Many exhibitions seem too big, sometimes exhaustive — not as bad as a dry academic biography, which records all the facts but leaves out the life, but in need of editing that shows an artist at his or her best. For example, the J.M.W. Turner exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum in 2008 was exhausting and overstuffed with too-similar works. (And I am not the only one who felt that way.)

I have read of one — granted, I’ve not seen it — that seems to have the opposite problem. Images of the Artist, at the Getty Museum, contains only 41 works, and yet it has four sections that seem enlightening (and acessible).

Yes, the first section consists of self-portraits — that’s the part you’d expect, given the title. But from there the curators go to The Artist’s Life and Space, Allegories of the Artist, and Traces of the Artist. (That’s Goya’s Pygmalion and Galatea at left.) These are themes that illuminate art and artists in a human way.

The trouble is, you can’t really develop these themes with such few works. Especially when, the Getty says, the works span 500 years. Further, 35 of the 41 come from the Getty’s permanent collection. Only six are on loan.

So the good theme seems, from afar, a bit wasted.

It’s a good guess that the show was circumscribed by costs, in these difficult economic times, and driven by the need to use the permanent collection in new ways. But you have to wonder what this exhibit could have been, fully-formed.

Read more about the show here.

Photo Credits: Courtesy of the Getty Museum

 

 

Today The New York Times rendered its version of the controversy wracking the Miami art world: Should the Miami Art Museum renamed itself the Jorge M. Perez Art Museum, in recognition of his contributions to the capital campaign and donations of art?

The article follows several in the Miami Herald — see here and here.

But essentially, the articles all say the same thing — Perez (left) is giving a total of $35 million, if he gets the naming rights. The board approved, in a 30 to 4 vote, and the deal is set. But others, including some trustees who resigned, disagree with the naming. They call it inappropriate, saying that it sends the wrong signal “as to what the museum is all about.” Some may reneg on promised gifts.

I side with the dissidents, for several reasons, beginning with proportionality. The new museum is said to cost about $220 million — Perez is giving $20 million total, in cash, including a past pledge of $5 million. The rest is art. That is less than 10% of the capital cost — not enough for the whole building. A wing, yes.

Second, the naming is in perpetuity, Bad decision. As the Times pointed out, enlightened donors are realizing that non-profits must continue to raise money in perpetuity. They need to recycle naming rights. Fifty years should be the limit in most situations, especially one like this where Perez has not given that much.

Third, a question: is Perez liked in the donor community? If not, the Miami Art Museum should prepare to be turned down by donors who think he bought the museum, or held it up.

Fourth, does the museum and its board realize that they have slapped a ceiling on future giving? if naming rights for the whole museum cost $35 million, by generous count, what can they offer someone who comes along in three years, say, and has the capacity to give more?

We’ve seen this play out in New York in recent years. A few years ago, the New York Public Library received a $100 million donation from Stephen A. Schwarzman, chairman of Blackstone Group. The NYPL engraved his name FIVE times on its historic Fifth Avenue building, which was renamed for him. Trouble is, Schwarzman has manifested a devil-may-care streak for conspicuous spending and earned a lot of enemies along the way. Some people have stopped, or cut back, their giving to the NYPL as a result: they find the excess engravings to be tasteless.

And there’s that ceiling. Sure $100 million sounds like a lot of money; but the NYPL is a big organization, a top-notch place that earns donors much standing even in tough New York.

No one is going to give more than $100 million to it, because the NYPL has little in its arsenal of rewards for that now.

Too bad the Miami Art Museum didn’t think this all through before negotiating with Perez.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of The New York Times

 

The Staedel Museum in Frankfurt just announced a big catch: it has purchased a famed image of Pope Julius II by Raphael and his workshop, a “new” picture, but one known by two other versions in renowned collections — the National Portrait Gallery in London and the Uffizi in Florence. It is one of Raphael’s most famous images.

The Staedel’s version has been out of public view, though in its announcement the Staedel traced ownership back to 1905 — that is when it was auctioned at the Hôtel Drouot in Paris, part of the Bercioux collection.

A private collector purchased the painting and, the Staedel says, “it then made its way from Paris to New York by 1909, and returned to Europe in 1914. In 2007, following further changes of ownership, it was auctioned at the Dorotheum in Vienna as a work by an imitator of Raphael. There it was purchased by the private Ellermann collection, from which the Städel had the fortune of purchasing it at a price substantially below market value thanks to the good will of the seller. The conjectured provenance of the painting before this thread is taken up in 1905 leads back to the family of Julius II himself.”

Of course, no one knows for sure, but the Staedel says it will research the pre-1905 provenance in time for an exhibition titled “Raphael and the Portrait of Julius II: Pictorial Propaganda of a Renaissance Pope” scheduled for November 2012 to February 2013.

Frankly, I’d like to know who owned the work in New York, too, and gave it up…

The exhibit will also compare the Staedel portrait with the more well-known ones in London and Florence.

In the meantime, the Staedel plans to unveil its new treasure in its new Old Master galleries, which are set to open on Dec. 15 after a 14-month refurbishment.

Read more in the press release.

This is a  boon to those galleries, which recently “lost” a wonderful Holbein that had been on loan to those Old Master galleries from the Hesse family. They sold it to billionaire Reinhold Wuerth.

UPDATE: Just ask, and the Staedel answers. In response to my wondering about the picture’s presence in New York, the press office sent this New York Times article:

1910 NYTimes Claims to have found a rare Raphael here 15 Mai 1910.pdf

1910 NYTimes-Artikel Arthur Dawson Thinks.pdf

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Staedel Museum

 

Usually when I write a post like yesterday’s, about the RAW program at the Norton Museum of Art, some reader, or more than one, writes that women artists should stand on their own merit, and that the system isn’t biased against them. I think history proves them wrong. But I also think that there can be more argument about the current situation.

The male-female divide isn’t the only one that affects an artist’s success. It also matters where you live. If it’s a small country in terms of population, it’s hard to get attention beyond your borders. Think about it.

So I found it interesting that a Moroccan named Hicham Daoudi, the managing director of Art Holding Morocco, has taken matters into his hands, starting a promotional program for artists from his home country. In October, 2010, he started the first international Marrakech art fair, held at the Es Saadi Palace hotel, which included 31 galleries — 19 from Europe, mostly French, ten from northern Africa and two from the Middle East — according to The Art Newspaper. The second edition took place in October with 48 galleries (right), and the 2012 fair dates have been set.

More recently, I read that Daoudi has given the Pompidou Center in Paris a three-year €450,000 grant (€150,000 a year) that must be spent on art by Moroccan artists. He was reportedly thinking about making a similar, but smaller grant (€100,000 a year) to a South African museum for the same reason.

On my trip to an arts forum sponsored by the Palazzo Strozzo Foundation in Florence last month, I met an artist from Morocco, and asked him about it. He dismissed the gesture as more about Daoudi, who he said was trying to enhance the value of his own art holdings, than about Moroccan artists.

Could be. But what’s wrong with trying to raise the profile of artists from your country? Whatever his motive, is Daoudi doing a bad thing? I don’t think so; he’s not choosing the artists, or their works, just their nationality.

The Moroccan artists likened Daoudi’s move to affirmative action, and said he’d rather make it on his own. Still, I had to wonder: he had managed, somehow, to make it into the European market. Would he have felt the same if he were working and showing only at home? 

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Marrakech Art Fair

 

 

Last Wednesday, coinciding with the opening of Art Basel Miami Beach, the nearby Norton Museum of Art (in West Palm Beach) opened an exhibition of paintings by Jenny Saville. Saville first earned notice in the 1990s as a Young British Artist as part of Charles Saatchi’s Sensation show, but this is her first survey at an American museum.

The Saville show is noteworthy for another reason: it’s the first in the Norton’s RAW series. RAW stands for Recognition of Art by Women, and it’s funded by the Leonard and Sophie Davis Fund/MLDauray Arts Initiative “to discover, highlight, showcase and promote living women artists.”

The series title is apropos — Saville’s works, too, could be described as raw. As the Norton says,

Her monumental compositions of the female form were unromantic and suggested the reality of weight, flesh and blood. Initially restricted to a feminist critique Saville’s skill and compositions have evolved. She continues to paint luscious canvases that reveal that her subject has always been the medium of painting itself. Taking on the challenge of the history of modern painting through the tradition of classical figure painting her contribution is the subject of this exhibition.

The exhibit — from early career paintings and drawings to never-before-seen, new work, including a series of works on paper inspired by a preparatory drawing by Leonardo — is designed to display Saville’s evolution. Her works, often a comment on mortality, are not, shall we say, pretty. They at, at times, difficult to view. This show will challenge the Norton audience, and that will be interesting to watch.

The Davis Fund donated $1.5 million to finance RAW last May. Through 2016, the Norton will organize an annual exhibition featuring living women artists.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Norton Museum of Art