Previous Posts: articles 2018
Mona Lisa theory no. 742
December 3 2014
Picture: BG
She was a chinese slave who was Leonardo's mother. Or something like that. More here.
Update - a reader writes:
Ah, but the individual numerals of 742 add to 13, which is the unlucky number of Christ and the apostles, including Judas, at the last Supper, and Leonardo's is the most famous painting of the Last Supper, so Mona Lisa theory number 742 must be true!!
O.
M.
G!
New Raeburns & Van Dyck for the Scottish Portrait Gallery
December 3 2014
Picture: AIL/SNPG
The Scottish National Portrait Gallery has acquired the above handsome portraits by Raeburn, of Lady Helen Montgomery (d.1828) and her father-in-law, Sir James Montgomery. The acquisition came through the UK government's Acceptance in Lieu scheme, and settled £210,000 worth of death duties. We are not told where the portraits came from; ie, what a nice irony it would be if, after the referendum, they were allocated to a Scottish gallery from an estate in England...
More details here, and a report on the frame here.
The Raeburns are not the SNPG's only AIL acquisition of late - the below portrait by Van Dyck, of the 2nd Earl of Haddington, was acquired in place of £400,000 of tax (cheap, in my view). This picture, however, remains 'in situ' at Mellerstain House in Berwickshire. Sometimes this 'in situ' arrangement works well, if, for example, a work of art hangs in an interior that was built around it. But in the present case I'm not so sure it does. The picture currently hangs in the small, side wing public entrance to Mellerstain, just opposite the cash till. There seems to me to be no compelling reason for the picture not to be on display in a more publicly accessible place, such as the SNPG itself. But it's not even on their website (hence the rubbish photo).
6,000 new 'Late Rembrandt' tickets
December 3 2014
Pictures: National Gallery / BG
6,000 new tickets have been released for Late Rembrandt at the National Gallery, and you can even go to the exhibition till 9pm on Sundays. More here.
I was amused to see how heavily they're pushing Rembrandt-esque gifts at the National Gallery's shop. There's a Rembrant plate (with his self-portrait on) for £40, a faux gold painted handbag, various furry things like cushions and scarves, a not very enticing small framed reproduction of a self-portrait, and...
... a Rembrandt brolly!
National Gallery buys newly discovered Wilkie (ctd.)
December 3 2014
Picture: BG
I dashed into the National Gallery on Monday to take a look at their new Wilkie acquisition, which was debated with some passion amongst AHN readers last week.
As you can see above, it's a little overwhelmed in its current place. The room it's in is dripping with sizeable masterpieces by Turner, Stubbs, Gainsborough and Hogarth. And then there's the Wilkie, which I can see is a fine picture, and an interesting acquisition in itself. But I must confess to being a little disappointed.
And yesterday I recieved the below comment from a reader who I shan't name, but whose opinion I respect utterly, and who speaks from a position of great authority in the UK's museum sector:
The concern of many commentators about the quality of the National Gallery's acquisitions in recent years is entirely justified. Many of us vividly remember, just over ten years ago, that Brian Sewell was outraged that they should spend half a million pounds on a remarkably ugly sketch by Polidoro da Caravaggio from the collection of Philip Pouncey, at one time a curator in the Gallery. Since then, a succession of generally small paintings has arrived in Trafalgar Square, by gift, bequest, and purchase, which have served no purpose but to dilute the quality of the Gallery's supremely rich holdings and hardly deserve display space. The Lawrence of Lady Emily Lamb is charming, but not important; nor is the new Wilkie, happy though it may be as a rediscovery. The responsibility must lie with curators, directors, and above all the trustees, who, in contrast to many museums, make decisions over every single acquisition. It comes as no surprise to find that, among current trustees, tha great majority have a financial background, that only one is an artist, and that not there is not a single art historian among them! One Trustee (currently Hannah Rothschild) acts as a Trustee for both the Tate and the National Gallery. Such a position, which some might consider unenviable, suggests that far greater co-operation between these two institutions is not only highly desirable, but possible. If the National Gallery wishes for greater representation of the British School, in particular, it would surely be sensible to arrange a long-term deposit of some of the pictures currently in the Tate's vast store in South London. Of course, there have also been triumphs in recent years, in particular in [...] the acquisition of the Duke of Sutherland's Titians; but far too many mistakes, the most expensive being the ridiculous Bellows, 'de-accessioned' by a U.S. museum (contrary to all N.G. principles) and snapped up at an enormous (some would say unjustifiable) price.
In order to restore faith in the Trustees and staff of the National Gallery, the Government must immediately appoint Trustees who are both distinguished art historians and connoisseurs. Without them, this great institution will continue to blunder into mistake after mistake.
On Monday, I congratulated the dealer who discovered and bought the Wilkie, and commiserated with the dealer who discovered and underbid it. You win some, you lose some...
I also bumped into a strong contender for director of the National Gallery. I wonder if a wee re-hang might be amongst the first things they do...
Update - a US based reader wrties:
I know the Wilkie well and think it is a brilliant acquisition of an artist who is very much unfashionable. I wish an American museum had been prescient enough to buy it instead of the 19th century Scandinavian & German oil-sketch daubs they are all wild about these days.
The problem with its current hang is that out belongs amongst early 19th century French pictures -Like Bonington and Delacroix’s ‘historical ‘ genre subjects it is very much a ‘troubadour’ picture.
While another disagrees about the trustees:
I think the answer is not to appoint art historians and connoisseurs as NG trustees, but to devolve decisions on acquisitions to a separate committee, comprised of them.
Years ago the NACF suffered from the opposite problem. The trustees were retired museum people, experts in their fields but unworldly. Their meetings were dominated by consideration of grant applications - museums that wanted the NACF's help to buy something would bring the object to the trustee meeting, where it would be debated. That was all well and good, for producing robust grant decisions. But they had no interest in the operation of the organisation itself - and why would they? For them, the glory was all in their power over major museum acquisitions, not in dull stuff like strategy, budgets, headcount, marketing, contracts, and so on.
Personally, I would like to see more art historian-like figures as trustees of the National. And that's not just because I want to be one. Honest.
All change for the CEOs...
December 3 2014
Picture: TAN
Christie's CEO, Steven Murphy, is leaving, the company has announced. This just days after Sotheby's CEO also announced his departure. Melanie Girlis in The Art Newspaper says it's 'extraordinary'.
Update - a well connected reader tells me all sorts of interesting things about the departure, most of which are alas unprintable. The main question to ask is, why, if everything is so rosy at Christie's after their most successful sale ever (the recent $852m 'mega sale' of contemporary art), is the CEO is suddenly going? Did Christie's actually make much in the way of profit from the sale? And did the deployment of so much in the way of guarantees represent an acceptable level of risk? Of course, as a private company, the figures will never be known. But as Shakespeare said, 'all that glisters is not gold'.
Update II - The new CEO has been announced, Patricia Barbizet, who is CEO of Artemis SA, the holding company owned by Christie's owner, Francois Pinault. More here.
Bargain of the week?
December 3 2014
Picture: Christie's
Here's a picture I loved at Christie's this week - a portrait of Rodin by Eugène Carrière. The two were good friends. It was estimated at £6,000-£8,000, which I thought was cheap. It was also not in the main Old Master sales, but in a seperate French decorative sale. I sensed a possible bargain... but it sold today for £68,500.
2.5%
December 3 2014
Picture: Christie's
The total for last night's Old Master sale at Christie's was £13.9m, which is about 2.5% of the total for their most recent evening Modern & Contemporary sale. For the small change found down the back of a Koons sofa, you could have bought, amongst other things, a portrait by Van Dyck which formerly belonged to King Charles I (above, £2.8m, all prices inc. premium), a Willem van de Velde seascape (£2.2m), and a Venetian view by Canaletto (£1.3m). All good musum level stuff. But who am I kidding in even making such a comparison...
The above mentioned Van Dyck was a portrait of the musician, Hendrick Liberti. One of two known versions (the other is in Munich), I suspect it must be the first. The condition was a little problematic in parts, especially the background and some of the dark glazes in areas such as the hair and hands. Much of the drapery was covered by layers of uncleaned, older varnish. In conservation lingo, this is known as a 'porthole clean', when someone just cleans the obvious bits like the head and hands. In this case, we must be thankful that whoever did that didn't go further.
The newly discovered Van Dyck head study (which I mentioned here last month) made £494,500, which figure puts into perspective the £300,000-£500,000 estimate at which a similar Van Dyck head study (from the same series of Brussels Magistrates portraits of the early 1630s) failed to sell earlier this year (the one that was discovered on the Antiques Roadshow, illustrated here).
Personally, I preferred the modeling of the head and the characterisation of the 'Roadshow' picture. But the picture sold yesterday had the advantage of being in much better condition, and consequently appeared much better painted, full of virtuoso strokes. It was also 'fresh' to the market - in the sense that it hadn't been turned into too much of a news story. Sometimes this can damage a picture's prospects at auction, at least in the Old Master world.
Why? Because the Old Master market is, like many markets, underpinned by dealers (despite, some might say, the best efforts of the auction houses to kill off independent dealers). If a picture is presented at auction with great fanfare, and freshly cleaned, then there's little prospect of a dealer bidding on it for stock and prepared to hold it for a number of years, because there's no way they can add value. So at the time of the auction, the only people who might have bid on the 'Roadshow' picture were private collectors who were looking for a Van Dyck head study at that particular moment, and with the ready cash to pay for it within 30 days. And you can take it from me that there's not many people like that around.
Therefore - and slightly paradoxically perhaps - the picture that sold yesterday benefited from having a great deal of later over-paint still on it (such as in the background and the clothing, which was added at a later date, the concept of the 'unfinished' being a relatively new aesthetic trend). As a commercial prospect it's much more enticing to the trade, because they can buy it, take off the over-paint, and restore it to how Van Dyck left it (which will be something like the similar study in the Ashmolean museum). Obviously, there's a risk in doing this, as the picture might in fact be knackered beneath (though I doubt it). They might even have this done in time for the great art fair at Maastricht. Now, I don't know for sure that it was bought by the trade, but I can guarantee you some in the trade would have bid on it. And at auction, maximising the price is (usually) all about maximising the number of bidders.
Finally, you might ask, why was the 'Roadshow' discovery not put into the auction with all its overpaint left on? And the answer to that is quite simple; in that case, the overpaint - and dirt and old varnish - were so completely disfiguring that it wasn't actually possible to see (at least not to non-Van Dyck nerds like me) that the picture was by Van Dyck at all. So it had to be cleaned. You can see what it used to look like here. It'll sell, one day...
Anyway, this review of yesterday's sale prices has turned into an impromptu guide to how the market in newly discovered Van Dyck paintings works. Other notable sales last night included a fine portrait by Batoni which made £344k, and a portrait of a young boy by Joos van Cleve. Sotheby's has the weightier sale this time round - their Turner notwithstanding - and I expect well see a higher overall total at their sale tonight. It might even reach a full five percent of that Christie's contemporary sale.
Today...
December 1 2014
...I'm off to London to see the Old Master sales. Back tomorrow...
Sleeper Alert!
November 28 2014
Picture: The Saleroom
Just a tiddler this one, and one that, annoyingly, I missed by a mere half an hour (that is, the lot had passed by the time I'd seen it and logged in to bid), but nonetheless a sensitively rendered portrait of an unknown old woman by Joseph Wright of Derby, and a bargain at £750. Now, I know you're all thinking the sitter isn't exactly a beaut - but I think it's a great picture nonetheless. Sometimes, the older and craggier the sitter, the better.
Ouch! The 'sleeper' bites back (ctd.)
November 28 2014
Picture: Lyon & Turnbull
I mentioned earlier this month the curious story of the quarter of a million pound 'sleeper' being consigned back into auction at just £2,000-£3,000. The painting, an oil on copper depiction of Hercules, was being offered at Lyon & Turnbull in Edinburgh as 'Manner of Francesco Albani' (above), despite having beeing bought at Bonhams last year for £254,000 where it was suspected by some of being by one of the Carraccis. Yesterday, the picture sold for £25,000 inc. premium, so that's pretty much a £225,000 hit. Ouch indeed...
I've never seen anyone cut their losses and run like that before. Normally, even if you couldn't get the experts to endorse with your 'sleeper' attribution, you'd hang on in there, in the hope that somebody somewhere might agree with you. The only possible explanation, I thought, was that the picture was an out and out fake, and had been consigned to Bonhams in a 'dirty' state, and cunningly devised to relate to a known drawing attributed to Annibale Carracci in which the hand is in a different position. In other words, the buyer at Bonhams felt there was no chance of the picture being worth anything, and wanted out.
But I went to see the picture, which has since been cleaned, and (although I couldn't spend too long looking at it - you try viewing an auction with an 11 week old) I thought that it probably was period. Admittedly, it wasn't a great painting, but I wouldn't rule out that it was painted by the same hand, or at least in the studio of the same hand, as made the drawing. From what I could gather, at least one prominent specialist on the Carraccis had not been shown the painting at all.
So it's all most curious. It seems thatsomeone bought it, but was unhappy with the cleaned picture, and simply decided not to bother pursuing the attribution any more. As a paid up member of Sleeper Hunters Anonymous, I can understand the attraction of taking a punt on things like this. But I can only dream of having such deep pockets.
By the way, if the pockets were yours, and you need a little guidance in the auction field, you know who to call...
Gurlitt horde (ctd.)
November 28 2014
Picture: Guardian
The Kunstmuseum in Berne has now formally accepted the bequest of Cornelius Gurlitt’s art collection. (Regular readers will remember that this was reported here as far back as October). The Kunstmuseum says they will return any legitimately claimed works, and keep the rest. More here.
In The Guardian, Nigel Warburton looks at the legal and moral implications of Berne accepting the bequest.
Sleeper Alert
November 28 2014
Picture: Cheffins
These 'Circle of John Constable' clouds made £32,000 against a £300-£500 estimate at a regional UK auction yesterday. More images here.
Perronneau catalogue raisonné
November 28 2014
Picture: National Gallery
Neil Jeffares informs us that a new catalogue raisonné of Jean- Baptiste Perronneau's work will be published in January. He's one of my favourite French artists, and I particularly like the way his pastel technique (he was primarily a pastelist) translates into oil, as seen in the above portrait of Jacques Cazotte in the National Gallery. I've not come across a firm link, but I've often wondered if he had an impact on Gainsborough's later work.
I look forward to seeing the book, which is published by Arthena, and written by Dominique d'Arnoult. As is often the case with these things, there's no easily findable website to send you to (not even on Amazon). So I'm not sure how you'd buy it.
Update - a reader sends in this astonishing fact:
Thrilled to hear about the catalogue: if anyone decided to put on a show of 18thc French portraits, he would emerge as a real star. Come to think of it, why hasn't there been one; I think people would be surprised how consistently good the works would be from the epochs of Rigaud to David. And, as your other recent post shows, the portrait sculpture was exceptional.
One other thought per the recent dicsussions around the National's new Wilkie. The Perronneau of Cazotte, which is a masterpiece, was bought by the Gallery at public auction in 1976 - for £88,000 I recall - and is only one example of the practice of the then Director, Michael Levey, to bring in to the collection, and thereby for the public in this country overall, works by unfamiliar but important artists.
It remains the only Perronneau painting in UK collections: PCF list 132 works by Wilkie.
And yes, in terms of price, French 18th portraits are cheap. I'm not sure why. I think the overall aesthetic is too 'peaches and cream' for today's modern taste. We could never shift them when I was flogging portraits in London. But doubtless this'll change.
Update II - Neil Jeffares has the order form here. It seems the publishers don't have a website. So much for digital art history...
All hail 'Your Sculptures'
November 28 2014
Picture: Fitzwilliam Museum
Splendid news from the Public Catalogue Foundation; they have been awarded £2.84m by the Heritage Lottery Fund to begin digitising the UK's collection of sculptures. The project follows on from the PCF's ground breaking Your Paintings project, where over 200,000 oil paintings in public ownership were photographed and put online.
The PCF estimates that there are 85,000 objects to photograph, and 15,000 outdoor works. More details here.
The image above is one of my favourite sculptures in the UK, which I used to gaze at when I was at Cambridge; the Fitzwilliam's Philippe-Laurent Roland self-portrait. Personally, I think terracotta makes for the best portrait busts, and here we have further evidence that when artists portray themselves, they really push the boat out. I look forward to seeing how the Your Sculpture project presents such works. My hope is that the resolution of their photos is better than those available on Your Paintings.
'Hockney', The Movie
November 28 2014
Video: 'Hockney, Live from LA'
I'd like to see this, a feature film looking at Hockney's life. I can't find a website for the film, but it's in cinemas from today. Iain Miller in The Art Newspaper reports on Hockney's interview in a 'live screening' from earlier this week.
Art History sexism (ctd.)
November 28 2014
Regular readers will know of my little campaigns against 'The Girl Walking Blurrily in Front of a Painting' photo, and also 'The Useless White Glove' photo. Here, in The Telegraph, Claire Cohen, rails against the practice:
Just why is it that the moment it’s time to flog antiques or artworks, auction houses grab the nearest “young filly” (likely an employee who has better things to do). Are we really happy to patronise buyers by suggesting their wallets will magically open at the sight of a pretty girl? The poor women in these prehistoric auction house pictures look out of place – and I bet they feel it.
How do I know? I used to be one of them.
Before becoming a journalist, I worked in the press office of a leading London auction house. It was a desk job – my first. Yet, time and again I was dragged off to pose alongside various artefacts. Who’s that grinning inanely at a Francis Bacon triptych? Me. Pretending to drive Hitler’s 1939 Auto Union D-Type car, worth upwards of £6 million? Guilty. That figure wearing a Stormtrooper helmet from the first Star Wars film looks familiar. Me again. […]
Posing in front of the camera like a mannequin, it was hard not to feel like the blue-blooded equivalent of the bikini-clad lovelies who parade the ring between rounds at a big fight.
Now, I look at the young women in such sales pictures and cringe. They represent an outdated, old boys’ club – the very image that many of our most prestigious auction houses have gone to great lengths to ditch.
Actually, I'm not sure the most prestigious auction houses have gone to any lengths to ditch such practices. But actually, who is to blame here? Isn't it 'us', that is, the readers of newspapers and websites whom, picture editors and auction house PRs assume, need to have our visual radar piqued by something else going on in the photo, other than the art? And do we demand, albeit subconsciously, that that 'something else' is eye-catching, attractive, even female? Isn't that the same reason that two identically painted portraits of the same size by Gainsborough can so wildly differ in value, if one is of an old man two weeks away from his first heart attack (£10k) and the other a pretty young woman in a dashing dress (say, £5m)?
I'm not sure what the answer is, let me know what you think...
Update - a reader writes:
This is the most shameless example I've seen:
Also this recent one amused as the girl's reflection in the glass means she appears in the picture twice as often as Rembrandt does"
That might be a perfectly innocent one where they wanted someone looking at the picture but it's never usually an old lady and I suppose in that respect it's no different from most other PR managed images we see. Images of young women are used to promote most things because it sells but perhaps it just looks more ridiculous with art because the artwork itself is supposed to be the visually stimulating image.
The top one is fantastic, a real genre-leading example; white gloves, a young lovely, a Rembrandt, the classic 'I'm not actually lifting the picture' position, and... cleavage! Anyone got any better examples?
Update II - a reader with experience of these things writes:
Not that important but I thought an insider view point might be an interesting Friday distraction and you do always bang on about "the girl in the press photo"!
In my experience the decision to use a young girl is usually never anything to do with the ‘auction house’ or the specialist department of the item in question. Unfortunately most auction house specialists don’t have enough time to dedicate a whole morning to taking copious amounts of press shots from slightly different angles with overly enthusiastic photographers. Nor is there some sort of misogynistic board of chairmen with nothing more pressing to do than demand a young girl is used for the shoot.
Usually the press office is responsible for the model and usually it will be the youngest employee or intern in the department willing to do what the elders don't have time for. Invariably they are not only young but female as the pr industry seems to female heavy...or at least It is at our auction house as I have never met a bloke working in our pr team in my years!
If anyone does demand anything at all its usually the photographer. Usually free-lance/external anyway, they are often more used to shooting z-list celebrities and therefore think a young lady or a pair of white gloves will make a painting as ‘cool’ to the tabloid readership.
'Stuart Little', art sleuth
November 28 2014
Picture: Guardian
Nice story in The Guardian about a picture discovery via the film 'Stuart Little':
A long-lost avant garde painting has returned home to Hungary after nine decades thanks to a sharp-eyed art historian who spotted it being used as a prop in the Hollywood film Stuart Little.
In 2009, Gergely Barki, a researcher at Hungary’s national gallery, noticed Sleeping Lady with Black Vase by Robert Bereny in the 1999 children’s movie about a mouse as he watched TV with his daughter Lola.
“I couldn’t believe my eyes when I saw Bereny’s long-lost masterpiece on the wall behind Hugh Laurie. I nearly dropped Lola from my lap,” Barki, 43, said.
“A researcher can never take his eyes off the job, even when watching Christmas movies at home.” The painting disappeared in the 1920s, but Barki recognised it immediately even though he had only seen a faded black-and-white photo dating from a 1928 exhibition.
He sent a flurry of emails to staff at the film’s makers, Sony Pictures and Columbia Pictures, and received a reply from a former set designer – two years later.
“She said the picture was hanging on her wall,” Barki said.
Prince Charles and Hockney on drawing
November 28 2014
Picture: Guardian
Prince Charles has persuaded his mum to grant the moniker ‘Royal’ to the drawing school he established some years ago. More details here.
For a reminder of why the Prince’s drawing school is a Good Thing, here’s a recent quote from David Hockney, from a piece in The Spectator by Martin Gayford:
He laments the neglect of drawing in recent art education. ‘People had been drawing for 40,000 years, and they gave it up in 1975. It’s almost funny. But they couldn’t give it up really. You can’t: it’s always back to the drawing board!’ By that, he means that any new way of seeing the world will have to be produced by the human eye, heart and hand, working together. And this applies as much to new types of photographic imagery as it does to paintings.
Such a view is, for me, one of the reasons Hockney will endure as one of the great artists of our age. I’m always surprised that, in financial terms, his work is relatively inexpensive, compared to some of the guff that sells for millions. That said, I’ve long wanted to own a Hockney drawing, and they’re way too pricey for me…
Apologies
November 23 2014
I'm away today, Monday, so not much doing here I'm afraid. That said, we've had a number of new comments on recent stories such as the National Gallery's Wilkie purchase and the Royal Collection, so there's some good debate to catch up on and contribute to, if you fancy.
In fact, I'll take this opportunity to thank all of you for your continuing support and contributions, which make all the difference to the site (and indeed motivate me to keep going). So, thanks!
Update - more apologies! I've been away Tuesday, and will also be away tomorrow, Wednesday, too. But - standby for a slew of stories on Thursday.
And... I've put up some contributions to the National Gallery and Royal Collection debates that were kindly sent in yesterday. They raise interesting points, so do take a look.
Update II - well, this is embarrassing; today, Thursday, is actually my birthday, which I'd forgotten. So there won't be the promised 'slew', as we're out and about for the day. So, stand by for tomorrow's slew instead... Sorry!
Update III - Happy Thanksgiving!
New Royal Collection display at Hampton Court
November 21 2014
Picture: Guardian
Excellent news from the Royal Collection and Historic Royal Palaces; the 'Cumberland Rooms' at Hampton Court Palace have been refurbished and re-hung with some of the Royal Collection's finest paintings. There's even a Rembrandt self-portrait. Many pats on the back for both the RC and HRP for helping get so much great art out on display.
The Guardian's Jonathan Jones has been to see the new display, and writes:
The Cumberland Art Gallery – named after the Georgian prince William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, for whom in the 1730s William Kent created the suite of palace rooms where the superbly lit and sensitively selected new gallery has now been installed – is the Royal Collection’s latest attempt to display its art to us, the public. It is like looking into the Queen’s jewel box. This is a much more convincing royal art space than the Queen’s Gallery at Buckingham Palace, which always feels like a liveried adjunct to the royal tourist industry and has never succeeded in competing with London’s big museums – its exhibition of Leonardo da Vinci’s drawings a few years ago, for instance, drew nothing like the attention the National Gallery’s Leonardo show got. [...]
Curator Brett Dolman says the thinking behind the new gallery was precisely to free the art from “heritage”. Paintings by artists as lofty as Rubens can be seen all over this palace, as part of its decor or even as props in tableaux of royal splendour.
“We’re aware that when you hang paintings in that way you sometimes can’t get near to the art,” he concedes. So the new gallery “is where art speaks for itself”.
It does so absorbingly in what amounts to a permanent gallery of some of the Queen’s very best paintings. The Rembrandt is stupendous. Admittedly the Queen has some other mighty Rembrandts that are not on view here, as well as a drop-dead Vermeer. But there are enough splendours of Renaissance and Baroque painting to satisfy anyone. Two Caravaggios reveal the opposing sides of his vision – a boy peels fruit in one of his early sensual works while Jesus calls his disciples to him in a sombre Christian scene. I was more moved however by a painting of St Jerome looking downward with deep introspective eyes by the 17th-century French master of light Georges de la Tour.
The new display is largely due to one of HRP's energetic curators, Brett Dolman, who I'll embarass by identifying here as posing in the above picture on the left, where he and a colleague are partaking in The Useless White Glove Photo Opportunity. Brett has done a great job persuading the Royal Collection to lend so many treasures, and for turning a part of Hampton Court Palace which used to be a little lost into a destination in its own right. He kindly asked me along when the Cumberland rooms were mid-renovation, and asked my views on the potential hang. Of course, I lobbied for Van Dycks to feature prominently... I can't see from the photos in The Guardian's piece whether they are - here's hoping!
Update - a reader writes:
This Gallery sounds magnificent. I can't wait to go and am especially pleased to see Watts's Lady Holland on view (it was cleaned for my exhibition Watts Portraits at the NPG in 2004).
But, and this is a big but, it costs an eye-watering £17.05 to go (more if you pay on the door--£18.20) because it is included in admission to all of Hampton Court Palace.
Doesn't this raise the issue of the status of the paintings in the Royal Collection and just whose paintings they are? I relish the masterpieces in the Royal Collection, admire its publications and value the expertise of its staff, so I certainly don't have an answer to this one. But many people might think twice about paying that much to go and see those wonderful paintings.
Another reader, on a similar theme, adds:
Just a thought on the Royal Collection hanging some of its gems at Hampton Court. Whilst this is good news, it does (as Jonathan Jones alludes) throw light on what is absent.
Ever since seeing Tim's Vermeer earlier in the year (silly concept but a decent film) I've wanted to see Vermeer's Music Lesson and yet because it usually hangs in the Picture Gallery at Buckingham Palace I'm faced with having to await an honour or pay £20.50 to visit the state rooms in the summer. Why is this painting not on regular public show?
We're told that the Queen does not own the Royal Collection, she merely holds it in trust for the nation (and her successors). Well that's potentially a benign technicality as long as we have access to its treasures. But this is one of the world's great paintings (so I'm told) and it is hidden from most people, most of the time. Imagine if the National Gallery had a Vermeer that was in an upstairs room which you could only see when the Director invited you to or you had to pay £20 whilst he was on his summer holiday, what would the reaction be?
Yet with the Royal Collection this is accepted. The Music Lesson is not of a royal, it was not painted for a royal or to be hung in Buckingham Palace and as such there is no particular significance for it being there.
So if the Queen only holds it in trust for us, as she maintains, then could we see it please?
Update II - a curator writes:
Amid all the glamorous Old Masters, nice to see Frank Holl’s grave and lovely picture prominently hung - a seriously under-rated painter.
I agree. I love Holl's portraits - for me, he's often on a par with the likes of Millais and Watts.
Update III - a reader writes:
May I take up the baton and run ( or totter in my case) with it a while ?
It seems to me that your recent correspondents may have missed the fact that the Royal Collection is indeed a private collection and is funded entirely by admission charges ,and other revenue raising enterprises, and from time to time I dare say the Queen opens her handbag to help fund an acquisition as indeed, she has done on many occasions in the past. So far as I know, there is no public funding whatever.
The works of art on display are changed about and loaned to exhibitions all over the world viz the Watts of Lady Holland; and I am told such loan requests are sanctioned by the Queen personally.
I am certain that the vast majority of the works of art ( let’s not forget the furniture, sculpture and applied arts) is on view at most times of the year, throughout the royal residences, with only a small percentage displayed in the private apartments. All such places are staffed and maintained all of which has to be paid for.
All of these factors make it a fairly pricey visit, and short of hanging “Sponsored by Honda “ flags outside Buckingham Palace; I can’t see how else they can continue to delight us.
I have to say I'm inclined to agree with this. I think there's something rather magical about the fact that the Royal Collection is what we might call a 'working collection'. That is, it has a function which goes beyond the usual one of public display, and retains something of the original purpose of a 'royal collection'; that of pure decoration, be it in an ambassador's waiting room or the Queen's private study. Therefore, we ought to be patient that while I suppose 'we', the public' really own the collection, we cannot always see everything in it. Not being able to see a picture because it's being looked by the Queen is much more acceptable to me than the various excuses our museums come up with for keeping 80% of their works locked away in storage. And, for me, the Royal Collection staff more than make up for any access issues by consistently putting on some of the best exhibitions inthe world.
Update IV - a reader from Italy writes:
In my opinion the British royal collection is better 'visible' and better studied than many museums in Your country or abroad.
I think to the wonderful catalogues of Castiglione drawings , 2013, or Italian Renaissance and Baroque pictures, 2007 for example...
And it's true they often loan very important pieces to scientific exhibitions.
I live in Italy, and I could see wonderful royal paintings loaned to the Carracci exhibition in Bologna, 2006, a beautiful Cagnacci in Forlì, 2008, a supposed Raphael portrait in Urbino, 2009, and also in 2003 the Duccio tryptich in Siena at the monographic show (the NG or the American museums didn't loan anything). I remember also a Mantegna 'triumph' in Paris in the 2008 big exhbition.
So the RC has to be congratulated for the care but also for sharing the Queen treasures (and look at the web site!). Sure, it's expensive to visit the Residences, but also if you visit the Louvre or the Vatican museums....in Florence and Siena now we have to pay for visit churches!
