Category: Discoveries
Sleeper alert?
July 8 2011
Picture: Sotheby's
This picture sold yesterday for £718,850 (inc. premium), against an estimate of just £15-20,000. It was catalogued as 'Studio of Gaspar van Wittel (called Vanvitelli)', but evidently two or more people thought it was better than that...
The record for a van Wittel/Vanvitelli is £2m in 2003. A similar scene to the picture sold yesterday made £827k in 1995 at Christie's New York (image below).
New Correggio discovery
July 4 2011
A Vatican painting previously thought to be a copy after Correggio has been cleaned. Now, it is believed to be by him.
Connoisseurship in Crisis?
July 3 2011
Picture: Courtauld Institute
The picture above, The Procuress after Dirck van Baburen (see the original here), belongs to the Courtauld Institute in London. It was donated to them in 1960 as a work by the notorious forger Hans van Meegeren. However, two years ago, the Courtauld's investigations revealed that it was in fact not a fake, but a 17thC copy. It was even suggested that the picture belonged to Vermeer, for the same subject appears in the background of two of his paintings.
The Courtauld's findings were first published in the Art Newspaper in September 2009:
A “fake” in the Courtauld Gallery, believed to be by the master forger Han van Meegeren (1889-1947), is a genuine Dutch Golden Age painting, new research has revealed. It is a version of The Procuress, a 1622 brothel scene by Dirck van Baburen, which is also depicted in the background of two works by Vermeer. It is now believed that the Courtauld’s painting may, in fact, be the work that Vermeer once had.
None of this sounded quite right to me, so we decided to investigate further for a possible episode of 'Fake or Fortune?'. The Courtauld kindly allowed us to see the picture in their conservation studio. It not only looked to me straight away like a fake, but a fake by van Meegeren. His style is distinctive, particularly in the way he constructs faces.
The picture has now been conclusively proved to be by van Meegeren on 'Fake or Fortune?'. There is no doubting van Meegeren was a rogue and a wrong'un, but I feel rather drawn to him. I like to imagine him laughing with incredulity at the sight of leading art historians declaring his paintings to be originals, decades after his death. The intriguing thing is that although van Meegeren conceded he had owned The Procuress, he denied repeatedly that he painted it, claiming his wife bought it in an antique shop. The question is, therefore, how many more of his fakes are still out there?
Sauce
July 1 2011
Picture: Philip Mould Ltd
Behold – a newly discovered portrait of Nell Gwyn, Charles II’s most famous mistress.
You might think that portraits of Nell abound, but in fact she’s a rare sitter. The vast majority of ‘Nell Gwyns’ you see are usually someone’s dull great-granny spiced up with a false label.
This picture has not previously been known. It is the most sexually suggestive portrait of her, indeed probably of any English late 17th Century court figure. The likeness is taken from Samuel Cooper’s now lost miniature, which is recorded in a number of engravings (see an example at the NPG). Here, Nell is shown washing sausages, an act which would immediately have been known to a contemporary viewer as rather naughty (the allusion goes back to Brueghel). To add to the satirical raunchiness of the image, Nell is shown in virginal white. The portrait is the Stuart equivalent of a saucy postcard. It has, until now, been in the collection of her descendants.
More on the Van Dyck debate
June 27 2011
Picture: Philip Mould Ltd (detail)
The Antiques Trade Gazette has a good summary of the debate over the Van Dyck study we bought at the Chatsworth Attic Sale.
To recap, we bought the study catalogued as 'Circle of Rubens'. We, and a number of experts, say it is by Van Dyck. Sotheby's, and their own experts (who haven't seen the picture), say it isn't.
Speaking to the ATG, Sotheby's said that the picture was 'short on quality and uncharacteristic for a Van Dyck.' The quality point is moot. Look for yourself at the face, see how animated it is, and remember that this was intended to be no more than a rapidly painted sketch, for later reference in a finished work. But I readily agree that it is uncharacteristic.
It is uncharacteristic because nobody has properly studied Van Dyck's use of studies before. According to the 2004 Van Dyck catalogue raisonne, only 3 studies are listed from between Van Dyck's departure to Italy in 1621 and his death in 1641. This is so patently an under-estimate that we cannot use the 'characteristic' argument when judging potential Van Dyck studies. Instead, we have to look at all the available evidence with open eyes...
Below is my fuller discussion of the picture.
News 'in little'
June 25 2011
Picture: Bondu et Associes
Some miniature news for you.ÂÂ
First, an exceedingly rare portrait of Peter the Great by the court artist Grigory Musikiysky (1678-1739), sold for EUR 27,000 in Paris today. The estimate was just 5-6,000. As you can see, it isn't a particularly accomplished work, but such is the demand for Russian Tsarist portraits that the quality seems not to have mattered. Musikiysky normally painted enamels (see an example in the Hermitage here), and this was an unusual watercolour example. It was dated 1719.
And second, if you're in Washington DC, there's a fine looking exhibition of important American miniatures just opened at the National Portrait Gallery (closes May 13th 2012). You can view the exhibits online here.  ÂÂ
If you're really keen on miniatures, then why not come and buy one at the Masterpiece fair in London next week (30th June - 5th July). We will be unveiling some of the stellar works we have amassed over the last few months for the launch of Philip Mould Miniatures.ÂÂ
'British School'
June 25 2011
Picture: BBC
Fancy yourself as an art sleuth? The new PCF/BBC website Your Paintings includes loads of pictures that are anonymously catalogued.
Take the selection of works called 'British School', for example. Have a look through and see if you can attribute any of the works - let me know if you have a hunch...
Here's my starter for ten. The above portrait is called 'British School', and belongs to the Fitzwilliam Museum. Is it perhaps by Joseph Highmore...?
A new $200m Leonardo discovery?
June 25 2011
Picture: ARTnews
In the June edition of ARTnews, Milton Esterow has what could be the discovery story of the decade (or even the century?).
Salvator Mundi, above, was discovered in an estate sale in the US. Now, it will be included in the forthcoming Leonardo exhibition at the National Gallery in London. The only illustration so far available is the murky black and white photograph taken before conservation.
The picture belongs to a group of Old Master dealers, including Robert Simon, and reportedly has a $200m asking price.
It has long been known that there was a lost Leonardo of this subject. One, perhaps this one, belonged to Charles I. Here is a rival claimant to be the original. But, if right, what an astonishing thing Robert Simon has found. It proves what I have often said, that (like it or not) we art dealers are often at the coalface of art history, offering up new discoveries for discussion, acceptance or rejection. Such discoveries are the propellant by which art history advances. Full credit to Nicholas Penny and the staff at the National Gallery for including it in their exhibition.
The picture was apparently discovered 'about six or seven years ago'. Now, I started working for Philip Mould in May 2005. So if it was bought before then, phew, that's fine. If after, I guess I missed the Sleeper to end all Sleepers. You can see why these sort of stories keep me awake at night...
Read the full fascinating details here. Doubtless it won't be long till this is picked up by the world's press...
A Holy Family reunion
June 24 2011
Picture: Philip Mould Ltd
Plug alert - here's a bit of news from our exhibition at Philip Mould Ltd, Finding Van Dyck (closes 13th July).
The small picture on the left is Van Dyck's study for the Head of St Joseph, which was used in his larger composition of The Holy Family, on the right. The study was previously unknown, and appeared in December 2009 in a London saleroom catalogued as 'Circle of Van Dyck/Head study of a Man'. But, having established that it related to a known Van Dyck, we were confident, despite layers of dirt and old varnish , that it was 'right' (as we say in the trade), and bought it.
The version of The Holy Family on display here is on loan from Manchester Art Gallery. Like many of Van Dyck's religious and classical compositions, it was painted partly by Van Dyck and partly by his studio assistants. For example, the cherubs upper right are finely executed, while the blue drapery around the Virgin is rather stiff and heavy.
The head of St Joseph in The Holy Family was also painted by a studio hand. While it follows Van Dyck's original study closely, it lacks the vitality of an original head by Van Dyck. Not a great deal is known about Van Dyck's use of studies, and for a long time they were disregarded by scholars. But as more and more are discovered, it becomes evident that, like his one-time master Rubens, Van Dyck made wide use of head studies, both for his own reference when composing large pictures, and for his assistants to follow.
The study and the finished Holy Family have now been reunited for (presumably) the first time since they were painted in Van Dyck's studio in Antwerp, in about 1630.
Sotheby's Carmelite Monk
June 23 2011
Sotheby's have a good video on their Portrait of a Carmelite Monk, by Van Dyck. Normally, auction house videos can be a bit stilted, but in this one George Gordon and Astrid Centner engage in lively banter over how they encountered the picture. Like me, their initial reaction was 'this is by Rubens'. I'm looking forward to seeing the picture next weekend.
Worth a click.
Vincent or Theo?
June 22 2011
Picture: Telegraph
The Van Gogh Museum has decided that the above painting by Van Gogh thought to be a self-portrait instead depicts his brother, Theo. From the Telegraph:
"People have often thought it was funny that there were no portraits of Theo, given that they were so close," said museum spokeswoman Linda Snoek.
She said the portrait was made in 1887 while the pair lived together in Paris – a lesser-known period of Van Gogh's life, since the bulk of information about Vincent is derived from letters he sent to Theo.
The painting has long been in storage, but went on display at the museum in Amsterdam on Tuesday as part of an exhibition on new findings about the painter's time spent in Antwerp and Paris in 1885-1888.
The museum has also discovered that the bird in Van Gogh's 1887 painting Wheatfield with a Lark is in fact a partridge.
New Caravaggio discovery
June 20 2011
Picture: Telegraph
A previously unknown painting by Caravaggio has been found in a private collection by art dealer Clovis Whitfield. The composition of Saint Augustine, dated to around 1600, has never before been linked to Caravaggio, but will be published in Caravaggio and His Followers in Rome next month by Yale. More details here.
The Empire Strikes Back
June 16 2011
Picture: Philip Mould Ltd
In The Times and on the BBC’s Today programme yesterday morning was news of one of the recent Van Dyck discoveries included in our exhibition ‘Finding Van Dyck’. The story was later picked up in a rather muddled piece by Channel 4 news.
The picture, Study of the Head of a Woman (above), was bought at the Chatsworth ‘Attic Sale’ handled by Sotheby’s. It was catalogued as ‘Circle of Rubens’. Briefly, here’s just three reasons why I think the study is by Van Dyck.
- The same head appears in two larger compositions by Van Dyck, both painted in about 1630; Achilles Among the Daughters of Lycomedes (Schonborn Collection), and Adoration of the Shepherds (Church of Our Lady, Dendermonde).
- In the Achilles painting, the woman’s head is used in the lower centre, and has been rotated slightly for the figure looking up at Achilles. In the Adoration picture, the study has been inverted, and used for the shepherdess looking down at Christ. (I would illustrate both, but don't yet have permission to reproduce them online).
- In both of the above pictures, the heads follow the study closely, even down to details such as the highlight on the top lip, and the shadows in the cheek.
We are left, therefore, with two plausible options – either it is a copy after the Achilles or Adoration pictures. Or it was made by Van Dyck in preparation for those pictures.
We can immediately rule out option 1, that it is a copy. Not only is it too impulsive, animated and well painted to be by a copyist (or even a studio assistant), it is also at a different angle and with different hair, thus ruling out the possibility that it was painted after either of the larger works.
In response to inquiries from the BBC and Channel 4, Sotheby’s issued the following statement:
Sotheby’s carefully considered the painting when cataloguing it for sale, and reject the recent attribution to Van Dyck. Six out of seven of the world’s leading specialists in this field whom Sotheby’s has consulted also categorically reject the attribution to Van Dyck (the only one supporting the Van Dyck attribution being the same specialist Philip Mould consulted). The overwhelming weight of scholarly opinion – consistent with Sotheby’s original cataloguing – is that the painting is by an anonymous Flemish artist working in the 17th century, ultimately inspired by Peter Paul Rubens.
But here’s three curious things: [more below]
Tune in...
June 16 2011
Picture: BBC
...to BBC1 this Sunday at 7pm to see Fiona Bruce, Philip Mould and I (the bloke on the left) in a new series tracking down lost and mysterious paintings.
The series is called 'Fake or Fortune', which I'm told is a good BBC1 title. I just hope nobody thinks it's a game show...
It was quite an experience filming the series, and somewhat nerve-wracking. Fortunately, we had a brilliant production team from BBC Bristol. As a viewer, one doesn't really appreciate just how talented people who work in TV are, until you see how it's all done. Anyway, it's well worth watching. And don't just take my word for it; an advanced review from Time Out gave us 4/5 stars: 'it's captivating viewing', The Times calls it 'gripping' and 'fascinating', and the FT also gives it 4/5 stars.
More here.
Is this by Monet?
June 14 2011
Picture: David Joel
This painting will feature in a new BBC1 series on art, Fake or Fortune. The picture is signed 'Claude Monet', and has provenance as a Monet going back to the artist's lifetime. Numerous Monet scholars also believe it to be by him - but the Wildenstein Institute in Paris, which controls the Monet catalogue, maintains it is a fake. Read more here.
The series, which is presented by Fiona Bruce and Philip Mould (and even occasionally features me), goes out on Sundays at 7pm from June 19th, for four weeks.
Van Dyck - or Rubens?
June 11 2011
Picture: Sotheby's
Sotheby's announced today a highlight of their forthcoming July Old Master sales. Portrait of a Carmelite Monk (oil on panel, 62.3 x 48 cm) is being hailed as a new discovery of an early work by Van Dyck. The estimate is £600-800,000.
It is an exquisite painting, and looks to be in fine condition. Colours on panel tend to last better than when on canvas, and here one senses the freshness of the painting, as if it was made only recently. One also sees how the paint has been physically worked up with layers of impasto, in an almost sculptural manner.
Traditionally, the painting has been attributed to Rubens. But Sotheby's has given it instead to Van Dyck, and dated it to c.1617-20. George Gordon, Sotheby's co-Chairman, observes:
...that while Rubens’ portraits are always formally composed, the current work, especially the way the young monk’s head is turned to one side, creates an impression of spontaneity. In addition, the brushwork in the present picture, which is painted in oil on oak panel, is clearly legible throughout most of the painting and is more reminiscent of Anthony Van Dyck when he worked in Rubens’ studio, than of his teacher. Specifically, the use of thick paint to denote highlights in the sitter’s habit is a characteristic of Van Dyck’s personal style at this date, and can be seen in a series of paintings the artist made of the Apostles.
It has become something of a fashion to re-attribute Rubens's made between c.1616-21 to Van Dyck, who was by far Ruben's best pupil. I haven't seen the painting myself, but to be honest my initial hunch from the image is that this leans more towards Rubens.
Either way, it looks like a bargain at that estimate, and will surely sell for more.
Angelica Kauffman slips through the net in NY?
June 11 2011
Picture: Sotheby's
I was interested to see that up for auction a second time in New York was this pair of portraits called 'Circle of Benjamin West.' They were offered at Sotheby's in December, with an estimate of (if I recall correctly) $30-50,000, but failed to sell.
This time they comfortably exceeded their estimate of $10-15,000 to make $28,125 (inc. premium). Despite the obvious damage in the Lady, the condition is actually pretty good. I think the new owner has something of a bargain, for they are, in my opinion, by Angelica Kauffmann (Italian period). You read it here first...
Van Dyck found
June 11 2011
Picture: Philip Mould Ltd
Breaking news! I'll post more on this later, but here is a piece appearing in tomorrow's Observer on a few discoveries a certain blogger has been involved with...
Rockwell painting found on US Roadshow
June 6 2011
Picture: SodaHead.com
Norman Rockwell's Little Model has surfaced on the US version of the Antiques Roadshow. The picture was painted in 1919 for the cover of Collier magazine, but had been in a private collection since. The value given was $500,000.
