Real Clear Arts

Judith H. Dobrzynski on Culture

Why Otis Kaye?

OK-DJIA-VuLast week, The Wall Street Journal published my review of a little show up at the New Britain Museum of American Art: paintings by Otis Kaye. Kaye (1885-1974) is not very well known–in fact, that’s how I began my review. I commend the New Britain museum for taking the show, which was organized, oddly enough, by James M. Bradburne, the departing director of the Palazzo Strozzi in Florence.

Bradburne had learned of Kaye when the Palazzo Strozzi presented Art and Illusion, a survey of trompe l’oeil from antiquity to the present, in 2009 (which I wrote about here).

The New Britain museum knew there’d be little or no name recognition, but no matter. In today’s environment and drive to get people in the door, it was taking a chance. Someone gave the exhibit a title that may, or may not, help: Otis Kaye: Money, Mystery, and Mastery. His subject was money.

Here’s a link to my review.

Kaye is an odd duck and but for his proficiency in painting he might be categorized as an outsider artist. He certainly didn’t mix in the art world and he painted mostly for himself.

OK-EasyComeAs it says in the catalogue:

…Kaye told and retold the story of his life in trompe l’oeil. Every work is filled with visual puns, one-liners, and clues to the events that marked—and often scarred—his life. For Kaye, each painting served as a comment, a moral statement, a catharsis, a reflection, and a reconstruction of a chaotic, capricious, and seemingly immoral world in which everything could be bought, sold, and lost in a continuing game of chance.

Museumgoers who typically speed through galleries spending a few seconds looking at a picture will miss Kaye’s genius. But, anecdotally, people seem to get that. While I was in New Britain I watched people spend several minutes with some of his paintings. I overheard comments like “All of these images seem to tell a story” and “there’s a lot in this painting.” It is true, too, that the public tends to like trompe l’oeil paintings; they are fun to view.

I describe some elements of a few paintings, including the two I’ve posted here (D’-JIA-VU? at top and Easy Come, Easy Go below), but there’s usually more in each and every one of the works. For example, in the comparatively simple Nickel Dime Securities (also described in the review), I had to leave out that a ticket he painted promises “ON THE LAST OF OCT. 1929 / $1.00 / NORMAN OIL CO / WILL PAY TO / THE BEARER / MAYBE IF WE / HAVE MONEY / $1.00 DOLLAR.” That date is two days after the ’29 crash on Wall Street.

You just have to keep looking.

Ok, Kaye is not a master artist. But he is a good one and should  be better known.

There’s another reason to like the NBMAA (which I’ve both criticized and praised in the past) and I’ll be back with pictures of that reason in the next day or so.

Photo Credits: Courtesy of the New Britain Museum of American Art

Bouvier Shenanigans, Chapter Two: Steve Cohen

YBouvierWhen I cited that article in Le Temps, a newspaper in Geneva, to identify the buyer of Leonardo’s Salvator Mundi (Russian billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev), I hadn’t read far enough: Yves Bouvier (pictured), the broker-dealer who sold the Leonardo to Rybolovlev–allegedly committing fraud (which his lawyer denies)–also may have used the same tactic when he sold a Modigliani nude owned by Steve Cohen to the Russian.

Here’s how it worked, supposedly: Rybolovlev paid Bouvier $118 million for the Modigliani, but Cohen received $93.5 million for it. At a New Year’s Eve party last year, Rybolovlev learned of the gap from Sandy Heller, Cohen’s art adviser–but Heller had no idea he was talking to the anonymous buyer. Rybolovlev charges that Bouvier pocketed the difference, $24.5 million, plus a commission he paid.

According to Forbes (which cites Le Temps),

The anecdote about Steve Cohen’s Modigliani comes straight out of the criminal complaint received on January 12, 2015 by Monaco’s Palais de Justice, and was confirmed by source close to the matter. While Bouvier may not be a household name in the U.S., the accusations and ensuing arrest reverberated across the European art market, where Bouvier runs a set of luxury warehouses across Geneva, Luxembourg, and Singapore where the world’s billionaires store their art, along with jewels, fine wines, and other luxury goods legally in tax-free zones.

Bouvier has a past. Again, from Forbes:

…Bouvier was embroiled in a similar legal scandal in 2008, when he was connected to a group that tricked an aging collector into selling a piece by Russian-born French artist Chaim Soutine that was then flipped to the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC. A suite filed by the heirs of Canadian Lorette Jolles Shefner claims she was misled into selling Piece of Beef for $1 million in the Spring of 2004 by two art experts who, a few months later, sold it to the National Gallery for nearly twice the price. Bouvier was “acting in concert [with the experts] to disguise the true ownership” of works of art as part of the fraudulent scheme, court documentsrevealed.

Rybolovlev settled that divorce battle I mentioned in my last post for $4.5 billion, several reports say, so he “needs” the money Bouvier may have tricked him out of. I hope this suit continues: we could learn a lot.

 

Buyer of Leonardo’s Salvator Mundi Identified–UPDATED

Along with, supposedly, the final price tag. He is Russian billionaire Dmitri Rybolovlev and he is said to have bought the painting for $127 million.

SalvatorMundiWhen I last left this subject, in November, 2013, I said that the painting has been sold to a private collector in Europe.  In March, 2014, the New York Times picked up the sale and put the price tag at around $75- to $80 million.

Now a lawsuit filed in Monaco says that Rybolovlev bought the work in May 2103, through Swiss dealer and free-port king Yves Bouvier. Rybolovlev is suing Bouvier, according to an article in Le Temps, for fraud. 

The story is, of course, in French, and my French, even with help from online translating pages, is rudimentary. However, it seems to say that Rybolovlev saw the NYT figure and decided that the price he actually paid was less and that Bouvier actually pocketed the $50 million or so difference in addition to the $1.27 million commission he paid.

The purchase apparently came at a time when Rybolovlev, in the midst of a nasty divorce, was spending as much cash as he could to keep it away from his ex-wife, Elena.

What a mess. But if we stay tuned to the lawsuit proceedings, we may pick up some things about the art world.

UPDATE, 3/13: The Financial Times has an article this morning saying that a Singapore court has frozen the assets of Bouvier:

The temporary court order forbids Yves Bouvier, the head of Switzerland-based Natural Le Coultre, from divesting his personal assets, including any shares in companies that he owns up to the value of $500m.

The court has also demanded that Mr Bouvier hand over a multimillion-dollar Mark Rothko painting, No. 6 (violet, vert et rouge), now at the centre of a bitter dispute between the businessman and one of his clients.

On Wednesday, Swiss police conducted two raids at Geneva free port, searching the offices of Natural Le Coultre and Gallerie Nelombos, owned by a business associate of Mr Bouvier, Jean-Marc Peretti, which deals in post-Impressionist and modern art.

…Mr Bouvier, who lives in Singapore, was arrested at the end of February on suspicion of price fixing and money laundering, allegations he vigorously denies. He was released three days after his arrest on €10m bail.

A statement from Mr Bouvier’s lawyers said at the time that he would demonstrate the “fantasy and non-existence” of the “alleged damages”. His lawyers told the Financial Times that Mr Bouvier carried out the transactions with Mr Rybolovlev’s trust on a commercial basis, as a dealer, rather than as an agent.

 

Breaking: Met Names New President

150310-0031AteaserThe Met’s board of trustees this afternoon anointed Daniel H. Weiss, who is 57, as president, succeeding Emily K. Rafferty, who is retiring as of Mar. 31.

He has a tough act to follow, and he will undoubtedly bring different skills to the job. For one thing, he is an “accomplished art historian” who is currently president of Haverford College. That will change the dynamic between the president and the director, Thomas P. Campbell. Rafferty always assiduously avoided commenting on matters about art–even though she spent some 40 years at the museum, 10 as president.

Here’s a brief bio of Weiss, taken from the press release:

Daniel H. Weiss, who was born in Newark, N.J., and raised on Long Island, earned his B.A. in psychology with a concentration in art history at George Washington University in 1979; his M.A. with concentrations in Medieval and Modern Art from Johns Hopkins University in 1982; his M.B.A. from the Yale School of Management in 1985; and in 1992 his Ph.D. from Hopkins, with concentrations in Western Medieval and Byzantine Art and a minor in Classical Greek Art and Architecture.

He began his career as museum shops manager at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, and later served as an associate, then a senior associate, at Booz, Allen & Hamilton in New York.

After earning his Ph.D., Dr. Weiss became an assistant professor of art history at Johns Hopkins’ Zanvyl Krieger School of Arts and Sciences, rising over a decade-long academic career there to associate professor (1996), full professor (1999), chair of the History of Art Department (1998-2001), and Dean of the Faculty (2001-2002). From 2002-2005 Dr. Weiss was James B. Knapp Dean of the Krieger School of Arts and Sciences, overseeing 2,700 undergraduates, 1,500 graduate students, and 300 faculty in 23 departments.

From 2005-2013 Dr. Weiss served as President and Professor of Art History at Lafayette College in Easton, Pennsylvania… In 2013, Dr. Weiss became president of Haverford…

Weiss has published on art and he is on the board of the Kress Foundation, among others.

While I doubt that Weiss can match the connections and relationships that Rafferty had–which were incredibly important to the museum–Weiss brings academic credentials that may, just maybe, reinforce the need to focus on the art. That’s been a bit lacking lately at the Met under Campbell.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Met

*I consult to a foundation that supports the Met.

Badly Bungled Philanthropy

The New York Philharmonic* just gave everyone a lesson in how not to fundraise. I am talking, of course, about the announcement that David Geffen has promised $100 million to the Phil for the renovation of Avery Fisher Hall.  There are two problems with this gift.

2012 Summer TCA Tour - Day 2First, the Phil’s leadership seems to have been enchanted by that number, the same amount David Koch gave to rename the New York State Theater after himself five years ago. (And the same amount that Stephen Schwarzman gave to the New York Public Library before that, but that’s another story.) It’s simply not enough–not for the reason, five years difference in time, mentioned in passing by The New York Times. Inflation is low and using the government’s inflation calculator, there would be only a $7 million or so difference. (Actually, Koch made the announcement in 2008, so I’m not sure how the Times arrived at five years, but…that’s what its story said.)

It’s not enough because of proportionality. Refurbishing the New York State Theater cost about $50 million to start, according to the Times, and another $150 million for Phase II. So Koch provided half of the price tag.

afh-exterior-julie-skarratt-675wNow look at Avery Fisher Hall–the gutting and remaking of it is currently estimated at $500 million, but with construction slated to begin in 2019–still four years hence–that’s a squirrely number, as even Katherine G. Farley, chairwoman of Lincoln Center, has admitted. Geffen is getting his name on the building for providing less than 20% of the cost. Farley et. al. say his gift will galvanize other donors–why? Where are they going to put their names? On the stage? Sure, sell the stage–but it can’t be for much more than $25 million, say. Make it $50 million, fine–how many stages have they got?

That means the NYPhil is left raising smaller gifts–a lot of them. Do you know how hard that is, to make smallish gifts add up to $400 million-plus?

Just as bad, the Phil made the same mistake with Geffen that it made with Avery Fisher. Both got naming rights in perpetuity. So several years ago, the Phil was stuck when it tried to rename the hall and last year it agreed, scandalously, in my mind, to pay Fisher’s heir $15 million. Koch agreed to 50 years; I know other donors who want and get 75 years. But truly in perpetuity? That idea should be buried. No organization should define it as infinity.

Museums should take a lesson here: don’t do what the Phil did. Don’t be that stupid.

No wonder Geffen is smiling.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Hollywood Reporter (top); the NYPhil (bottom)

*I consult to a foundation that supports the NYPhil