Previous Posts: January 2012
Recant!
January 10 2012
Picture: National Trust
I recently highlighted the National Trust's splendid new online database, and risked attributing a few unattributed pictures that caught my eye. I've now had the benefit of seeing higher resolution digital images, and I must go straight to the naughty step for being wrong on the above portrait. Catalogued as 'English School', I suggested it might be by William Dobson. But it is not. Gilbert Soest is a possible alternative name that has been put forward, for whom it would have to be quite an early work. Happily, it looks as if I was right about the other pictures. Sorry to any Dobson fans who might have got excited...
Boast
January 10 2012
Picture: BG
Here's a newly discovered painting by Van Dyck leaving our gallery on its way to one of the world's leading museums. Will post more details soon.
Need a Leonardo fix, but can't face the queues?
January 10 2012
Picture: Royal Collection
Then head to Birmingham. Ten Leonardo drawings from the Royal Collection will go on display soon at Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery. The exhibition will be part of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. Dates 13th January - 25th March.
My thanks...
January 10 2012
...to Lawrence for taking care of the site yesterday. His hope 'that security is on the agenda' of the new National Gallery of Greece, following the theft of a Picasso, drew ire from one reader:
I am sorry to say that such a sentence is not particularly clever and it looks silly....
Here at AHN we like a bit of silliness - but sorry for any offence caused.
While on the subject of feedback, another reader writes:
Might I also say that while reading your entrees, I can find no immediate method of commenting. That may just be current blog protocol, and you aren't soliciting discussion...
I'm always keen to have further discussion and feedback on the site - but for now I don't have a comment facility. The tedious libel laws here in the UK mean that I would be liable for any defamatory comments published, even if I didn't write them myself. So, if I had a story, say, about a picture by Warhol, and someone commented 'that picture is undoubtedly a fake', I could be sued by the painting's owner. Far-fetched I know, but in practice it means I'd have to moderate all comments, and I'm afraid I don't have the time. So, if you have a thought you'd like to contribute, please email me instead, and I'll put it up. Or you can always join the fray on Twitter.
Update on Greece Art Theft
January 9 2012
Pic: National Art Gallery, Athens.
By LH: The other work stolen from the Athens National Art Gallery is thought to be a work by Piet Mondriaan (1872-1944).
These are the only works which appear on gallery's website, so presumably it is one of the nice early oils which is now missing.
Mondriaan was perhaps best known for his later work and his role within the De Stijl movement, turning to complete abstraction and producing his famous 'grid paintings' from 1919 onwards.
These early works in Athens of his native Dutch countryside were painted when naturalism still dominated Mondriaan's work. They were painted in 1905, just before Mondriaan began to adopt a more 'Fauvist' preference for colouring, making the work in question, whichever it may be, of great academic importance.
Sad.
National Gallery Channel
January 9 2012
Pic: National Gallery
By LH: For some art historical procrastination check out the National Gallery Channel on YouTube.
The channel has numerous short videos which discuss collections and individual works and is worth a look for a quick fix.
Link here.
Greece Thieves Be Warned...
January 9 2012
Pic: Telegraph.
By LH: A Magritte stolen back in 2009 at gunpoint has been returned, after the thieves failed to find a buyer...
Magritte's 'Olympia' is a study of the artist's wife with a giant shell resting on her stomach. It was stolen from Magritte's former house which is open to the public as a museum by appointment only.
Due to the prominence of the work and the publicity surrounding its violent theft, it is hardly suprising that no one would touch it.
Fortunately, no damage was caused to the work.
More here.
Picasso 'and another' stolen from Greece's National Art Gallery
January 9 2012
Pic: Picasso, Woman's Head, 1939. National Gallery, Athens.
By LH: We start today with some sad news following a break-in at Greece's National Art Gallery.
One of the works to have been stolen is a Picasso gifted to the gallery in the 1940's by a French association.
No information has been released as to the indentity of the second work, but we do know that the museum was just about to finish an exhibition containing works by the likes of Durer and Rembrandt. Amazingly, despite alarms being sounded in 'one of the best-guarded parts of the Greek capital', the thieves escaped undetected.
The gallery was set to close for a large refurbishment project...lets hope security is on that agenda somewhere.
Read more here.
Today
January 9 2012
I'm off to Wales to look at possible paintings for 'Fake or Fortune?'. My colleague Lawrence Hendra has kindly volunteered to babysit the site in my absence. Thanks Lawrence!An important Van Dyck discovery in Scotland
January 6 2012
Picture: Scottish National Portrait Gallery
Since today is assuming a bit of a Van Dyck theme (see below), it may be a good time to mention an important re-attribution at the Scottish National Portrait Gallery. The above portrait of Civil War hero James Graham, Marquess of Montrose, was for a long time thought to be by William Dobson. But the Gallery's sixteenth and seventeenth century senior curator David Taylor has now changed the attribution to 'Studio of Van Dyck'.*Â
This is a bold step, and an absolutely right one. In fact, I'd go further, having seen the picture recently, and say that it is very probably by Van Dyck himself, albeit rather damaged. Later over-paint gives the picture the appearance of a less skilled work from Van Dyck's studio. The canvas had been heavily re-lined in the past, and this combined with some abrasion had given the picture a slight look of being painted on the type of thick canvas that Dobson ocassionally used.
I'd say it is a late Van Dyck, and I note that Montrose was in London in 1636. If he did sit to Van Dyck then, this picture would accord reasonably well with the artist's style at that time. It is similar to his portrait of Lord Goring, which was recently on the market, and which Sir Oliver Millar dated to later in Van Dyck's career, and as late as 1638-40. There is, incidentally, no other surviving candidate around to be Van Dyck's original of Montrose. So Scotland seems to have lost a Dobson, but gained a Van Dyck. With any luck, the SNPG may one day have the picture cleaned, and take off the later restorations. Then we can see what it is really like.
*The SNPG's website is a little muddled - it attributes the picture to Van Dyck in full, but dates it to 1644, after Van Dyck died. The label on the wall at the SNPG says "Studio of Van Dyck".
Van Dycks everywhere...
January 6 2012
Picture: Elite Auction
A reader writes:
In response to your latest post, here's another slightly more interesting example [above] of exactly the same subject that I stumbled across recently!
The catalogue states:
Antique oil painting on board in gold frame depicting a man with mustache. 18th/19th century. Authenticity guaranteed. $300-400.
I'm note quite sure what they're guaranteeing here - that he has a mustache? Anyway, well spotted - it is indeed a copy of Van Dyck's self-portrait, in this case a lost original painted in the mid 1630s. Hard to say from the photos, but I would say the copy dates from the 18th Century. Someone rescue him, please! A portrait of Van Dyck is top of my wish-list, but I'm going to pass on this one, and keep my powder dry for something a little better. Happily, I get to see the real thing every day. Unhappily, I know I can never afford it...
A Van Dyck sleeper!
January 6 2012
Picture: Bentley's auctions
Well, not quite. But I can't stand to see a portrait of my favourite artist continue to be neglected as 'Portrait of a Gentleman', even if it is a much later copy. So if you want to rescue this picture, it's at least worth a little more than the £80 estimate. Sale is tomorrow.
To clean or not to clean?
January 6 2012
Picture: Louvre
Here's a belated notice about the row in France over the cleaning of Leonardo's Virgin and Child with St Anne [Louvre]. I hadn't commented on it till now largely because there seem to be few tangible facts - and certainly no images of the cleaned work. But essentially it seems someone has resigned from the Louvre's conservation board in a huff, saying the picture has been over-cleaned. Predictably, it is all the fault of Les Anglais. From The Guardian:
The Louvre source said that Keith and Syson [of the National Gallery, London] were particularly keen on this restoration: "The English were very pushing, saying they know Leonardo is extremely delicate but 'we can move without any danger to the work'. There was a row a year ago about solvents because they said they were safe and Bergeon Langle said they're not safe. It took a long time before the committee really had explanations on the chemicals used on the picture. Details were asked for [by the critics on the committee], but didn't come for months …
"There are people who are very much for bright hues and strong cleaning. Those people are in charge."
For what it's worth, Leonardo was quite keen on bright hues too. Anyway, we can make no judgement till we see the cleaned work. In the meantime, feast your eyes on this super high-resolution image of the picture before cleaning, to which I was alerted by the ever-invaluable Three Pipe Problem. He has even spotted what appear to be a couple of finger-prints in the top left of the painting. Are they Leonardo's? Who knows - but it'll be interesting to see if they are still there in the cleaned painting...
Daftness
January 5 2012
Video: You and I Films
I learnt last night of a group calling itself 'Liberate Tate'. Their aim is to:
Free art from the grip of the oil industry through creativity.
They have an anonymous 'spokesman', who has given an interview to Artinfo, and there's also a snappy website. Their actions so far have included:
- a contribution to Tate Modern’s 10th Birthday celebrations (28 May 2010) by hanging dead fish and birds from dozens of giant black helium balloons in the Turbine Hall
- an 'oil' spill at the Tate Summer Party celebrating 20 years of BP support (28 June 2010)
- the installation art work, 'Crude' which saw over 30 members of the collective draw a giant sunflower in the Turbine Hall with black oil paint bursting from BP-branded tubes of paint (14 September 2010)
The video above shows one of these events, the 'oil spill' at Tate Britain. It's worth a watch to see how idiotic these people are. First, marvel at their self-consciousness as they prepare to protest wearing veils. Then note how they arrive at Tate in fossil-fuel burning cars (not bikes?). Feel your lip curl as they throw 'oil' (molasses) and feathers all over the floor both outside and inside the museum, and then walk away to leave some other poor sod to clear up the mess (above).
Liberate Tate call this performance art. I call it making a mess. Actually, it's disgusting (and in the manner of its execution, cowardly). For what it's worth, their actions constitute a criminal offence, under the Environmental Protection Act (section 87), for which the maximum penalty is a fine of £2,500. I guess that explains the veils. Liberate Tate seem to miss the irony that their actions achieve publicity only because Tate (and I suppose by extension, BP) tacitly allows them to take place.
If Liberate really want to free Tate from commercial sponsors like BP, then they should get out their wallets, and give the museum some cash. It'll be more effective than littering.
Gawd bless ya, Ma'am
January 5 2012
Picture: National Portrait Gallery, London
What splendid news it is that the Duchess of Cambridge is to be a patron of the National Portrait Gallery. It's been a while since a leading royal played a really active role in supporting Britain's art galleries. Kate's degree was in art history, so one assumes that she has chosen the NPG as much for its fine 'historic' collection as the headline-grabbing contemporary portraits. And perhaps she might even be a reader of Art History News!
To celebrate this happy event, here is an image of the NPG's portrait of Catherine Parr. It used to be called, erroneously, Lady Jane Grey, and was re-identified thanks to Catherine Parr's list of jewels. Let's hope that when the next Queen Catherine's portrait enters the NPG, it never loses its identity.
Vandal of the week
January 5 2012
Picture: Denver Post
This is Carmen Tisch, who, according to the Denver Post:
[when] apparently drunk, leaned against an iconic Clyfford Still painting worth more than $30 million last week, punched it, slid down it and urinated on herself, according to a criminal case filed against Carmen Lucette Tisch.
"It doesn't appear she urinated on the painting or that the urine damaged it, so she's not being charged with that," Lynn Kimbrough, a spokeswoman for the Denver district attorney's office, said Wednesday. "You have to wonder where her friends were."
Tisch is being charged with criminal mischief in the incident that happened at the Clyf ford Still Museum at 3:30 p.m. on Dec. 29. Damage to the painting — "1957-J-No. 2." — is estimated at $10,000. [...]
Tisch allegedly committed the offense with her pants pulled down, according to the police report, and struck the painting repeatedly with her fist.
Nice.
New information on Jane Austen
January 5 2012
Picture: Guardian/Dr Paula Byrne (detail)
Dr Paula Byrne, the Jane Austen scholar who featured in the BBC2 show on the possible portrait of Jane, has been in touch with an interesting new fact, not broadcast in the programme. Jane's brother, Francis Austen, was appointed a Companion of the Order of the Bath in September 1815. Now the chapel of the Order is the Henry VII Chapel at Westminster Abbey. So this could mean that the view of Westminster Abbey seen in the drawing does have a connection to Jane's life, which was one of my main questions over the picture. One of Jane's visits to London was in late 1815. Furthermore, Francis Austen was officially gazetted as Francis Austin.
My other questions on the picture remain, and it seems that perhaps the view in the background is centred more on St Margaret's than the Abbey. But it means I was wrong to state below:
The main clue in the drawing, the very obviously placed background showing Westminster Abbey and St Margaret's, Westminster, bears no relation to anything in Jane's life.
Pictures that make you smile
January 4 2012
Picture: Christie's
This is by Louis-Leopold Boilly (1761-1845), a master of illusion. Coming up at Christie's New York with an estimate of $150-250,000.
Crowd sourcing the National Trust's collection
January 4 2012
Picture: National Trust
Following my post on the new National Trust online database, the NT's registrar and blogger-in-chief, Emile de Bruijn, has written a piece for the NT's own excellent blog, and points out the great potential of the web when it comes to identifying lost paintings:
Paintings expert Bendor Grosvenor has been perusing our new online National Trust Collections database (which I first posted about here), testing his eye on various ‘school of’ and ‘attributed to’ portraits. He has reported his hunches on his Art History News blog.
For instance, he thinks that this portrait of a lady at Petworth [above], attributed to Van Dyck, really is by the artist himself, done in the mid 1620s in Italy.
This kind of response is really encouraging. It means people are now starting to use the National Trust Collections site for research and comparison. The site itself (and the National Trust’s curatorial records) will also benefit from these responses, as more information comes to light and opinions are exchanged.
Once again we see the potential of crowd sourcing – which, in the slightly rarified area of old master paintings expertise, should perhaps be called in-crowd sourcing (but an in-crowd accessible to all).
Emile has also kindly sent me a higher-res image of the portrait above; it certainly does seem like an Italian-period Van Dyck to me, albeit one that appears to have suffered a degree of damage. Now I just need to wait till Petworth reopens to go and see it 'in the flesh'...
The wrong 'Bloody Mary'
January 4 2012
Picture: Chile Foundry
