View from the artist no.9
February 22 2012
We haven't had one of these for a while: can you guess the location and artist? Just for fun, no prizes, but big respec' to the first correct guess.
Prado reveals evidence behind 'earliest Mona Lisa copy' claim
February 22 2012
Picture: Museo Prado
A few weeks ago the Prado unveiled a newly-cleaned copy of the Mona Lisa, and claimed that not only was it the earliest known copy of the original, but that it was made in Leonardo's studio alongside the master by one of his pupils. And today they released an excellent series of images and videos setting out the evidence behind the claim, in a first-class presentation that should be the model for all future museum discoveries.
The main evidence behind the claim is the infra-red imagery. Briefly, the Prado say that the infra-red image of their picture matches the infra-red image of the original, including in areas where Leonardo subsequently changed his mind. So, for example, in the infra-red images of both the original and the Prado copy we can see a line of under-drawing to the right of the Mona Lisa's veil at about the level of her neck. But in both the finished original and the copy this change is not visible on the final painted surface. This must mean, say the Prado, that the copy was drawn alongside the original, and when Leonardo made a change, so did the copyist. There is other quite convincing evidence to put the picture in Leonardo's studio, such as the walnut panel, and the type of ground layer used.
[more below]
So that's pretty conclusive then. Or perhaps not. If only to prompt a debate about the picture, let me say that I have one main question over the Prado's thesis, and several smaller ones. Here's the biggie: surely one of Leonardo's pupils - one who, if he really did paint it alongside the master must have been with him a very long time (remember, Leonardo took many years to complete the Mona Lisa, and did so in two different countries) - would be unlikely have produced something so curiously feeble. I know I'm veering into subjectivity here, but how, to take just one area, could such a closely supervised pupil of Leonardo's end up painting drapery that looks like strands of thick spaghetti, devoid of form, and so unlike the delicate folds seen in the original? And those ever so slightly bonkers eyes - really?
Here are the smaller questions. If the copyist followed Leonardo so closely in the under-drawing, why, in some key areas, does the finished picture appear to be quite different from the original? Why, for example, do the sitter's eyes slant downwards from left to right in the copy, but vice-versa in the original? Why is the angle of the upper part of her left arm different? Why is the top red part of her right sleeve covered to a greater extent in the copy than in the original? I don't immediately see why apparently small similarities in under-drawing details between the copy and the original are evidence of simultaneous creation, while the bigger differences on the painted surface are not.
The video presentation of the infra-red comparisons is well worth a look. But I wonder if in some areas the infra-red has been overly interpreted, and too selectively (readers may remember another example of over-optimistic infra-red interpretation in the Staedel museum's copy of Raphael's Portrait of Pope Julius II). For example, the under-drawing in the Prado copy is very free and spontaneous. It is not all directly copied from, say, a cartoon of the original. This is most clearly seen in the sitter's right hand, where some of the drawing lines vary quite significantly from the outlines of the actual painted fingers. They have simply been freely drawn onto the ground layer, only loosely mapping out the direction of the original. This may suggest, along with the more substantive changes in the picture listed above, that the picture was not slavishly copied stage by stage from Leonardo's original, but copied instead from the finished article.
How, then, do we account for the apparent similarities between the under-drawing in the copy and that in the original, which are so crucial to the Prado's case? Here we need to go into a little more detail. Now, in some areas, such as the top of the sitter's head, the Prado say that a line of under-drawing above the veil is proof that the copyist followed Leonardo's original under-drawing, where a similar line can be seen. But they make no mention of the under-drawing line seen in the copy beneath the sitter's hairline, which has no correlation in the original. So where does it come from? Is it instead simply the copyist's own loosely applied drawing of the original? There are other similar examples around the picture. Could it be, therefore, that in some areas, the loose under-drawing has been seen to match apparent changes by Leonardo in his original, almost by coincidence. I don't immediately see, for example, that the single line of under-drawing in the sitter's left index finger in the copy equates to the very substantial pentimenti in the same place in Leonardo's original. And it is interesting that what appears to be the most obvious pentimenti in the original, to the sitter's right index finger, is not seen anywhere in the copy.
Anyway, I am most likely barking up the wrong tree - and who am I to question the Prado's research. But it's always fun to ask questions and have a debate. Do look at the evidence yourself - and let me know what you think. For comparison, you can zoom in on the original here.
How much?!
February 21 2012
Picture: Sotheby's
The only version of Edvard Munch's The Scream to remain in private hands (he painted four) will be sold at Sotheby's New York in May. The upper estimate is $80m. Probably it will make more, if the recent $250m sale of the last privately owned version of Cezanne's Card Players is any precedent.
Today...
February 21 2012
...I'm at Tate Britain filming for the next series of 'Fake or Fortune?'. Normal service will resume tomorrow.
A new Wright of Derby for the new Wright Gallery?
February 20 2012
Picture: Derby Museum
Later this week, the newly refurbished Joseph Wright Gallery will open at Derby museum, after a £150,000 renovation. Some of the museum's 34 oil paintings by Wright have been restored too. It will be well worth a visit, and congratulations to all involved; getting funds to restore a regional gallery these days can't be easy.
I'd like to suggest that the museum in fact has 35 paintings by Wright, and that the above work from their collection, currently catalogued as 'attributed to Allan Ramsay', may be an early work by Wright. The picture is very close to Wright's style in the late 1750s and early 1760s, and can be compared to a portrait we discovered at Philip Mould a couple of years ago of Thomas Thompson [below], who is listed in Wright's account book for 1760. Both pictures show the same jaunty characterisation which set Wright apart from his occassionally stiff master, Thomas Hudson, and show similar handling in details such as the drapery, the lace and gold braid. Particularly noticeable in the picture at Derby Museum is Wright's trademark way of painting eyes, with the lower half of the iris a rich crescent of colour. Hopefully, cleaning and restoration will allow a more certain attribution to be made.
I came across the Derby picture through the indispensable Public Catalogue Foundation whilst doing some research on Jacobite portraiture. The sitter had in the past been described as of Bonnie Prince Charlie, but of course it is not him (no blue Garter sash for a start). But now the sitter has been identified (through a copy in a private collection) by the military historian Andrew Cormack as Cornet Edward Walpole (see Andrew's article in the winter 2009 edition of the Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research). The copy had been attributed to Thomas Hudson, as often happens with early Wrights. Our Thomas Thompson had been attributed to Thomas Hudson from at least the early 20th Century. No Walpole appears in Wright's surviving (and rather chaotic) account book - but not all of his sitters are listed in the book.
David Hockney - man of the moment
February 20 2012
Picture: BG
David Hockney is not only the star of his own exhibition at the Royal Academy, but also takes leading roles in two other shows of the moment: in the NPG's Lucian Freud Portraits you can see Freud's portrait of Hockney (above), while at Tate's Picasso & Modern British Art you can see Hockney's imaginary self-portrait with Picasso. Is this unprecedented for a living British artist?
Snooty art dealers
February 20 2012
Picture: Esquire
Here's a classic example of art dealer pomposity, and the ability of the trade to shoot itself in the foot:
Daniel Radcliffe (or Mr H. Potter as he's otherwise known) recently revealed his art collecting tastes [...] but not even Radcliffe, one of the most famous faces on earth, can win over the surliest art dealers at one of the world's biggest fairs. "I went to Frieze Art Fair and saw a painting by Jim Hodges. The guy said,'No, we're waiting for a more prestigious collector to take that.' I was like, thanks, thanks a lot," says the miffed movie star in Time Out.
Cristina Ruiz of The Art Newspaper had a similarly dispiriting experience of the art trade during her penultimate visit to Gagosian in New York:
It’s a good thing I didn’t start the spot tour in New York because, if I had, I probably would have given up after the first gallery. Why is it that Gagosian staff here, in what must surely be the three most commercially successful galleries in the international franchise, are always so caustic? Even when they’re polite and (reluctantly) helpful, they can’t be bothered to look at you for longer than three seconds so that all conversations take place while they’re staring at their computers... What on earth are they doing that is so important? Are they in the middle of a multi-million dollar sale to Steve Cohen? It makes you want to bang your head against the counter. I am reminded of a conversation I had a few years ago with one of Bill Gates’s art buyers. He had arrived at a Gagosian gallery in New York unannounced. Nobody knew who he was when he walked through the door. He was so put off by the snottiness of the staff that he left the gallery and never returned.
In the trade, we have the phrase 'threshold resistance'; the fear that customers feel before they even come through the door, because they've had one too many Gagosian-like experiences. So instead of pressing the dreaded buzzer (which is, alas, often necessitated by the insurance company), they walk away. In my view it is one of the biggest problems facing dealers, and one which, here at Philip Mould, we work hard to overcome. But sadly, some galleries never learn, and give the rest of us a bad name.
Spotmania: another challenge completed
February 20 2012
Picture: The Art Newspaper
Top marks to The Art Newspaper's Cristina Ruiz for completing 'The Complete Hirst Spot Challenge', and all in economy class. The final stop was Beverly Hills, where she flew for a few hours, just to see the spots.
Then my card receives its final stamp and the challenge is complete. I am asked to fill in a form where I can choose the personalised inscription Damien Hirst will write on my very own limited-edition spot print. What can I write? I want to choose something Hirst might actually want to say to me. So after careful consideration I come up with something short and to the point: “Dear Cristina, Fuck off.”
Let me know what you would have Damien write on your personal print. A reader suggests:
Yes, it really is a load of old b******s.
More nudity
February 20 2012
Picture: Norwich Evening News
This time in Norwich, where the police intervened to 'give words of advice' after two male nudes by artist Peter Kavanagh appeared in 'SinSins' shop window. The pictures were then removed. And it isn't the first time Norwich police have had to act:
In January, a display depicting a mannequin urinating on a wall had to be taken down from a shop window at clothes shop Philip Browne in Guildhall Hill, after a single complaint to police.
London's big blue cock
February 20 2012
Picture: Daily Mail/PA
Yes, we're starting the week with a juvenile Tory joke. London's mayor Boris Johnson, above, has unveiled the sculptures that will temporarily grace Trafalgar Square's 'fourth plinth' for the next couple of years. Among them is Katharina Fritsch's blue cockerel, which, in 2013, will 'symbolise regeneration, awakening and strength'. More here.
Friday Amusement
February 17 2012
The best art gallery sketch you'll ever see, from Peter Cook and Dudley Moore.
How to big up an auction
February 16 2012
Video: Sotheby's
A slick video from Sotheby's for their recent contemporary sale. I I dare them to try something similar for an Old Masters sale. Why not?
On Freud
February 16 2012
As a rule, I'm against self-congratulatory blogging. But this one's just too damn nice. A reader writes:
That is a superb, very sensitive review of the Freud portraits exhibition. I am not as familiar as you are with Freud's work, or for that matter most art, and I will not be able to visit the exhibition (living in Ottawa, Canada, as I do), but from what I have seen I am entirely convinced by your review -- and wish I could have said that!
'Now, lot 72, the vaguely dodgy porn...'
February 16 2012
Picture: Christie's
For a while now, Christie's has been doing a nice line in Russian porn contemporary nudes. For example, the above 'Sleeping Beauty, 2009' by Aydemir Saidov is currently on offer at South Kensington (est. £1,500-£2,000). There must be quite a market for this kind of thing, as there's usually a few sold every month. But I wonder if it's quite what James Christie had in mind, back in 1766.
Dictator Art - equestrian special
February 16 2012
Video: AP
In North Korea yesterday they unveiled a new statue of the late Kim Jong Il. Check out the plastic flowers.
Sotheby's £50.6m - Christie's £80.5m
February 16 2012
Ouch! The Sotheby's press release may say that their Post-war & Contemporary result last night 'surpassed pre-sale estimates'. But it didn't. The total raised was £50.6m, including buyer's premium. The pre-sale estimate was £35.8-£49.7m, but this does not include the premium, which starts at 25%. And however you dress it up, Christie's won the battle of the week.
Queueing for Hockney
February 16 2012
Picture: BG
How many living artists can do this?
'Picasso and Modern British Art' at Tate Britain
February 15 2012
Picture: Huffington Post
The new 'Picasso and Modern British Art' show at Tate Britain is excellent. Regular readers will know that in both subjects I'm a little out of my comfort zone (I give up in about 1830), but even so I greatly enjoyed the exhibition. It displays with clarity and zest Picasso's influence on key British artists of the twentieth century, from Wyndham Lewis to David Hockney, via the likes of Henry Moore (above).
Normally these 'Big Name & ....' exhibitions are an excuse to put on blockbuster shows with tenuous links to something British or contemporary (like the recent Poussin & Twombly at Dulwich). Picasso and Modern British Art, however, sets out the great man's role in nurturing Britain's creative geniuses with a cohesive narrative so oten lacking in today's exhibitions. You can find other more insightful reviews of the exhibition here (from Richard Dorment, who gives it four stars) and here (from Jonathan Jones, who gives it three). So I'll confine myself to giving a deserved hurrah to the show's curators, James Beechey and Chris Stephens. Well done.
"Meisterwerk oder Fälschung?"
February 15 2012
We've now started filming for the second series of 'Fake or Fortune?', which will be broadcast on BBC1 later this year. Seeing yourself on telly looking nerdy can, if you haven't experienced it, be painfully embarrassing. But I never thought I would see myself on German TV, and dubbed into German while talking about the Nazis. Never.
Save Battersea Power Station
February 15 2012
Picture: 'Battersea Power Station' by Robert Lowry, Wandsworth Museum
Have you noticed? It seems there has been a quiet campaign in the press recently to demolish Battersea power station, the iconic building designed by Sir Giles Gilbert Scott (he of the red telephone box). The campaign would appear to have has the hallmarks of a cunning PR operation by someone. You don't normally get spontaneous op-ed pieces and calls from influential voices like the Daily Telegraph's City Editor, Richard Fletcher, in favour of demolishing heritage sites. Fletcher's piece was even accompanied by an online poll cunningly devised to make it look like a majority of people wanted to demolish the Station (by splitting the no votes into three options, with the single 'yes' vote in the lead at 41%).
What's going on? Well today we find out: a report has concluded that the site will be worth almost an extra £470m without the station. Permission to knock the station down would make it easier for the site's owners (largely banks such as government-owned Lloyds) to sell to a developer.
At the moment the site is Grade II listed, and English Heritage would no doubt object to the station's demolition. But, sadly, that doesn't mean very much these days. Recently, the heritage minister John Penrose over-ruled (in my opinion, shamefully) English Heritage's call to protect the concourse buildings at Waterloo Station, and now the fine early 20th Century arches and columns are being covered by hideous steel and glass 'retail spaces'.
So will the government be able to resist calls from 'business', and their friends in the press, to demolish Battersea power station? I doubt it, on the evidence so far. But let's hope so. Someone should see what the London mayoral candidates, Boris and Ken, want to do with the station. Remember, if the similarly sited and designed Bankside station had been demolished, we'd have no Tate Modern. In the meantime, I urge you to at least click your way over to the Telegraph Poll, and vote 'no' to the station's destruction.
Update: There's a new poll here. Vote no!
