Rare 15thC English religious art stolen
August 14 2013
Picture: Apex, via Mail
Horrible story this - thieves in Devon have ripped out two panels from a set of 15th Century religious icons, and damaged a third. English religious art like this is very rare. More details here.
Please help 'Your Paintings'...
August 13 2013
Picture: Your Paintings
...by taking a few moments to complete their user survey.
Kunsthal theft trial (ctd.)
August 13 2013
The trial was meant to start today, but it has now been delayed until September. One defence lawyer has said the pictures are intact, and returnable. It's all most mysterious. I'm going to be discussing the case on BBC World radio* & TV shortly (everyone else, I guess, being on holiday).
Update - thinking further about this, I'd be prepared to bet that the paintings have not in fact been destroyed (as the mother of the gang leader first claimed), and will turn up one day. It seems clear to me from the trial details so far that we're dealing here only with the low-level villains, those who physically removed the pictures. I refuse to believe their story so far; that the crime was just one of opportunity, that they thought the pictures might be valuable, and so worth nicking. They also claim that they found the museum just by googling 'museum' in Rotterdam (where they were already living).
I'm sure that somewhere out there is the usual 'Mr Big', the one who plans and bankrolls such operations. Invariably, as I believe probably happened in this case, the paintings are stolen as hostages, one day to be ransomed back to the museum or insurer. Therefore, the whole 'the pictures are burnt' story, and the presentation of the thieves as amateurish chancers, is useful in that it takes the heat off those who are likely still holding the paintings. In five, ten, twenty years time, once things have died down and the police have moved on, I'm confident we'll see the pictures again.
* here, at about 48 minutes in.
Mona Lisa theory no. 952 (ctd.)
August 12 2013
In Florence, they're still digging up bodies to try and prove that the Mona Lisa was - gasp - a real person. Scientists hope DNA will be able to solve the 'age old mystery' of who the Mona Lisa really is (answer, she's Lisa del Giocondo, which we've known since Vasari recorded the sitter in the 16th Century).
Update - a reader writes:
Indisputably identifiable is the enigmatic smile.
'Monuments Men' - trailer released
August 9 2013
Video: via LA Times
Wow - can't wait to see this. I'm a bit of a war film buff, so chuck in a bit of art, and BG is in movie heaven.
Sharp-eyed readers will spot Raphael's lost Portrait of a Young Man being destroyed at the beginning.
Kunsthal theft trial (ctd.)
August 9 2013
More details of the Kunsthal theft case have emerged. Yesterday, experts from Romania's National History Museum (above) gave a presentation on the old nails, pigments and other details found in the ashes of Olga Dogaru's stove. Olga is the mother of one of the accused thieves, who admitted to police that she burnt at least two of the works, though she has since changed her story, and we don't know which ones were really destroyed.
There were also further details of the theft in Rotterdam, where it seems the security response to the alarm going off was pretty woeful (according to Dutch News:
Police [...] alerted by the alarm, carried out an inspection but failed to realise the museum had actually been broken into because the thieves had closed the door behind them.
In addition, security staff wondered if the gaps on the walls of the exhibition were due to paintings being moved. It was only 75 minutes after the alarm went off that officials realised paintings had been stolen, the AD said.
Lawyer Maria Vasii even claims police saw the suspects shortly after the robbery. ‘One officer waved, as if to say "all’s fine boys",’ the lawyer is quoted as saying.
The paper says the thieves were so shocked by their narrow escape they left the paintings in their getaway car on the nearby Coolsingel canal and did not pick them up until the next morning.
The works, including paintings by Picasso and Matisse with a value of some €17m, were not smuggled out of the country for several days.
'Art everywhere' (ctd.)
August 8 2013
The 'top ten' British masterpieces have been announced, as part of the Art Everywhere idea. These will appearing on billboards soon. Some curious choices (one day we'll get over the Alfred Wallis thing):
1. John William Waterhouse, The Lady of Shalott, 1888, Tate Britain, London (above)
2. John Everett Millais, Ophelia, 1851–52, Tate Britain, London
3. Francis Bacon, Head VI, 1949, Arts Council Collection
4. John Singer Sargent, Gassed, 1919, Imperial War Museum, London
5. Lucian Freud, Man’s Head (Self Portrait I), 1963, Whitworth Art Gallery, Manchester
6. JMW Turner, The Fighting Temeraire, 1839, National Gallery, London
7. Alfred Wallis, Five Ships – Mount’s Bay, 1928, Kettle’s Yard, Cambridge
8. L.S. Lowry, Going to the Match, 1953, The Professional Footballers’ Association
9. James Whistler, Nocturne: Blue and Gold – Battersea Bridge, c.1872–5, Tate Britain, London
10. Cornelia Parker, Cold Dark Matter: An Exploded View, 1991, Tate Collection
Nothing older than 1839.
Update - Dr Ben Harvey points out that of course two of these were made by Americans.
Plug - me on telly (ctd.)
August 7 2013
Picture: Will Pugh
Final reminder that Alastair Sooke and I will be looking at old and new art in Venice on BBC2 at 10pm tonight (Wednesday). The Times calls us 'Laurel and Hardy aesthetes'. Which I suppose is better than, say, Cannon & Ball aesthetes, or the Chuckle Brothers.
Clips etc. here.
Update - a reader writes:
In Germany, Laurel and Hardy are known as Dich und Doof - I['m] sure I don't need to tell you, fat and stupid. I offer no comment on its suitability as a description.
Update II - missed the show? Here it is on iPlayer.
Ye Olde Guffwatch
August 7 2013
Further to my Guffwatch entry below, a reader sends this gem to remind us that such nonsense is nothing new:
The write-up for Pretentious Crap reminded me of what Horace Walpole says ('Houghton: A Capital Collection' in the chapter on HW's Aedes Walpolianae)
"No Science has so much jargon introduc'd into it as Painting. The bombast expression of the Italians, and the prejudice of the French, join'd to the vanity of the Professors, and the interested mysteriousness of Picture-merchants, have altogether compiled a new language. 'Tis almost easier to distinguish the hands of the Masters than the Cant of the Virtuosi."
Guffwatch - Saatchi special
August 7 2013
Charles Saatchi is to sell a load of installation works at Christie's this autumn. As you'd expect, the Guffmeter goes off the scale in the accompanying catalogue, especially for such gems as the above 'piece' by Zhivago Duncan, which is called 'Pretentious Crap':
Pretentious Crap (2010-2011) is the remnants of a lost world reconfigured, contained within a heavy wooden and glass vitrine. We find towering rocklike formations that Zhivago Duncan has constructed out of Styrofoam and wax, and miniature railroad tracks, aeroplanes, locomotives and brightly coloured plastic monuments. Based on the fictional character of Dick Flash, the work was exhibited in 2011 at Contemporary Fine Arts, Berlin, at a show entitled Zhivago Duncan: Dick Flashs Souvenirs of Thought. The sole survivor of an apocalyptic catastrophe that has wiped out the rest of humanity, Dick Flash, a superhero persona, embarks on an odyssey in exploration of the devasted landscape. Pretentious Crap is one of Dick Flash's relics from his journey, where he has assembled former art objects in order to try and make sense of what has happened.
Embracing a variety of media that often has a gritty aesthetic associated with urban street culture, Zhivago Duncans work comments on contemporary cultural and socio-economic issues. In creating Dick Flash and these surreal recreations of a partially-remembered world, Duncan explores mankind, and the purpose of art within a postapocalyptic landscape, from a more objective perspective.
As Duncan has explained, 'Pretentious Crap is the result of the imaginary journey of Dick Flash, the worlds sole survivor of the apocalypse according to him and his legacy. Semiamnesiac, Dick Flash roams the converted world digging up the fruitful remains of his debauched ancestors. Without any recollection of his personal past, Dick Flash does, however, experience moments of epiphany, in which abstract notions of the origin of self, a collective memory, and the accumulated trials and tribulations of humanity are vaguely delineated, as revealed to him in prophetic visions'.
I think someone has had an irony bypass here.
The auction is a no-estimate, no-reserve sale. But before you think there may be bargains galore, note this nugget of Christie's small print, which is depressing on many levels: 'Extended payment terms are available on request for public institutions'.
Grim news from the Interweb
August 6 2013
Welcome, art lovers, to 'Amazon Art'. Yes, it is now possible to buy a Monet online through Amazon. The above example will cost you $2.5m, but it does at least come with 'free shipping' (really).
I'm afraid I'm not an Amazon fan. You know something has gone very wrong in the world when a small London art gallery, like the one I work in, pays more corporation tax than Amazon.
Keen to see what was on offer from my favourite artist, I typed Van Dyck into the search box, and got this:
Update - some good customer reviews on Amazon's Monet, inlcuding this satisfied customer:
What really sold me was the "in room" picture on this site, where it's next to a chair and side table. I couldn't quite picture it in my house, but after that imagery it was a no brainer.
The best part is that since I'm a prime member, I saved about 20 bucks on shipping. I also purchased with my Amazon Visa rewards card (3% cash back on all Amazon purchases), so I got 75,000.00 back in rewards. Thinking about getting a BMW M3 or perhaps go to college with my cash back.
Should we break up the Royal Collection?
August 6 2013
Every now and then someone makes a call for the Royal Collection to be broken up. This time, it's Jonathan Jones of the Guardian, who, in a review of the new exhibition at the Queen's Gallery at Holyrood on Leonardo's anatomical drawings, says:
These drawings and many more by Leonardo belong to the Queen and will be passed on to her successors, right down to baby George and beyond. Why, except as a gross display of inherited wealth, do they need them?
It is unjustifiable, even if you love the monarchy, for the Queen to own so much work by the greatest artist who ever lived. This excessive act of possession adds nothing to the prestige of royalty. Worse, it gets in the way of public appreciation of some of the world's supreme art.
I've tried, for years, to suppress my mystification at why the Queen hangs on to art that would obviously be better used by a public museum. I have met curators of the Royal Collection and admired their knowledge; I've also been lucky enough to study Leonardo's drawings in the Royal Library at Windsor. In many ways, the Royal Collection is well run. But that changes nothing. Windsor Castle is simply not the right place for our most precious art heritage to be held.
Royalty is a silk sheet that covers and veils art, swathing it in pointless luxury. The Queen runs two public art galleries, in London and Edinburgh, and they are both rum affairs with cloying decor and all the paraphernalia of monarchy. That's fine for tourists, but it does not make for serious art viewing. It breaks my heart if Leonardo, of all artists, is made to look irrelevant – but that is what exhibitions by the Royal Collection achieve.
When the National Gallery put on a Leonardo da Vinci exhibition in 2011, it was a stupendous success that drew serious and fascinated crowds. A few months after it closed, an exhibition of Leonardo's anatomical drawings opened at the Queen's Gallery in London – but the excitement did not follow Leonardo across Green Park. There's something about a gallery attached to Buckingham Palace (or Holyroodhouse) that predefines what happens there as fluffy royal heritage. It's not a cool date, is it, "let's go to the Queen's Gallery".
It obviously would have been better to include a show of these marvellous drawings at the National Gallery, as part of its Leonardo epic. Instead, the Royal Collection went into competion with the NG – and lost.
But the real losers are the people. We should be able to look at Leonardo's drawings in our public collections. They should be given to the nation.
I'm a big fan of the Royal Collection. It is true that the two main exhibition galleries at Buckingham Palace and Holyroodhouse are a little on the small side, but that doesn't stop the Royal Collection putting on some of the best exhibitions you'll ever see, with amazing regularity. It also, in my opinion, produces the world's best and most scholarly exhibition catalogues. We would lose an enormous wealth of focused art historical knowledge if the collection was suddenly dissipated amongst our national museums, where most of it would languish in storage. The Royal Collection is also very accomodating to loan requests for exhibitions (on which, incidentally, more soon), so there's no danger of great works being locked away forever in the Queen's private sitting room.
Officially, the Royal Collection is 'held in Trust by the monarch for the nation'. It's not the Queen's to own or sell, so it really can't be described as a 'gross display of inherited wealth'. It's a national collection, built up as most were over centuries by ruling families. Whether you're a monarchist or not, it's hard to argue against the fact that monarchies are good for building up art collections. The Louvre is almost entirely the product of France's imperial and royal families, not its republics. And one of the first things the Parliamentarians did after cutting of Charles I's head was to sell his art collection. Remember that next time you're admiring Raphael's Holy Family in the Prado.
Let's also deal with some of the specific points Jones makes about the Leonardo drawings. The National Gallery'd Leonardo exhibition was about his portraits at the court of Milan. So even if the Royal Collection's anatomical drawings had all belonged to the National Gallery, they would not have been included in that show. And even if they did 'belong to the nation' in the way Jones demands, we could not all look at them all the time. It's just not possible with drawings, unless you want them to disappear.
You can see nearly all the Royal Collection's treasures in zoomable high resolution here.
Update - a reader writes:
I'd like to say in support of the Queen's Gallery, I attended a very informative talk by Kate Heard, Curator of Prints and Drawings there in February...'Drawing in the Northern Renaissance'. Not only were the slides relevant and interestingly described but we had the opportunity to have a very nice cup of tea and biscuits after the talk...how very unexpected, and how very civilised! The Head of Learning, Lucie Amos, is doing a brilliant job.
And if you buy a ticket and get it stamped and signed, you have free entry to all other exhibitions there for a year....a one year pass. I think that is a generous gesture. The staff were most welcoming and the rooms (it was my first visit) I felt were small and this made for a more intimate experience with the art. I like to get close to the pictures and examine them. I loved the Northern Renaissance exhibition. And I plan to go to the The Art of Tudor and Stuart Fashion when I get some free time.
I agree that art needs to be accessible but if everything is always available, always on display, doesn't that somehow make it 'less'...it's good to wait sometimes. The trouble with the internet today is that we are coming to expect everything on tap 24/7 wherever we may be...I prefer a few mysteries in life and to practice patience. It makes the joy of discovery so much sweeter.
The Royal Collection could help soften this debate by waving scholarly reproduction fees.
Another reader writes:
[Jones] mentions the bigger blockbuster type of shows as being more conducive to looking seriously at art. My experience of them is that they are too often absolutely crammed to the gills with visitors displaying varying levels of interest, not just with wall-to-wall connoisseurs. In the end it mostly means that looking seriously is the one thing that is hampered as you peer over a dozen heads then push in for a look for 30 seconds. Rather than risk a culture-vulture rigger scrum in front of some loaned pictures by Vermeer, I'd much rather prefer to look at paintings in the relatively quieter and unmolested confines of the Royal collections surrounded by a few wandering Japanese -whether or not the wallpaper is unfashionable to a metropolitan journalist.
If the National did get the drawings anyway, then where on earth would they show them? There are hundreds. Would they all be seen together permanently in the bright light of a display gallery? It would necessitate a very large new annexe for that methinks.. and who will pay for that? The taxpayer? Where would it be built? Much more likely that they would have to be stored and brought out for a the odd smaller exhibition and loan scheme. But that is exactly what is beginning to happen now courtesy of the Royal collection. And you won't have to don your rugger shirt either.
Update II - another reader writes:
I would like to see the most important paintings and sculptures in the Royal Collection on long-term loan to public galleries. I'm thinking of the likes of Bruegel's Massace of the Innocents, which is more representative of his work than the small panel in the National Gallery, or the St Jerome by Georges de La Tour who isn't represented in Trafalgar Square at all, as we know from a previous post of yours. How good would it be to see Artemisia Gentileschi's self-portrait in the National Gallery's Italian Baroque rooms (she being an artist missing from the collection who's of huge interest to the public), or Lotto's portrait of Andrea Odoni alongside the Lady as Lucretia? The Scottish National Gallery now has a bit of a gap when Titian's poesie aren't on display there, and Cardiff's pre-18th century collection is a little patchy. I'm not opposed to the paintings still legally being part of the Royal Collection, as is the case with Gentile da Fabriano's Quaratesi Madonna (a de facto permanent fixture at the National Gallery), and they could still appear in the thematic exhibitions in the Queen's Galleries. The Royal Collection as a reserve national collection; something for a future king and queen with art-historical educations to think about...
With the Leonardo drawings, though, I think Jonathan Jones has picked the wrong fight. It does seem as if they get displayed in public as much as anyone could reasonably hope for given their fragility, across a pretty wide geographical range. In the past few years I've seen selections of the drawings in Bristol and Edinburgh as well as those which were part of the Painter at the Court of Milan exhibition in London, and to judge from the comments on Jones's piece some have also travelled to Stirling and Hull recently. (A good suggestion made in that comments section: why not have a third Queen's Gallery in Lancaster Castle, as the Queen is Duke of Lancaster?)
I suppose some extended loans might be welcome additions to galleries across the UK, if those pictures are not already displayed in royal palaces. But I must say, I love the Gentileschi self-portrait, for example, just where it is at the moment, which is at Hampton Court. She hangs in a small room chock full of exquisite Royal Collection Italian 17th Century pictures, which you suddenly chance upon after the better known Tudor & Stuart rooms. The room demonstrates the pleasure and great benefit of the Royal Collection here in the UK, which is to have first-class art in royal palaces, exactly where the public would expect to find it. Just think how often you see former royal palaces in Europe, all bare and denuded of art which was long ago carted off to urban museums.
Another reader sticks up for Royal Collection accessibility:
On Royal Collection nonsense, I found Windsor to be one of the very best and most accessible print rooms. JJ[ones] should try the Ufizzi.
Update III - Amina Wright, Senior Curator at the Holburne Museum in Bath, writes:
At the Holburne we have benefited hugely from the generosity of Her Majesty (and the Royal Collection staff) in lending us some of their finest paintings for our wonderful exhibition "Rembrandt and his Contemporaries: Paintings from the Royal Collection". The twenty-three works on show are drawn entirely from the Royal Collection, mostly from among acquisitions made by George IV. Since opening on 22 May, it has attracted 8,000 visitors, making it the Holburne's most successful exhibition ever.
The exhibition is open till 29 September. Find more details (and hear Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall speculating as to why Gerrit Dou's subject is chopping all those onions) here.
It must be the heat
August 4 2013
Picture: Evening Standard
The Great Brian (Sewell) has found an exhibition he likes; Collecting Gauguin, at the Courtauld. Read his review here.
Plug! Me on telly
August 4 2013
Picture: Will Pugh
For any diehard AHN fans out there, I'll be on the telly this week (Wednesday 7th August, BBC2, 10PM). The programme is a half-hour Culture Show film about art in Venice. As it's a Biennale year, Alastair Sooke was keen to convert me to the wonders of Contemporary art. I, you won't be surprised to hear, was reluctant to emerge from my Renaissance comfort zone.
More details and clips here. So far, the Times, Telegraph, Guardian and Sunday Times have all kindly made it a pick of the day.
Quite apart from any ham-fisted presenting by me, the film is visually stunning, so I can recommend it at least from that point of view. The excellent cameraman was Will Pugh, who took the above photo (in a modern carpet-based installation by a famous contemporary artist whose name I can't now remember), and whose exploits you can follow on his blog here.
Art history laughs at the Edinburgh Festival
August 1 2013
Picture: The Space
This looks like fun - if you're in Edinburgh this August, then why not go and see art historian Andrew Graham Dixon's one man show on the life of Caravaggio. Details and timings here. I'm going to be in Edinburgh then, making a programme for BBC2 (that's my summer holiday, by the way), so will certainly try to catch the show.
View from the Artist no. 14
August 1 2013
Not much news around at the moment, so let's have a bit of View from the Artist. Can you guess what the location is, and who painted it?
Update - too easy this one, it seems, or perhaps you're all just damn clever. Lots of you got it, including this reader:
I doubt if I'm the first to respond, but this is a detail from David Cox's watercolour Antwerp, Morning, dated 1832, at the Yale Center for British Art, New Haven. The clue to the subject is the enormously high tower of the cathedral contrasted with its never-completed twin to the right.
Painting the boss
July 30 2013
Picture: Katy Homan
Here's my boss, Philip Mould, being painted by Jonathan Yeo, who will soon be having his own exhibition at none other than the National Portrait Gallery (11th September-5th January). One of the sittings was being filmed today by BBC 2's Culture Show, directed by Katy Homan, who took this photo. The programme goes out in early September.
I'm looking forward to seeing the NPG show. Many years ago, long before I worked for him, I bought from Philip a painting by Jonathan, a portrait of Tony Blair. It was a study for Jonathan's 2001 portrait of Blair, which now hangs in the House of Commons. At the time, I always assumed the picture's value would be dominated by the fact that it was of Blair, done from life while he was Prime Minister. But given Jonathan's rising status, I think the fact that it's 'a Yeo' will probably be more important.
Artists on their frames
July 30 2013
Picture: The Frame Blog
If you've ever wondered what artists thought about frames, look no further than The Frame Blog, which has compiled letters like this, from Sir Thomas Lawrence (to his patron Mrs Benjamin Gott in 1828):
‘…let me beg to assure you that the comparative richness of the frames now made for them has been adopted with not the remotest view to their impression on the eye as mere splendid decoration. The pattern has been selected by me and its dimensions determined solely with a view to the advantage of the Pictures: a Frame is so much a part of the Picture, that almost invariably we a little change the effect or colour of some part the moment we place it in the frame, and the work as certainly is the better for it. The finest picture, seen without an appropriate Frame, loses a great advantage; as on the other hand it sustains material injury from a Frame injudiciously selected. The most unbecoming character of a frame is the very plain and very narrow… the next defection is the Frame with large obtrusive Ornaments in the centre, and the corners of it. A good frame (a merely safe one for the general effect of the picture) should be sufficiently broad and rich, but the ornament of that richness composed through-out of small parts, and usually it should be unburnished… The Frame is the clear Decanter not the brush…’
Lawrence's frames are indeed lovely, but our framer here at the gallery would like me to tell you, Sir Thomas, that they have become very fragile over time, and are a nightmare to fix. The little plaster details were never securely attached to the main part of the frame, and they have a habit of dropping off at the slightest touch. Tut tut.
New material on 'Art World in Britain 1660-1735'
July 30 2013
Picture: University of York
Lots of lovely new primary source material on Richard Stephens' website. He writes:
1: The art market
The main additions are 180 sale catalogues - featuring 39,000 lots - which represent the publication of three sources that are fundamental for any student of late 17th & early 18th century art in Britain:
A volume of catalogues from 1689-92 compiled by Narcissus Luttrell (1657-1732) and now in the British Library, considered "by far the most important source of information concerning late seventeenth-century taste" (H&M Ogden). Thanks and congratulations to Anna and Peter Moore for having transcribed this volume so efficiently.
A scrapbook of unique art trade ephemera assembled by John Bagford (1650/1-1716) book seller, historian and art dealer. As well as its sale catalogues, the album's trade cards, lottery proposals and handbills are published. The volume, also in the British Library, provides an exceptional view of the every day workings of the picture trade around 1700.
The Houlditch manuscript, a set of catalogue transcripts owned by Richard Houlditch (died 1759), & now in the National Art Library. The pre-1740 contents are published here, which are the chief source for names of auction buyers in the early 18th century.
In addition, brief listings of 300 further sale catalogues - mostly from the 1740s and 50s - are published, describing the sales of artists and collectors who were active earlier in the century.
The index of art sales has been updated with 130 records covering the years 1700-1704. This half decade saw the start of long-term growth in the art market that continued to the 1730s; there was also a changing of the guard within the picture trade, as leading figures of the 1690s died or retired, and new salesmen emerged to replace them.
In total there are now 62,000 auction records on the website. 430 people who bought at auction are identified; 220 people involved in selling pictures by lottery, auction or as dealers/retailers; and 225 addresses where art sales took place 5,300 prices paid for pictures and related services are documented. Collectively these provide a rich & detailed account of artistic production and consumption in this period, when London emerged as a major centre of the international art trade.
A list of over 600 sculptors, carvers and related trades has been published, with links to the online edition of the great Biographical Dictionary of Sculptors in Britain 1660-1851, from which this information comes. Many thanks to Greg Sullivan and Ann Sproat for sharing their data.
In addition, research for this website has revealed the names of around 50 previously unrecorded masons, carvers and sculptors, which are currently being added to the Biographical Dictionary of Sculptors.
3: What books did painters read?
If we study the books that painters and others read, we can enter their intellectual world, discover the skills they sought to master and learn about the wider interests and concerns. Materials are now published which address this essential question:
A listing of 320 book subscriptions across architecture, poetry, history, languages, gardening, theology, natural history and travel. Which two dozen titles did Sir James Thornhill order? Which architectural treatise was popular with early 18th century decorative painters? Which dictionary did painters rely on for help with foreign languages How did they get their clients' titles and honours right?
The libraries of two prominent painter-dealers are recorded in sale catalogues: Henry Cooke (1700-1) and John Closterman (1706)
During the early 18th century several landmark book collections were formed, such as by the Earls of Oxford and Pembroke. A useful introduction to this subject, which describes 20 of the main book collectors in our period, is provided through the publication here of Semour de Ricci's English Collectors of Books and Manuscripts.
4: Dutch-language materials
Brief notices about painters in England, which appeared in the Dutch press, are published. These were recycled from the London press and show that people in the Netherlands were kept aware of the London art world from time to time. The extracts also include a few Dutch newspaper advertisements for both London and continental book and picture sales, which can help us to understand the networks of distribution that enabled sale catalogues to circulate across borders.
We know that hundreds of Dutch painters came to work in London in the 17th century, but we know precious little beyond that. Two documents now published offered detailed information about the circumstances of these migrations. One dates from 1671 and the other from 1687 (a third, from 1714 is already online). We owe Sander Karst of the University of Utrecht our thanks for kindly translating these contracts.
5. Functional changes
There are two small changes that aim to improve users' ability to access the data on the site:
A book icon is now displayed next to 'full-text' sources (which contain transcripts or summaries of texts) to distinguish them from 'bibliographic' sources (which are index-style listings, with no texts).
It is now possible to browse through the database of places according to several categories, such as book shops, the premises of colour men, art sale venues, coffee houses, and sites of decorative painting.
I particularly like the material on what artists were reading. Here is the full list of newly-published sources.
China sell off in Croydon museum
July 29 2013
Interesting news from Martin Bailey in The Art Newspaper from Croydon, in South London, where the Conservative Council has voted to deaccession and sell a collection of Chinese ceramics. The money will be used to refurbish a local theatre and music venue. The collection is worth nearly £13m apparently, and (get this) one of the justifications for selling the collection now is that it might be worth less in the future:
A Croydon Council report to the 24 July meeting argues that there are “very exceptional circumstances” that warrant the sale, although deaccessioning contravenes the council’s own policy. The report says, unless there is a sell-off, security for the Riesco display would need to be upgraded, at a time of spending cuts. It also says it is a good time to sell Chinese antiquities, since if delayed, “any decline in the economic climate in Asia could lead to a decrease in the prices achieved”.
The security factor is a valid one, given the recent spate of attacks targetting museums with Asian artefacts. I wonder, however, if someone should tell the good burghers of Croydon that the value might equally, er, go up. Still, I must admit to a smidgen of ceramic philistinism - if Croydon council were selling a Gainsborough, I'd be manning the baricades. But I can't get as excited about a pot.
The Council has apparently accepted that the sale will result in the loss of museum accreditation for its museum service, and hence future grants from bodies such as the HLF and the Art Fund.
Update - a reader writes:
It's more than a pot, I believe they want to sell the best of the collection, I think 13 pieces, they are very beautiful examples of Chinese art, bequeathed to the people of Croydon. I live in the neighbouring London borough of Bromley, & have a small collection of 18thC. art & antiques which I possibly might leave to the borough, but the actions of Croydon, have made me think twice about it, seeing how local councils treat cultural gifts.
Update II - Neil Jeffares alerts us to this petition against the sale.
Update III - a reader writes, crossly:
I was deeply surprised that you should not think the sale of the Riesco Collection in Croydon a huge disaster for Croydon, which has so few cultural amenities...and no proper museum or art gallery.
Are you aware not that Croydon owns 500 paintings and 1500 watercolours as well as the Riesco collection, but that the Council closed the really rather pathetically small Clocktower Museum and that nothing, except the Riesco collection, has been on display in recent years?
If the Conservative Council here starts selling things off, they may as well sell off the paintings and watercolours too...not that anybody in Central London cares much for Croydon, London's largest borough....but, you should know, it took 100 years to get the pictures out of storage at the top of the town hall tower in the first place - by a now retired librarian called Heather Kirby who found them filthy and unloved and who found that a large number of pictures had been stolen - and if a precedent is set with the Porcelains, the jewel of the otherwise unseen collection, the picture collection may well follow.
Please take back your comment about caring nothing for 'Pots'. They are all items of cultural value to the people of London, not just Croydon, and though I am no Oriental Ceramic specialist, I think we should fight the cause for everyone who values culture - which I find hard to believe you don't.
At no point in my post did I say that Croydon should sell the china, or any part of the collection. Merely, that I don't feel as protective about pots as I do about paintings. It is self-evidently the case that if, as I mentioned above, Croydon's disposal leads to a loss of accreditation, and the removal of further grants, it will be a disaster. The problem we have to face, however, is that not enough people in Croydon seem to care.