Real Clear Arts – Page 52

Who Will Run the National Gallery? The Odds-On Favorite…UPDATED

The National Gallery in London was expected to announce a replacement for Nicholas Penny, the director, before Christmas, and I understand that the person has been chosen; the name must now simply go through political channels, with approval by Prime Minister David Cameron, before it can be announced.

One thing is for sure, though: it’s not going to be Luke Syson, the curator ofÂ European sculpture and decorative arts at the Metropolitan Museum, who openly sought the job and, some sources tell me, thought he had it in the bag, thanks to his friendship with a trustee or two. Some weeks ago, according to several sources, Syson took himself out of the running. His interview apparently did not go well, for one thing, and I’ve heard that whenÂ he realized that he had no chance to get the job, he decided to withdraw and stay in New York, rather than return to the NG, where he had been Curator of Italian Paintings before 1500 and Head of Research. (Syson has been at the Met for two full years, and something of a disappointment to the many who expected him to produce a exhibit with some of the excitement of his last at the NG,Â Leonardo da Vinci: Painter at the Court of Milan.)

So who will it be? There are two finalists*, Gabriele Finaldi, deputy director of the Prado in Madrid (despite the title, the job is essentially the director), andÂ Taco Dibbits, director of collections at the Rijksmuseum. If Ladbrokes offered odds on this contest, Finaldi would pay less than Dibbits. That’s what I am hearing, again from numerous sources.

Aside from having spent 10 years at the NG as a curator, Finaldi has an edge because of his fabulous track record at the Prado. He was educated in the U.K. (Ph.D. from the Courtauld), knows the collection well, was seriously considered last time (when Penny got the job), and has many excellent exhibitions to his credit.

Dibbits also has a U.K. doctorate, from Cambridge, but he worked at Christie’s before joining the Rijksmuseum in 2002. There, he helped develop plans and layouts for the new Rijksmuseum, and heÂ guided the purchase last month of the Adrien de Vries Bacchic Figure Supporting the Globe for $27.9 million at Christie’s.

Two other candidates,Â Emilie Gordenker, director of the Mauritshuis, and Axel Ruger, director of the van Gogh Museum, are no longer in the running, I’m told. Ruger, however, is a contender at a different museum, more about which in the future.

A caveat to all of this: I don’t have a direct line to Cameron or the NG trustees, but when one hears the same things from several sources who are not in the same circles you can usually assume that what you are hearing is close to the truth, if not the truth itself.

*UPDATE, 1/5: When I wrote this yesterday, I left out John Leighton, director of the Scottish National Galleries, who was definitely considered for the job, but–according to more than one source–decided that he would rather stay in Edinburgh. Now, I hear that he remains in contention.

This could be true for one good reason: I had heard that NG trustees felt that both Finaldi and Dibbits had flaws; it is conceivable that they chose Leighton as a compromise.

On The Art Movie Docket: Matisse and…

“Matisse From Tate Modern and MoMA” is the latest of Exhibition on Screen’s movies about art exhibitions to open here in the U.S. It’s a one-night only event on Jan. 13 at theaters nationwide. Fathom Events is the distributor, and you can find out where it is nearest you right here.

The movie is 90 minutes long, and it’s about the cutouts show now at MoMA.Â You can see the preview on YouTube, which tells the five essential things you should know about Matisse’s cutouts. Here’s the billing from the email I received for a preview (which I can’t attend, unfortunately):

This â€œexhibition on screenâ€ provides viewers with a virtual tour of the exhibition with the addition of illuminating archival materials and commentary from Nicholas Serota, Glenn Lowry, curators, conservators, and some who knew the artist in his final years. For those unable to see the show and for those who have and want to know more, the film takes the audience behind the scenes with unprecedented access and into the galleries.

If it it’l like the one of Manet, which I did see, that is a fair description.

This all made me wonder how Exhibitions On Screen was faring–I wrote about Phil Grabsky and his venture in spring 2013 here and for The Wall Street Journal. Well, I guess the answer is good enough, because after Matisse four more such movies will be shown here in 2015. They are “Rembrandt: The Late Works,” “Vincent van Gogh: A New Way of Seeing,” “The Impressionists,” and “Girl with a Pearl Earring.” More details here.

To me, they are supplementary to seeing an exhibit, not a substitute–except when you can’t get to the real thing.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of Getty ImagesÂ

Court Orders Tate To Provide Funding Details, Pronto

The Tate museum has been ordered to reveal the details of its sponsorship deals with BP, the oil company–and that, I think, is a good thing.

This all happened just before Christmas, and according to The Guardian’s article on the ruling by a court:

Tate has been ordered to give details of its BP sponsorship between 1990-2006, in a case brought by environmental campaigners.

An information tribunal has ruled against the art institution, which was refusing to give details, claiming the information could intensify protests and harm its ability to raise money from other companies.

The case had been brought by the environmental campaigner Brendan Montague, supported by the arts and activism charity Platform, which argues that only when the sponsorship sums are in the public domain can informed debate take place.

I don’t see anything on the surface with museums’ accepting sponsorship from oil companies. But I wince at the way BP has arranged to have its name before the art, as in “BP British Art Displays.”Â So it would make sense to see how this happened, and what precisely the Tate does not want to disclose. Other museums, including the National Gallery, have disclosed all requested sponsorship information.

The Tate opposed the order, obviously, arguing that BP would be offended by the disclosure and that would affect the company’s willingness to give in the future. But why? Isn’t it a good thing to support the arts? The tribunal didn’t buy that argument either.

Some of those siding with the Tate are saying that the arts need money wherever they can get it–I agree, for the most part. But I’d still like to know what the deal is between the two sides. The Tate has 35 days from the ruling to provide the details.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of The Guardian

This Art Map Will Startle You

Which artists would you guess are searched for most often in the U.S.? What if that data were broken down by state, so we could see which artist Georgians are looking for versus which one by New Yorkers? It might be enlightening–nowadays, museums might even use it to choose their exhibitions, given all the emphasis on listening to their communities.

Maybe this map which change their minds. Granted, it has one big flaw–it’s an infographic of searches on eBay by its customers, who may not be representative of a museum’s “community.” On the other hand, I doubt that museums are taking statistically sound surveys when they say they want to listen to their communities. Certainly, crowdsourced exhibitions are not representational from a statistically sound point of view.

In any case, this map tells a cautionary tale.

Maybe the Newark Museum will now want to present a Picasso show, but will the Portland Art Museum start mounting exhibits that feature the likes of Emek?It’s nice to see interest in Mary Cassatt in Kentucky, but I find it disappointing that with all the wonderful art owned by museums in Massachusetts Norman Rockwell is what residents want to see. And I had to look several names on the map, being unfamiliar with them.

Yes, there are many holes in what I just wrote–just as there are many, many holes in the argument for asking residents of a community what they want to see. Curators should do most of the deciding, imho.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of eBayÂ

Merry Christmas…

I’ll be away celebrating Christmas for a few days. Here’s my Christmas greeting to you this year:Â Francesco di Giorgio Martini’s The Nativity, With God the Father Surounded by Angels and Cherubim, which is jointly owned by the National Gallery of Art and the Metropolitan Museum.

And there’s a story behind this joint ownership, provided to me by my friend Paul Jeromack, who also suggested the painting when I went looking for a nativity to share.Â It seems the painting was sawed into two pieces in the 19th century–the NGAÂ owned the top half, of God the Father, while the Met owned the bottom half.

Per the Met: “…The upper part of this engaging composition is very inventive and was inspired by the sculptural reliefs of Donatello, while the lower part reflects Francesco’s admiration for the work of the north Italian miniaturist Girolamo da Cremona, who worked on choirbooks in Siena from 1470 to 1474. So different in character are the upper and lower parts that they were separated in the nineteenth century; they were rejoined in 1988.”

Yes, the two pieces were put back together and the two museums share ownership. The painting is on view at the Met. The NGA’s “half” looked like this:

Better together, aren’t they?

« Previous Page