Category: Discoveries
National Trust paintings go online - can you find any sleepers?
December 23 2011
Picture: National Trust
At last! The UK's greatest single collection of paintings has gone online. The site apparently went live last week, but I've only just stumbled across it today. What a resource. I can barely contain my excitement; it's nirvana for anyone interested in British art history, and this particular British art history anorak will now be spending a lot of time on his iPad over Christmas. Well done to everybody involved. With this and the Public Catalogue Foundation putting museum pictures online, Britain now leads the way in digital access to its art.Â
Being slightly obsessed with Van Dyck, I searched immediately for works by him. As you might expect, there are many fine things. But also some more mysterious works. I'm taken with the above Portrait of an Unknown Lady at Petworth, called 'attributed to Van Dyck'. It is not in the 2004 catalogue raisonne, but looks to me as if it has a good chance of being 'right', probably done in the mid 1620s in Italy.Â
For all you budding connoisseurs, it's a great site for playing guess the attribution. Have a search for unattributed works, by entering 'English School' for example, and let me know if you find anything good. Below are a few pictures that have caught my eye in the last hour or so... [all images (C) National Trust]
This painting of a Madonna and Child, is attributed to the 'Studio of Willem Wissing'. The Trust catalogue correctly notes that it is a partial copy of Van Dyck's painting of Cesare Scaglia adoring the Virgin and Child [National Gallery, London], albeit without Scaglia, and an altered Madonna. However, the original of this composition is in fact by Sir Peter Lely, and is now in an American Private Collection. It's one of the nicest Lelys I've ever seen, fluidly painted and richly coloured, and evidently done for his own pleasure. Lely was fascinated by Van Dyck, and copied many of his works. Intriguingly, a ghostly pair of hands in Lely's copy reveals that he initially planned to paint Scaglia too, but then changed his mind and left him out. Â
Other things that briefly caught my eye include the above 'English School' portrait at Erddig in Wrexham, of whom the Trust is unsure of the identification, calling it 'Supposedly Joshua Edisbury, or ?James Hutton'. It is in fact a copy of Benjamin West's Portrait of Governor James Hamilton, which hangs in Independence Hall in Philadelphia. How a copy of Hamilton's portrait ended up in Wrexham masquerading as a welshman is a mystery...Â
This 'English School' Unknown Gentleman is by John Riley.Â
And Mary of Modena, wife of James II, would have been most displeased to find her portrait at Chirk Castle (above) identified as Charles II's mistress Moll Davis. The Chirk portrait is based on this original by Lely.
And going really off piste, the above Portrait of John Throckmorton is called 'Circle of William Larkin', but looks to have a chance of being by Marcus Gheeraerts.Â
So if you have a few idle moments this Christmas, have a look at the site and see what you can find. Between us we should be able to wrap up all those unattributed pictures... The only sad thing about the site is the tiny photos. You can zoom in a bit, but they really should be larger. Presumably it's the old 'we must protect our copyright' fallacy.Â
That newly discovered Frith
December 19 2011
Picture: Christie's
Made £505,000 at auction (inc. premium).
More Tudor stuff
December 16 2011
Picture: Royal Collection
Thanks for all your feedback from the Anne Boleyn post yesterday. It's interesting that although we first published the research in 2006, it made little wider impact, mainly I suppose because it never went online (and because the news story publicising it is behind The Times paywall). These days, unless something is online, it doesn't really happen!
So, now I'm going to publish some more of our Tudor research online. And this time we're going hardcore. Below the jump is the full transcribed inventory of Catherine Howard's jewels, from the manuscript in the British Library. It's a great resource for anyone interested in the period. We commissioned the transcription from Tudor historian extraordinaire Alasdair Hawkyard, and it was first published in our exhibition catalogue for 'Lost Faces: Identity & Discovery in Royal Tudor Portraiture'. It now goes online for the first time. The inventory was compiled by Nicholas Bristowe, who was clek of the King's wardrobes.
Why is the inventory useful for art historians? Because it may allow us to identify Catherine's portrait, long a source of contention. Above is a miniature by Holbein in the Royal Collection. Its early history is uncertain, but when it was first certainly recorded in the Royal Collection in c.1837, it was called Catherine. It was engraved by Houbraken as her in 1743. Earlier than that and we have no certain reference to it. In the later 20th Century the identity was questioned, and dropped. Then David Starkey, in his Six Wives of Henry VIII, resurrected the idea based on the inventory of Catherine's jewels. David was guest Curator of our Lost Faces exhibition, and so we decided to publish the full inventory.
Each of the jewels seen in the miniature can be found in the inventory. For example, on her head her French hood is trimmed with the 'upper habulyment of Goldesmytheswerke ennamuled and garneshed with vij ffeyr daimondes vij ffeir rubyes and vij ffeyr Perles' which is the first item listed in the inventory. On her bossom, over a translucent chemise, she wears a shaped necklace called a square 'conteynyng xxix rubyes and xxix clustres of Peerlles being iiij peerlles in every Clustre' and an 'ooche [that is a pendant] of golde hauyng averey ffeir table diamond and a verey feir ruby with a long peerle hangyng at the same'.
Coincidence? The same argument has been used to identify the full-length portrait of Katherine Parr in the National Portrait Gallery, which had previously been called Jane Grey. All the jewels seen in that portrait are in the inventory of Katherine Parr's jewels. The Royal Collection online catalogue is still cautious about the attribution of the miniature, however, citing the uncertain early provenance of the work, and the possibility that royal jewels were lent to other ladies at court, who may have been painted by Holbein wearing them. Jewels were indeed lent, but I find it hard to accept that a lady-in-waiting, say, would scoop the jackpot with an entire outfit of royal loans of such importance and value - and then have the impertinence to be seen wearing the King's jewels. As you can see from the inventory below, those royal jewels that were sent out to ladies of the court tend to be the lesser ones. Also, there is something decidedly queenly about the miniature above - in fashion, jewels and approach it is far more sumptuous that any other Holbein miniature of a lady at court. So, for me, she's Catherine Howard. What do you think?
[If on the homepage, click 'Read on' for the full inventory].
Liverpool acquires a Banksy
December 15 2011
Picture: Banksy.co.uk
Spray a squirt of white paint and an aeroplane stencil on an old building in Liverpool, and hey presto, instant publicity, and a valuable wall. Cue the debates about whether to preserve it or wash it off.
23 Gwen Johns found at Princeton
December 15 2011
Picture: BBC
An extraordinary cache of 23 watercolours by Gwen John has been found uncatalogued in the library at Princeton University. They were discovered by Professor Anna Robins of Reading University in an old box containing an accordian. From BBC Wales:
Prof Robins said her first reaction was to go to the librarian on the desk and tell him she thought it absurd that the university library had 23 Gwen John watercolours that it clearly knew nothing about.
"He said: 'There's a complaints form over there. If you are unhappy with the library you should make a complaint'."
New Raphael acquisition at Staedel
December 13 2011
Picture: Staedel Museum, Frankfurt, [called] Raphael & Workshop, 'Portrait of Pope Julius II', 1511/12, Oil on poplar panel, 105.6 x 78.5cm.
The Staedel Museum in Frankfurt has acquired what it says is a newly discovered version of Raphael's portrait of Pope Julius II. The original is in the National Gallery, London. The Staedel says their new version is painted by Raphael and his workshop. Full details available in the press release here.
Key to their conclusions are the apparent changes visible in the picture, as revealed in the x-rays and infra-red photographs: [more below]
Withdrawn
December 8 2011
Picture: BG
This rather alluring canalside scene has been withdrawn from Christie's South Kensington Old Master sale. It was called 'Follower of Saenredam' and estimated at £3-5,000. The picture, which shone out at me at the viewing when I saw it, is oil on panel, 14 x 20 inches, and signed 'Ao.1634/P.Sanredam f'. It's not my area of expertise, so I don't know if it is 'right' or not, but the signature looked genuine to me. Perhaps the astonishing price made the last time a lowly estimated Saenredam was sold caused the auction house to have last-minute doubts. Or perhaps it was the sight of the world's old master dealers queueing up to take a closer look...
Velasquez knocked down at £2.6m
December 7 2011
Picture: Bonhams
The newly discovered Velasquez at Bonhams sold for £2.6m hammer today. The estimate was £2-3m, and most observers thought that it would go way beyond that. It's strange how the market can sometimes get the jitters at the last moment.
The buyer, New York dealer Otto Naumann, is surprised with his bargain:
I was amazed... I was prepared to pay double that. It was very dirty. Maybe people were worried how it would clean. It was bought for stock. I will do what dealers do, restore it and try to get more.
Fakes, fakes everywhere
December 5 2011
Picture: NY Times - a disputed Jackson Pollock.
At last the scandal that has been waiting to hit the modern and contemporary art world is gathering momentum. Recently we've had the news of the German fakers, and now the NY times has broken news of another possible forgery ring, this time in the US:
Federal authorities are investigating whether a parade of paintings and drawings, sold for years by some of New York’s most elite art dealers as the work of Modernist masters like Robert Motherwell and Jackson Pollock, actually consists of expert forgeries, according to people who have been interviewed or briefed by the investigators.
Most of the works, which have sold individually for as much as $17 million, came to market though a little-known art dealer from Long Island, Glafira Rosales, who said she had what every gallery dreams of: exclusive access to a mystery collector’s cache of undiscovered work by some of the postwar world’s great talents, including Mark Rothko and Richard Diebenkorn.
The story may be related to the sudden closure of the legendary New York gallery Knoedler last week, after 165 years in business. Knoedler has been hit with a lawsuit from client Pierre Lagrange, who alleges that a Jackson Pollock he bought from the gallery in 2007 for $17m is a fake. Tests conducted by Mr Lagrange have established that two pigments found inthe picture were not invented till after Pollock's death.
One I missed earlier...
December 5 2011
Picture: Nationalmuseum Stockholm
The enterprising staff at the Nationalmuseum in Stockholm have snapped up this fine c.1780s Nymph & Satyr Embracing by Claude Michel, called 'Clodin' (1738-1814) for just EUR 7,200. The piece was spotted in a Swedish auction earlier this year, uncatalogued, despite it being signed. Full story over on Tribune De L'Art.
New Rembrandt discovered
December 2 2011
Picture: BBC News
Professor Ernst van de Wetering and his team at the Rembrandt Research Project have unveiled a newly discovered work by Rembrandt. It belongs to a private owner, and will go on display in Antwerp between in May and June next year. Looks like a nice picture, full of pathos.
Apparently an unfinished self-portrait by Rembrandt can be detected beneath the painting, outlined in red below. That self-portrait is only known through a copy, below left. But, personally, I'll need to see better photos to be convinced of this...
Brueghel the Elder discovery at the Prado
November 29 2011
Picture: NY Times
Further to Lawrence's post yesterday about the latest issue of the Burlington Magazine, here's an image of the Prado's recently acquired and newly discovered The Wine of St Martin's Day by Pieter Brueghel the Elder. The picture seems not to be on the Prado's own website (question; why do museum website take so long to change?) , but is available at the NY Times, where you can zoom in on the details.
Optimism-watch: Raphael special
November 24 2011
Picture: Art History Today / Graeme Cameron
You may remember a while ago that some startling 'discoveries' were announced in a new self-published book by Australian art historian Graeme Cameron, The Secrets of Leonardo Da Vinci, and on Art History Today. They included a 'Holbein' and a 'Leonardo Self-Portrait'. Aside from some trenchant wonderment expressed by me here, the discoveries have sunk without trace because they are, alas, fantastical.
Now Mr Cameron is back, this time with a newly discovered 'Raphael' (above). Cameron (who despite my horridness was kind enough to send me a copy of his book) claims that the picture dates to 1512, and shows not only a self-portrait of Raphael, but his lover, Margerita Luti. He also uses a technique he calls 'Vegascanning' to find clues in the 'subsurface' of the picture, including another Raphael design. The only problem is there is not one jot of reliable evidence that this picture is by Raphael. The likenesses of the figures are generic (and thus not to be relied on as portraits of anyone). And the 'Vegascans', whatever they are, are taken from digital photographs, and not to be relied on. I noticed the story of the latest discovery on Art History Today a while ago, but have been waiting for Three Pipe Problem to sink his razor-sharp analytical teeth into the theory first.
Read 3PP's views for yourself, but it's fair to say he is sceptical of Cameron's conclusions. For what it's worth, so am I. And if you look closely enough at the available images, you will be too. Go on, try a spot of connoisseurship. Here are some genuine Raphaels. Marvel at their brilliance, their sophistication, and intricate detail. And then see the plodding brushwork in The Judgement of Paris. See the solid drapery evident throughout the picture, from the bulky red of Paris' jacket through to the stiffly blowing orange drape far right. This is not the drapery of Raphael. In fact, it is not the drapery of any reasonably competent artist of the 16th Century - but almost certainly a 17th Century copy of an earlier work. Look also at the badly drawn profile faces of two of the female figures, the solid and unconvincing flesh of the naked bodies, the curious cartoon-like dog, not to mention the inept transition from foreground to background. All of these point to a work of poor quality of execution, and thus a poor artist. Agree? Then count yourself a connoisseur.
'Salvator Mundi' - it's all balls
November 21 2011
Picture: Salvator Mundi LLC
There's an interesting interview with Leonardo Scholar Martin Kemp over on Artinfo, in which he discusses his role in attributing the Salvator Mundi. He reveals that one of the things which convinced him about the picture is the orb in Christ's hand. After he first saw the painting he went down to the Ashmolean Museum to look at one of their rock crystal orbs:
What was striking for me was the orb, and I've subsequently researched it quite heavily. The "Salvator Mundi" obviously holds the mundus, the world which he's saving, and it was absolutely unlike anything I've seen before. The orbs in other Salvator Mundis, often they're of a kind of brass or solid. Sometimes they're terrestrial globes, sometimes they're translucent glass, and one or two even have little landscapes in them. What this one had was an amazing series of glistening little apertures — they're like bubbles, but they're not round — painted very delicately, with just a touch of impasto, a touch of dark, and these little sort of glistening things, particularly around the part where you get the back reflections. And that said to me: rock crystal. Because rock crystal gets what are called inclusions, and to get clear rock crystal is very difficult, particularly big bits. So there are these little gaps, which are slightly irregular in shape, and I thought, well, that's pretty fancy. And Leonardo was a bit of an expert on rock crystal. He was asked to judge vases that Isabella d'Este was thinking of buying, and he loved those materials.
So when I was back in Oxford, I went to the geology department, and I said, "Let's have a look at some rock crystal." And in the Ashmolean Museum, in a wunderkammer of curiosities, there is a big rock crystal ball, and that has inclusions, so we photographed it under comparable lighting conditions I also began to look at the heel of the hand underneath the globe in the "Salvator Mundi"; there are two heels. The restorer thought it was a pentimento, but I wondered if he was recording a double refraction of the kind you get with a calcite sphere. If this proves to be right, it would be absolutely Leonardesque. I like these things when they're not just connoisseurship. None of the copyists knew that. They just transcribed it. Some of them do better than others, but none of them got this crystal with its possible double refraction. And one of the points of the crystal sphere is that it relates iconographically to the crystalline sphere of the heavens, because in Ptolemaic cosmology the stars were in the fixed crystalline sphere, and so they were embedded. So what you've got in the "Salvator Mundi" is really a "a savior of the cosmos", and this is a very Leonardesque transformation.
New Powell Frith discovered
November 16 2011
Picture: BBC News
Found in an American beach house - a first version of William Powell Frith's epic painting, Derby Day. The finished picture, one of the most famous 19th Century narrative paintings, is in the Tate. This earlier version by Frith will be sold at Christie's in December, with an estimate of up to £500,000. Annoyingly, the catalogue entry is not online yet, so for now more details on BBC News here
Did Durer see 'Salvator Mundi'?
November 15 2011
Picture: Alte Pinakothek, Munich/(C) Salvator Mundi LLC/Tim Nighswander/Imaging4Art
A learned reader writes:
Bravo for your excellent and instant review; I am still digesting my own visit. I haven’t so far seen in print, but I’m surely not the first to suggest, a connection between the Salvator Mundi and Dürer’s Munich self-portrait? It may tell us little as Dürer’s itinerary and the disputed date will hardly anchor the early provenance of the Leonardo (and of course it says nothing about other versions)…
Durer was one of the first northern European artists to see the Italian Renaissance at first hand, and went to Italy twice, first from May 1494 to the spring of 1495, and then from 1505-7. Both trips are thought to have centred around Venice. By the time of the second trip he was a famous artist, and even secured important commissions. In a letter to Germany, he wrote:
How shall I long for the sun in the cold; here I am a gentleman, at home I am a parasite.
There is though little evidence of exactly where he went and who he met. The Self-Portrait is dated 1500, so if it was at all influenced by Salvator Mundi it would have to have been on the first trip. But at the National Gallery, Salvator Mundi is dated to '1499 onwards'.
Did Durer see something of Leonardo's work? Most likely. Did he see Salvator Mundi? Who knows, and of course there are plenty of other iconographic prompts for the full-frontal Christ-like portrayal. But it's an intriguing theory. And remember - you heard it here first...
You know an exhibition is important when...
November 12 2011
...Brian Sewell reviews it in two parts, over two days! Part one here, and part two here. Sewell is always at his best when he doesn't like something, which is often. So the review of 'Leonardo' is a little... loose. Obviously, he likes it, and for its curator, Luke Syson would:
...honour him with a life peerage; his impending departure for New York is a loss to the nation.
Hear hear to that. Inevitably, Sewell finds something not to like in the show, and it is, you guessed it, the Salvator Mundi:
In what is essentially a scholarly and didactic exhibition that encourages the visitor to make comparisons and study the relationship of paintings with preliminary drawings, I am not entirely happy to see included and supported the newly rediscovered and identified Salvator Mundi. The cracking of the panel with associated losses of paint, aggressive over-cleaning and abrasion over the whole surface are all acknowledged, and I must ask at what point does a ruined painting heavily restored cease to be original? This is a wreck now so ill-defined, so smudged and fudged that glutinous gravy seems to have been the medium of its restoration. The hand raised in blessing, the associated drapery and some residuary details of hair and clothing, all suggest that this may once have been by Leonardo, but what we see now was formerly subcutaneous. That there is no revision or reinvention of the iconography also rouses my suspicion.
Can this ghostly, ghastly and blind-eyed face really be the invention of the same aesthetic mind as the melancholy Christ of the Last Supper? It would have been extremely useful to have had at hand a severe technical examination of this panel so that we know precisely the extent of past damage and present restoration; without this, its gushing acceptance as genuine must seem gullible.
He's over-egging it here - the condition is not that bad. It's interesting to note that Salvator Mundi has found immeasurably less favour amongst journalists than art historians. Barely a review has been published in England in which a journalist has not cast doubt on the picture. What is it about the discovery that the hacks don't like?
Sold for £646k, estimated at £3-5k
November 10 2011
Picture: Christie's
I love it when these little Chinese things go through the roof. Here is the latest example, an ivory dragon seal catalogued at Christie's as 19th/20th Century and estimated at just £3-5,000. It sold for a massive £646,050 (or $1,035,628). I'm no expert on this area, but it looks pretty fine, and old, to me.
Imagine ringing the vendor to tell them the good news...
More on that strange French restitution case
November 9 2011
More details have emerged about the French government's curious attempt to seize a painting by Nicolas Tournier it says was stolen almost two hundred years ago. The picture, above, was being offered by the London-based dealer, Mark Weiss, to the Musee des Augustines, in Toulouse, where it had hung until it vanished in 1818. But when the museum contacted the French culture ministry to raise funds for the work, a sharp witted official appears to have decided that instead of buying the picture, it would be far cheaper to simply seize it.
The picture had surfaced at a Sotheby's auction in Italy, as by a 'follower of Caravaggio', and sold for EUR 59,500. Mr Weiss has told The Independent that he had been asking considerably more for it:
Earlier this year, the Weiss gallery offered the Tournier for sale for €675,000. "That would have been a fair price to a private buyer," Mr Weiss said yesterday. "But we were ready to sell it to the Toulouse museum for less than that."
Normally we picture-hunters love to find a piece of museum provenance. But in this case it seems to have caused all manner of problems. Is it a case of the sleeper bites back?
The oldest restitution claim in history?
November 8 2011
The French government has placed an export ban on a painting it says was stolen almost 200 years ago. The Carrying of the Cross by Nicolas Tournier was being exhibited in a Paris art fair by London-based dealer Mark Weiss. But French officials have said the picture has been missing from a state museum since 1818. Mark Weiss, it seems, now cannot take the picture back to his London gallery.
The French Culture Ministry said:
This was the property of the French state that was deposited at the Augustins Museum in Toulouse and was stolen in 1818. It is a non-transferable work," [...] "We are claiming this painting as the property of the state and it will not leave the country."
The French government's action is a very strange one. How far back do we have to go before restitution cases become untenable? Surely a painting 'stolen' in 1818, if indeed it was, cannot now be reclaimed? What about the mass of art stolen by Napoleon and his forces from across Europe? There is an irony too in that the picture was itself stolen (or rather, 'confiscated') by the French state during the revolution, from the chapel of the Company of Black Penitents in Toulouse. The effect of this decision will doubtless be far reaching, not least for museum loans of items that do not have full provenance (which is most things).
