part of British heritage. Aside from the subject matter, the painter is British and he made it for showing at the Royal Academy. That makes more sense to me than declaring that, say, a Flemish manuscript, Roman de Gillion de Trazegnies, by Lieven van Lathem (1430–1493), purchased at auction by the Getty cannot leave the country because it’s been in the country for decades.(The Tate director, Nicholas Serota, told the British press that a major American museum asked for the right of first refusal if the painting did go up for sale.)

But never mind, I have other thoughts on this occasion.

Constable_SalisburyCathedralfromtheMeadows

The Tate sent word of this deal today: Major grants from the Heritage Lottery Fund (£15.8 million), the Art Fund (£1million), plus a “substantial,” but undisclosed donation from The Manton Foundation and money from Tate Members paid £23.1 million. That’s far less that the open-market value of an estimated £40 million, but equivalent to the heirs of the owner, the late Lord Ashton of Hyde, because of the tax relief accorded.

So far, so good.

But here is where it gets tricky. The painting, which has been at the National Gallery on long-term loan since 1983, isn’t staying there. It’s being purchased as part of a new partnership, called “Aspire,” of five national and regional galleries: the National Museum Wales; the National Galleries of Scotland; Colchester and Ipswich Museums; Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum; and Tate Britain. The Tate will apparently own the work, but it will go “on almost constant view in partner venues across the UK. From today it will go on view in the Constable room at Tate Britain until the end of the year before being shown at the five national and regional galleries participating in the programme.”

Further, according to the press release:

The Aspire programme is a partnership between five UK institutions, all of which will organise special public programmes highlighting the painting. It will be seen in exhibitions and displays which include the partner venues’ existing collections and reflect the individual context of each site. After the initial five year period all the partners will continue to have special access to the painting for their exhibitions, while ensuring that this extraordinary work is lent to other institutions so that it can be enjoyed by a wide public.

Bold-face mine. This prompts questions. Salisbury Cathedral from the Meadows was painted in 1831 and stretches six feet in length. It’s not the easiest painting to move around “constantly.” And even if it were, Aspire is a new partnership — likely to continue acquisitions in this vein. How will they fare in constant motion?

In theory, the partnership is a good thing — joint ownership, as prices for art continue to soar, will keep more works in the public domain. I’ve always been in favor of spreading great art beyond the big cities. But let’s make sure it works out in practice for the art as well as the public.

 

The Absolute Mess In Warhol Matters

In the upcoming June 20 issue of The New York Review of Books, Richard Dorment pretty well demolishes the Andy Warhol Foundation and the Warhol Art Authentication Board. It’s a long, detailed article — posted already online — and I recommend it. Here are a few key passages, which deal with the lack of independence — which was claimed — between the two bodies, and far worse, how the authentication board seemed to change its mind on certain works when it behooved the foundation.

warholSome of Dorment’s reporting comes from public court documents that have heretofore been overlooked.

…In one electrifying moment during his deposition, on July 7, 2010, [Vincent] Fremont [Warhol’s former assistant] admitted that on at least one occasion he sold as authentic Warhols paintings that the estate of Andy Warhol had confiscated from the owner on the grounds that they were not the work of Andy Warhol. He also admitted that the authentication board on which he sits decided that the same body of work had been created under what one member called false pretenses. What made the sales legitimate, he said, was that the authentication board later declared the paintings to be genuine after all.

And:

…when [Rupert Jasen] Smith [one of Warhol’s offsite printers] himself died in 1989 they [44 paintings] were in the printer’s estate. In a letter dated September 25, 1991, the Warhol estate asked Smith’s executor Fred Dorfman and heir Mark Smith to hand over the forty-four paintings…The reason the estate gave for its request was that these paintings were not the work of Andy Warhol. The September 25 letter, which the foundation’s chief financial officer K.C. Maurer has said appears to be signed by Vincent Fremont, explained that “because of the similarity of the Paintings to authentic works by Andy Warhol, their releases might threaten the integrity of the art market and Andy Warhol’s reputation.” Dorfman brought the pictures, as requested, to the Warhol Estate personally. He did not receive compensation….

…After declaring in 1991 that the confiscated paintings were not the work of Andy Warhol, more than ten years passed, during which time Andy Warhol’s work became increasingly valuable. In his July 7, 2010, deposition in the suit brought by Simon-Whelan, Fremont explained what happened next. The more he looked at the works confiscated from Rupert Jasen Smith’s studio, he said, the more he came to feel that they resembled “other” (presumably real or at least authenticated) works already owned by the foundation. In his own words during his deposition: “There was less and less there that was problematic—with the exception of the signature…and some sizes of some of the work, but they became, to me, worthy of review.” By “review” he meant reexamination by the authentication board.

In due course Fremont proposed that the pictures be resubmitted for authentication….

…[eventually] some of the paintings produced by Rupert Jasen Smith without Warhol’s knowledge were, after all, deemed to be authentic works made by Andy Warhol. In Fremont’s words, the paintings turned over by Dorfman, including those with bad signatures, “went through the normal process. Some were authenticated, some weren’t.”

The Foundation, it appears, sold some of those works — though Dorment says he knows not which or to whom.

Dorment’s tale is a tangled one, but for anyone who owns a Warhol or wants to someday own a Warhol, it is must reading. He concludes “…the coming year may prove to be the most difficult yet for the Warhol Foundation.” Andy himself might be frightened.

 

Getty: Back on The Acquisition Trail

Rembrandt_13It seems like only yesterday that I wrote here about a spectacular acquisition by the Getty Museum. But it was really in December: at the time, the Getty bought a illuminated manuscript,  Roman de Gillion de Trazegnies, by Lieven van Lathem (1430–1493), at Sotheby’s in London for nearly $6.2 million. It’s a true masterpiece, and — last I heard — the British government was holding up the export, calling it a national treasure. The Brits have some time now to raise money to match the price.

Today the Getty announced two additional purchases that are pretty spectacular — one, a Rembrandt, undoubtedly worth tens of millions of dollars. That would be a small oil-on-copper early self-portrait “dressed as a soldier, in deep violet and brown clothes and sporting a gleaming steel gorget. The young man leans back, smiles broadly and catches the viewer’s eye. His animated features are captured in this spontaneous moment of lively exchange with expressive, short brushstrokes,” according to the press release. It’s called Rembrandt Laughing, and was estimated at a few thousand dollars when up for sale at a country auction in Britain several years ago. Instead, it fetched millions and then was authenticated as a real Rembrandt. The Getty did not disclose what it paid for the piece.

canaletto_13The painting is already on view in LA, apparently in the same gallery that holds the Getty’s four other Rembrandt. (SEE CORRECTION IN COMMENTS.)

The Getty also said it had purchased a Canaletto titled The Grand Canal in Venice from Palazzo Flangini to Campo San Marcuola, its second Canaletto painting.

All of the details are here in the press release, and the Los Angeles Times has more back story here.

Photo Credits: Courtesy of the Getty 

 

In Birmingham: The Power of Art

Last week, I posted here about museums that give space and exposure to regional and local artists, past and present. The Birmingham Museum of Art is, apparently, among them, although I did not know it at the time. Here, in part, is what the marketing director, Cate McCusker Boehm, wrote to me afterwards — a sweet story that energized the museum staff:BirminghamWedding

Our recent installation of Alabama artists in our contemporary gallery was in fact a response to requests from our visitors. While we boast the world’s largest museum collection of Wedgwood ceramics, an acclaimed collection of Asian art, and a burgeoning group of African ceramics, we found that our community was eager to see a display that they could really be proud of– a home-grown gallery of artists who are helping to tell the story and culture of Alabama.
…we waited with fingers crossed to see how our visitors would respond to the gallery of only Alabama artists. And then, just two weeks ago, we received the ultimate gift of validation. In the middle of the day, in the hustle and bustle of spring break activities at the Museum, a couple stood before our newest acquisition School of Beauty, School of Culture by Kerry James Marshall, and were quietly married by an officiant with a single witness looking on. Curious, we approached the couple after the brief ceremony and asked them why they chose to marry here at the Museum in front of this particular painting. They explained that they’d seen the panting on a recent date. She is a hairstylist, he is a barber, and so the work was deeply meaningful to them, as it simply represents their life.
The couple’s story quickly made it around to the Museum’s staff members and soon we were all talking about the “pop-up wedding” in the contemporary gallery. It felt wonderful to know that one local couple had been so moved by a new piece in our Museum that they’d decided to exchange vows right in front of it. …
Well, that is the power of art.
Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Birmingham Museum of Art

 

Remember That Rediscovered LeBrun?

LeBrun-MetIt now belongs to the Metropolitan Museum.*

In January, I posted here about The Sacrifice of Polyxena by Charles Le Brun, which had been found in the Coco Chanel Suite at the Hôtel Ritz in Paris by the London-based fine art consultant Joseph Friedman. It was put up for sale on Monday, and the Met bought it, Christie’s said today.

Here’s the link to my original post, with the circumstances of its finding. It was estimated to sell for €300,000-500,000 — or $393,430 – $655,717 – and in the event, fetched $1,885,194, including the premiu. That’s a new world record price for the artist.

My January post has a before and after cleaning picture. At left is what it looks like now.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of Christie’s

*I consult to a foundation that supports the Met.