Real Clear Arts

Judith H. Dobrzynski on Culture

Artworks

Flash From Sotheby’s: “Record” For Munch – UPDATED

Major problems with my computer tonight: I tried to watch the Sotheby’s sale online, but it went in and out, and I missed the key lot — #20. Munch’s Scream.

But now I know that it fetched $119.9. million. Crazy, and I still prefer to think that it’s not a record, because the $82.5 million fetched by Dr. Gachet in 1990 tranlates to $144.8 million today.

Sotheby’s says in a release: “ A group of seven bidders jumped into the competition early, but it was a prolonged battle between two highly determined phone bidders that carried the final selling price to its historic level, after more than 12 minutes.”

The winning bidder was on the phone, and we have no indication so far what nationality.

More interesting results: The 1942 Picasso portrait of Dora Maar, once owned by Teddy Forstman, fetched $29.2 million despite a report that it had a tear, just beneath the neck — repaired, but still. Here’s the story in Vanity Fair.

Brancusi’s Promethee, a beautiful gilded  bronze piece, at right, soared above its $6 to $8 million estimate and brought $12.68 million, including the buyer’s premium.  

The sale ran out of steam near the end of the sale, after 9 p.m., when several lots were passed.

UPDATE: Still, here’s what Sotheby’s said, to sum up the sale: “The Impressionist & Modern Art Evening Sale totaled a remarkable $330,568,550 / £203,765,332 /€250,936,357, Sotheby’s highest-ever total for a sale of Impressionist & Modern Art worldwide**, and the second-highest total for a Sotheby’s auction in any category***.”

 

The Unfortunate Sides Of “The Scream” Auction

With the spring auction season about to move into high gear, everyone’s talking about The Scream, one of four versions Edvard Munch made of the now-iconic image. It comes up for sale on Wednesday night, and like others I did a double-take when I first learned of Sotheby’s titanic estimate — $80 million, the highest presale number Sotheby’s has ever set. (It didn’t even bother with “Estimate on Request,” its normal  but unfortunate practice for such high estimates.)

Like the unnamed art historians cited by The New York Times in today’s Arts & Leisure section, I don’t think the work is worth that, though I know full well that it’s worth whatever someone is willing to pay. Sotheby’s, presumably, has many interested bidders, and we’ll find soon enough if “interest” translates into cash on the table. The Times piece and one in Friday’s Wall Street Journal discuss who might be interested (Russians, Asians, Qataris) and the marketing of the piece.

Unless it fails to sell, The Scream now faces an unfortunate fate, imho: when people look at it, they’ll see dollar signs before they see the art. That’s certainly the case with Klimt’s Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I, which was purchased by Ronald Lauder for his Neue Galerie for $135 million in 2006, as well as with other works that fetched stratospheric numbers (particularly if they sold at auction).

This all depends, of course, on if the public is allowed to see it at all, which depends on who buys The Scream; the buyer’s own circumstances will determine whether and when we see it. It has been 22 years since van Gogh’s Dr. Gachet sold for $82.5 million to the late Ryoei Saito, and we haven’t seen it since.

How much would The Scream have to fetch to exceed that record, the highest reached at public auction, in comparable dollars? According to the U.S. Inflation Calculator, $82.5 million then would be $144.8 million today.

That, of course, isn’t the record for all sales. If the transaction went through — and there’s talk that it did not – that honor belongs to Cezanne’s Card Players, which reportedly sold to the royal family of Qatar last year for $250 million.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of Sotheby’s

 

 

 

“Portrait of Wally” Is Back In The News, Triggering A Few Thoughts — UPDATED

When Egon Schiele painted his tender “Portrait of Wally,” his mistress, exactly 100 years ago, I am sure he never imagined her ensuing notoriety – for “Wally,” subject of multi-decade ownership battle,  is again in the news. This time, perhaps, it’s in a good way. A documentary about her case will premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival this weekend.

To refresh, briefly: Wally is the painting that was on view in 1997 in the Rudolf Leopold collection at the Museum of Modern Art, then claimed by the heirs of Lea Bondi Jaray, because it was seized by a Nazi and then tangled in Austrian collections and politics. The fight for Wally was finally resolved in 2010, with a settlement favoring the heirs.

No other restitution case has had as much as an impact on the way we view Nazi art cases as Wally. She changed everything.

I was there at the beginning — it was my article in The New York Times about Leopold that brought her plight to the attention of the world and triggered everything else. But as Jane Kallir, the dealer who tipped me to the Nazi connection at the exhibition opening, says in the film, “That was the beginning of events that I think none of us in our wildest dreams could have anticipated at that moment.”

How this case came to dominate involves the action of the U.S. government, as I explain in a short opinion piece published today by The Art Newspaper. It also involves, imho, the way MoMA in particular and other museums in general responded to the heirs’ claim — which was to side, without questioning what was right, with the Leopold Collection.

I recommend the film, though it’s not perfect (and I should disclose here that I am in it), not least because it shows that some museums, at least, and some museum people, still have some soul-searching to do. I believe that notwithstanding the fact that some claims for Nazi-looted art have been specious and over-reaching.

I’m also still troubled that much of the rest of the issues I raised in that 1997 article — about the way Leopold “conserved” his paintings and cared for them, or not — were totally overshadowed by the Nazi story. He’s dead now, of course, and his collection is in the hands of professionals. But I’ve always wondered if other collectors are also mistreating art they now own, but which eventually will belong to the ages.

UPDATE, 4/25: I’m happy to report that Howard Spiegler of Herrick, Feinstein, the key lawyer for the Bondi heirs, has reconnected with me and sent along his own article on the ramifications of the Wally case. Here’s a link to it, in Vol. 7 of his firm’s Art & Advocacy. Herrick’s Art Law Group has published such bulletins on its website (here) and a very useful accounting of all resolved World War II-related art claims.

Along Comes Wikipaintings: A New Image Bank

Given the news — and excitement — about the expansion of the Google Art Project this week, I thought I’d mention another, related venture. It’s different but shares some of the same goals. It’s Wikipaintings.  

It’s a non-profit, like Wikipedia, and it’s trying to become the “most complete and well-structured online repository of fine art. We hope to make classical art a little more accessible and comprehensible, and also want to provide a new form of interaction between contemporary artists and their audience. In the future we plan to cover the entire history of art — from cave artworks to the new talents of today.”

The people behind Wikipaintings don’t identify themselves, but I think the project is based — or was started — in Russia, based on the most-viewed artists and the selections. Then again, that changes — when I looked just now, there didn’t seem to be a Russian bias. Whoever the founders are, they created a Facebook page on April 8, 2011, so I’d guess it started about that time. Here’s what they say in “About.”

I’ve explored a little — searching artists by name, movement, century, etc. Visitors can also search by art work — style, genre, technique, etc. But I haven’t spend enough time to know how useful Wikipaintings will be or how it stacks up against all the other art image banks. 

So I will refer you to someone who has: Wikipaintings was briefly reviewed, favorably, by a blog on The Teaching Palette last November, by one Theresa McGee, who compared it to the Google Art Project:

I still love Google Art Project for the amazing depth and detail, but Wikipaintings is much better for understanding and visualizing the growth of an artist through his or her lifetime.  I look forward to seeing how Wikipaintings grows once it is open to contributors; maybe it will even expand beyond 2-D work into sculpture and installation art.

And it’s still in beta.

Photo Credit: Magritte’s Listening Room, drawn from the Wikipaintings site

 

A Telling Moment For Crystal Bridges

Most reviews of the Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art, including my own in the Wall Street Journal, noted that the best works came in the first few pavilions, before the art from the ’50s through now. I noted that Alice Walton, the benefactor, had passed up opportunities to buy major works by Mark Roth, Andy Warhol and Clyfford Still in the last few years. Her heart, I am guessing, just wasn’t in that period of art — though officials in Bentonville more often bemoaned the lack of opportunity.

Now they have another chance, and we shall see what happens. As reported in today’s New York Times, Christie’s will soon auction many works from the collection of David and Geraldine Pincus. The works on the block include at least two major works that would look great in Crystal Bridges.

One is Rothko’s Orange, Red, Yellow from 1961, an 8 ft by 7 ft painting of orange and red. Estimate: $35 million to $45 million.

The other, possibly more likely, is Pollock’s No. 28 (at right), from 1951, estimated at $20 million to $30 million, which was in the Pollock show at the Museum of Modern Art a few years back.

According to Christie’s, the Pincuses bought the work in the late 60s, “from the famed collection of Mr. and Mrs.
Arnold H. Maremont of Chicago, through Harold and Hester Diamond from whom the Pincuses acquired
the work.” It measures 38 x 54 inches and “is distinguished by its black enamel and silver grey paint with pourings and drips of white, red and yellow. There has not been a Jackson Pollock of this quality or scale at auction since 1997.”

It’s pricey, no question. Crystal Bridges likely could not purchase it on its own, without help from Walton, despite it $325 million acquisitions endowment. Will she come up with the money? Or would Geraldine Pincus, the consignor, do a private treaty sale for less money to see the work go to a museum?