Real Clear Arts

Judith H. Dobrzynski on Culture

Smithsonian Launches A 3D “Exploration” Initiative

Let’s catch up on a little news from the Smithsonian, announced in mid-November, but which got very little attention. That’s when it revealed the “Smithsonian X 3D Collection” and “state-of-the-art 3-D explorer.”  Essentially, this device makes use of new 3D scanning and printing technology, with an eye toward making much more of its gigantic collection accessible to schools, researchers and the public at large.

Lincoln'sLifeMaskIn the release,

Günter Waibel, the director of the Institution’s Digitization Program Office [said], “The Smithsonian X 3D explorer and the initial objects we scanned are the first step in showing how this technology will transform the work of the Smithsonian and other museums and research institutions.”

Already, the Smithsonian has scanned “the Wright Flyer,” which “allows users to explore the fine details of the artifact, providing a window into the Wright’s inventive genius and understanding of the principles of flight;”  a whale fossil, part of a super nova, and most relevant here, the Freer-Sackler’s “Cosmic Buddha.” The Smithsonian notes that such low-relief compositions are usually studied with rubbings of black ink on white paper, — but “3-D scanning, used with a wide variety of imaging techniques, can give even more clarity to the designs.”

Another example is Lincoln’s Life Mask, at left, which is in the collection of the National Portrait Gallery.

More details here.

This is part of the trend for museums to become more interactive — which is fine for science, natural history and various other kinds of museums but, I think, tricky for art museums.

3D scanning is unquestionably growing in popularity and declining i costs. But if museums have trouble with photography, and many still do, how are they going to handle this?

The Washington Post carried an AP story on the new Smithsonian venture, available here.

 Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Smithsonian Institution, via the AP

The Knoedler Case: What About Those Gaps?

The Art Newspaper — i.e., correspondent Laura Gilbert — has been reading the legal documents in the case against Knoedler Gallery following the admission of guilt by Long Island dealer Glafira Rosales, and they are juicy.

Knoedler and its former director Ann Freeman face five lawsuits in federal court. These papers highlight the gap between what Knoedler paid for works and what it charged for works — the very question I had back in August, when Freeman asserted that she was the “central victim” of the fraud. At the time, I wrote:

Knoedler sold 40 allegedly fraudulent works for $63 million. But she paid much, much less to Rosales. How does she explain that gap? Rosales knew what she had. How did Freedman get such giant markups without doing additional research, conservation, or any of the other things that allow dealers to double and triple the prices they charge?

252-knoedler-pollockThe court documents provide details the support that question. Some of the more egregious examples:

Jaime Frankfurt bought a Franz Kline, Untitled, 1956, “for a client” for $3.375m on 10 July 2008. Knoedler paid Rosales $1.25m for the work “owned jointly by she [sic] and her brother-in-law, although originally from same collection as the other pictures”.

Michael Hilti, from Liechtenstein, bought a Rothko, Untitled, 1956, for $5.5m in November 2002. Knoedler paid Rosales $775,000.

John D. Howard, from New York, bought a De Kooning, Untitled, around 1956-57, for $3.5m on 19 June 2007. Knoedler paid Rosales $750,000.

Pierre Lagrange bought a Pollock, Untitled [pictured], 1950, for $15.3m in November 2007 through Jamie Frankfurt. Knoedler paid Rosales $950,000.

The “Nordrhein-Westfalen Museum” was offered a Barnett Newman, Untitled, 1949, through Oliver Wick, for $18m, but the work was “not yet sold”. Knoedler paid Rosales $1m.

Some markups. I’d like to hear someone explain them.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of The Art Newspaper  

Three’s A Trend, They Always Say

The Baltimore Museum of Art just announced that it will become the third museum to reopen “historic” doors that had been shut in favor of newer entrances — it’s a trend I applaud.

BMA_rendering-Merrick_Entry-ZS CAP (2)BMA joins the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, where several years ago Malcolm Rogers renovated and reopened both of the MFA’s grand entrances, Huntington Avenue on the Avenue of the Arts and the Fenway Entrance, and Matthias Waschek, who in 2012 reopened the history Salisbury doors, which had closed for the several years except for weekends and special events. In the later two cases, the motivation for closing was primarily cost-cutting, I’ve been told. When I asked the BMA why it had closed its Merrick Entrance 30 years ago, I got this reply:

Prior to the opening of the Baltimore Museum of Art’s East Wing in 1982, the Merrick Entrance was the main entrance. It is a historic space that at that time lacked climate control, wiring for additional electrical outlets, and other basic features. Like many museums at that time, the BMA added the East Wing with more modern amenities for visitors such as an expanded shop, auditorium, restaurant, and circular driveway. The lack of climate control in the Merrick Entrance was problematic for the artworks in the American Wing and the museum decided to focus its resources on the entrance that was more convenient for visitors.

BMA_rendering-Fox_Court-ZS CAP (2)Next year, the BMA is celebrating its 100th anniversary with, among other things, the reopening. As the director, Doreen Bolger, said in the press release:

The reopening of the BMA’s historic Merrick Entrance and the Dorothy McIlvain Scott American Wing will be an extraordinary moment in the museum’s distinguished history—bringing together museum-goers of all ages to experience John Russell Pope’s first vision of a great public art museum.

Though none of the three mentioned it, there’s another dynamic in the museum world that I’ve disagreed with in the past and which has relevance here — some people state that young people find Beaux Arts and other traditional museum architecture to be “intimidating” (see here, for example). There three museums obviously can see through that hoary excuse.

And as these renderings of the Merrick entrance at the BMA show, these old entrances are often stunning.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the BMA

 

 

Friday Afternoon Shocker At Sotheby’s

TobiasMeyerIt’s traditional in the news business: roll out bad news on Friday afternoon, especially one before a holiday, and an email from Sotheby’s just did that:

Sotheby’s announced today that the Company and Tobias Meyer, Worldwide Head of the Contemporary Art Department, have agreed to end his association with Sotheby’s.

“Tobias Meyer is a respected figure and has been at the center of signature moments in Sotheby’s history for more than 20 years and we are grateful for all of his contributions,” said Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Bill Ruprecht. “With Tobias’ contract soon expiring, we all agreed it was time to part ways. We wish Tobias nothing but good fortune.”

Sounds like a firing to me, possibly because Christie’s has been doing so much better in winning consignments and setting records. And Sotheby’s is under attack from investors, while Christie’s as a private company has no such public pressure. This month, Sotheby’s contemporary art evening sale fetched $380.6 million, “the highest grossing sale in Company history” and the day sale brought $93.6 million, “bringing the November series total to a record $474.3 million. ” But Christie’s achieved much more, thanks only in part to the Francis Bacon triptych.

Meyer has been with Sotheby’s since 1992, when he was named head of the Contemporary Art Department in London. Five years later, he was bumped up to be head of the “Worldwide Contemporary Department” and moved to New York.  He is also the principal auctioneer for the bellwether contemporary, modern and Impressionist art sales in New York and for contemporary art sales in London.

His performance earlier this month, though, at the evening contemporary sale was decidedly lackluster. Did he know this was looming?

 

Will These 100 Artists, Let Alone Works of Art, Define Us?

It takes a lot of nerve, and the willingness to be wrong, incredibly wrong, to write the book that Kelly Grovier published in the U.S. this month (and in September in the U.K.).

51aru2yd4vL__SY300_It’s called 100 Works of Art That Will Define Our Age, and it’s a list of paintings, sculptures, drawings, installations, performances, and video pieces, made between 1989 and the present. Grovier is “an American poet, historian, and art critic,” according to his Wikipedia page, and “contributes regularly to the Times Literary Supplement and is co-founder of the scholarly journal European Romantic Review. He was born in Michigan and now lives in England,” according to his description on Amazon.com.

So in this book, which I have not seen, Grovier forecasts that his chosen 100 works will endure and come to be known as Picasso’s Guernica is known. According to Grovier’s publisher, Thames and Hudson:

Accessible and incisive texts offer a biography of each piece, tracing its inception and impact, and showing how it provides a unique keyhole not only into the imagination of the artist who created it but also into the age in which we live.

You will know some of them, by the likes of Christian Marclay, Matthew Barney, Shirin Neshat, Pipilotti Rist, Nan Goldin, Jeff Koons, Cy Twombly and Xiaogang Zhang — in fact, the BBC has a slide show of works by those eight that were selected.

And many others are predictable (Abramovic, Hirst, Emin, Gursky, Viola, Holzer, Kapoor, on and on). Yet, I was surprised by others — I not only didn’t know the works, I don’t know the artists.

Take a look yourself — T&H published a list of the artists in the book.