Previous Posts: articles 2018
Doing 'justice to Rembrandt'
August 27 2014
Video: National Trust
I reported earlier this summer the National Trust's recent re-discovery of a Rembrandt self-portrait at Buckland Abbey; but I've only just seen the above video, where they show some of the x-rays of the picture, and its conservation. Most interesting, perhaps, are the (all too brief) comments from the pre-eminent Rembrandt scholar Ernst van der Wetering, who speaks of his desire to 'do justice to Rembrandt' when uncovering his lost works. This might sound a bit daft, but it's a motivation I recognise; when I see a good painting that's been unjustly downgraded, I often feel the need to act as the artist's posthumous champion. Of course, the same goes for bad pictures that have been wrongly upgraded.
Mike Leigh on 'Mr Turner'
August 27 2014
Video: National Trust
The National Trust has a short video of Mike Leigh discussing his new film on Turner, starring Timothy Spall, and why he chose to do much of the filming at Petworth House, where Turner frequently stayed.
Note to the NT - the Turner National Trust link at the end of the film doesn't work.
Rubens self-portrait to be restored in London
August 26 2014
Picture: Rubenshuis
The Rubenshuis' very fine c.1630 Rubens self-portrait is to be sent to the National Gallery in London in September for conservation. More here. You can zoom in on the portrait here.
Update - a reader writes:
Good of the National Gallery to help out, as they did with van Eyck, and I assume they are charging for it or at least getting something substanantial in return. Otherwise, I ams sure there are any number of regional collections in this country which would be only too delighted to have the Gallery's conservation studio's apply their expertise on works they hold.
Constable vs. Turner
August 26 2014
Picture: Tate
Two of the greats of English landscape art, Turner and Constable, go head to head in exhibitions in London this September; Tate will look at 'Late Turner' (10th Sept till 25th Jan), while the V&A's 'Constable: the Making of a Master' will examine the artist's techniques (20th Sept-11th Jan). Jonathan Jones in The Guardian asks which was best, but concludes that:
Choosing between them is like choosing between two visions of art: the realist versus the abstract.
Martin Gayford also looked at the Constable/Turner rivalry in The Sunday Times (£), and came down on Constable's side. The V&A has a blog on how they've put the exhbition together.
PS - It's looking like an autumn and winter of great shows in London: Rubens at the RA, late Rembrandt at the National, and now these two. Well done to all involved!
Update - a reader writes:
"Choosing between them is like choosing between two visions of art: the realist versus the abstract."
Thankfully we don't have to choose, for we can have both. And in any event 'the realist versus the abstract' where these two artists are concerned is nonsense. They are both very much types of realist, Turner especially (don't take my word for it; try reading Ruskin on the subject).
Update II - James Fox in The Times (£) says Turner is the clear winner in any contest between the two. I agree.
Cleaning Edward VI
August 25 2014
Video: NPG
Nicole Ryder of the National Portrait Gallery explains how she's going to clean the museum's c.1542 Portrait of Edward VI.
Mixing commercial and public art
August 25 2014
Picture: TAN
The Art Newspaper reports that the Gallery of Modern Art in Rome is building a wing which will house works on loan from the Gagosian Gallery next door:
Rome’s modern art museum, the Galleria d’Arte Moderna di Roma Capitale, is planning an extension that will display contemporary works on loan from its commercial neighbour Gagosian, La Repubblica reports.
Rome’s urban planning commissioner Giovanni Caudo is working on the development of a new wing in an area that lies between the two buildings on Via Francesco Crispi and was formerly used by AMA, the capital’s waste collection agency. The projected 2265 sq. m expansion will allow the museum to exhibit more of its collection.
To supplement the permanent holdings of late 19th-century and early 20th-century works, a courtyard space will also host temporary displays of sculptures by Gagosian artists such as Jeff Koons, Damien Hirst or Franz West. The commercial gallery is “ready to collaborate with the public institution”, Caudo says.
Often, the ethical dangers of a relationship between a commercial gallery and a public one are overstated. But in this case it looks rather strange. In the contemporary world, museum endorsement is key to establishing the status and value of an artist. A rotating display between dealership and museum benefits Gagosian hugely, and one has to ask what the museum gets in return, save the chance to display yet another Koons toy.
'Rubens and his Legacy'
August 25 2014
Picture: National Gallery of Australia
I see that the Royal Academy will have an exhibition early next year called 'Rubens and his Legacy'. No further details are given by the RA yet, save the dates on the friends' page; 24th January-10th April.
Before that, the show will be in Brussels at the Bozar Centre for Fine Arts, opening on 25th September. But the Bozar website for the exhibition begins unpromisingly, with this curious comparison:
Rubens was the Quentin Tarantino of his day, making Flanders one of the world’s foremost regions for painting. The Flemish master-painter developed his own personal style, crafting scenes that exuded lust and were marked by violence, as well as compassion and elegance. These themes inspired artists all over the world for many centuries to come. In this unique exhibition by BOZAR, in collaboration with the Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp and the Royal Academy of Arts in London you can rediscover the work of this indomitable genius that has withstood the test of time as well as that of his heirs. You can also see canvases by Van Dyck, Watteau, Delacroix, Manet and Kokoschka as well as engravings by Rembrandt and Picasso.
The show is curated by Nico Van Hout, who, amongst other things, is currently writing a volume of the Corpus Rubenianum on Rubens' head studies.
Me in the FT
August 22 2014
Picture: BG
I've written a piece for the Financial Times on the National Gallery in London allowing photography. The piece will appear in tomorrow's paper, which you are all warmly encouraged to buy. They also asked me to make a short podcast, which you can hear here. Hope you like it!
Update - here's a link to the article.
Update II - a distinguished Emeritus Professor writes:
The National in allowing photography is a great step forward. I,for one, think anything that can be done to bring more people into galleries to look at paintings and enjoy them is a good thing. Also for the more committed taking photographs to view later to uncover even more of a painting, its composition, technique and colours is a welcome addition to the material usually available.
The availability of wi-fi allows us to access immediately material on the painting being viewed. This enhances our appreciation of the painting. To some this may appear to be a poor substitute for years of education but it makes more accessible, in a small way, the painting to those of us who have not had the benefit of such an education.
Another reader writes:
I liked the snarky comment about The Guardian and appreciated the FT for discovering your site.
A US art history student, Christopher Moore, thinks photography should be banned, however, and explains why on his blog. He's right though that the main problem is over-crowding.
Art History Comedy
August 22 2014
Picture: Hannah Gadsby
I've always kept an eye for art history jokes. There's the old Tommy Cooper one about him finding a Stradivarius and a Rembrandt in his loft, and then confessing that that sadly Rembrandt made rubbish violins, and Stradivarius was no painter. But to be honest, that was about it.
Or so I thought, until last night I went to see the Australian comedian and trained art historian Hannah Gadsby at the Edinburgh Fringe. Her show, The Exhibitionist, is about portraiture, and in particular how sitters, including artists, represented themselves in art in the past in relation to how we do so today, when photographs and the 'selfie' are ubiquitous. Her show is both completely hilarious, and thought provoking. I would urge you all to see her if you get the chance. There are two more days to go for the Edinburgh show, which you can book here. You can follow Hannah on Twitter here.
We also went to see Phill Jupitus talking about art, and specifically his attempts to make copies of various pictures in the National Gallery of Scotland. He was excellent too, and loves paintings. He's slightly obsessed, but in a rather touching way, about John Singer Sargent's Lady Agnew. He did a number of shows for the National Gallery of Scotland for free, so good for him.
Update - a reader sends in another old favourite:
Years ago a clever thief devised and executed a brilliant theft at the Louvre and made off with numerous impressionist and post-impressionist paintings. Tragically for him his van, loaded with the paintings, ran out of fuel a mere few blocks from the Louvre and he was apprehended by the Gendarmes. Later under questioning the incredulous Gendarmes asked him how it was possible that in the execution of such a daring crime could fail on such a small point as fuel.
With a typical Gaelic shrug he said “I did not have enough Monet to make my Van Gogh”…
Boom, boom.
Here's a genuine art history joke though; when Van Dyck was asked why he took such care with his sitters' hands, he replied, 'Because the hands pay the bill'.
Emails... (ctd.)
August 22 2014
Still having some issues, and many from the last week have only just come through. So sorry if you've sent comments and they haven't been posted. Should all be up now.
The world's greatest forger?
August 22 2014
Video: Oscilloscope Laboratories
A new film has been made about an elderly American called Mark Landis, who for my money is one of the most ingenious forgers of all time. Landis' trick is to fake a work of art, by artist's as diverse as Picasso and Watteau, and then pose as a benefactor to a museum, duping them to accept the work as a gift. Sometimes he dresses up as a vicar, to persuade unwary curators and registrars of his good intentions. Despite being unmasked in 2008, he has never been, and cannot be, prosecuted in the US because he never took any money for his 'donations'. He merely exposed, with what are really very simple and occasionally crude forgeries, a worrying lack of connoisseurship in some institutions. Sometimes he just painted over a photocopy.
More on him here, and here. The film, Art and Craft, opens in the US in late September.
Update - a reader sends this link a good piece on Landis in the New Yorker.
A stolen Van Dyck recovered?
August 21 2014
Picture: Telegraph
The Telegraph has a report of a nasty robbery in a castle in Staffordshire, which describes the above 'portrait of Oliver Cromwell' as having been stolen, but fortunately later recovered. The sitter is in fact Charles Louis, Elector Palatine, and the image is this portrait of him by Van Dyck, which sold at Sotheby's in 2005 for £456k. Is it the same painting, or perhaps just a photographic reproduction? A nice recovery if the former.
A fox in the National Portrait Gallery
August 21 2014
Video still: Francis Alys
The National Portrait Gallery has just tweeted this video, which was an 'installation' (I think that's what contemporarists would call it) by Francis Alys in 2004, where:
On the night of 7 April 2004, a fox was freed in the National Portrait Gallery. Its wanderings through the galleries were recorded by the institution's CCTV system.
Most curious.
Update - a reader writes:
The should have freed a lama, to see what painting it would spit on
Guffwatch - academic edition
August 20 2014
Picture: Routledge
A reader alerts me to some classic academic Guff, which deserves to ranked as one of the most impenetrable art history paragraphs of all time:
Call for Papers: Special Issue of Culture, Theory and Critique
ART MATTERS: Philosophy, Art History and Art’s Material Presence
The aim of this special issue of Culture, Theory and Critique scheduled for April 2016 publication is to rethink the relationship between art history, on the one hand, and the development of a materialist philosophy of art on the other. There are three points that will provide the issue with its points of orientation.
[...]
3. This idea of the specificity of the work of art plays out not only in time but also within the work of art itself. Indeed, the third point that we wish to address concerns the particular ways that works stage themselves as art, the ways in which the work of art is always a stage on which art’s works is played out. Art rarely, if ever, evinces the caricature of realism in which the work is taken to be no more than the immediate presence internally of that which is present externally, a position that can be defined as the Parrhasius myth. If this mythic structure were followed – and it is a structure that continues to haunt accounts of presentation – it would be as though internality were externality’s immediate presence. To the extent that this structure is not applicable – and its non-applicability can be taken as axiomatic – what works of art inscribe within themselves as part of their being as art is the way their presence is originally mediated. This is to say, then, that the process of mediation is part of the way the work stages itself as art. This process – art’s self-staging – is an important trope in the development of any philosophical encounter with the work of art. What is more, the latter, which is to say the presence of the work as originally mediated, means that any account of art’s work will demand recourse to art’s material presence. Or to put this another way, the impossibility of immediacy necessarily provides an opening towards a materialist philosophy of art.
All attempts at translation welcome. Maybe Google has a programme for it. But I doubt it'll be easy. Does "the particular ways that works stage themselves as art, the ways in which the work of art is always a stage on which art’s works is played out" even constitute anything vaguely like a sentence?
More details of the call to papers here.
Update - Dr Matt Loder of the University of Essex tweets this response:
Your latest "guff" is certainly a little dense & jargon heavy, but it's perfectly grammatical and certainly understandable. It's essentially a critique of philosophers writing about art without talking about art objects or art history.
Ah.
Update II - Michael Savage, aka, the Grumpy Art Historian, has kindly had a go, and isn't as sure as Dr. Loder:
That's the first Guffwatch that I've really struggled to understand. They've all been preposterous and dreadfully written, but I've usually been able to understand what they're getting at fairly readily. I don't see Matt's point from Twitter at all; it seems to presuppose a critique rather than offer one, and it seems to be about philosophy and art history coming together rather than philosophy learning one-sidedly from art history. Anyway, I've had a go at translating, as best I can. I've had to translate rather freely, because I can't re-arrange the individual sentences to make sense:
"What makes something a work of art? Art doesn't just try to imitate reality perfectly. You don't judge a picture of grapes by its ability to trick a bird into thinking they're real. So let's assume that's not the case. Works of art present themselves not as representations of something external (or at least not only as that); they present themselves as works of art. A painted portrait doesn't just claim to represent an individual; it also draws attention to itself as a work of art, a skilful re-creation of a likeness within an artistic tradition. This question of how a work of art establishes itself as art is important for any philosophy of art. Because a work of art is never a direct copy of reality, we have to consider how it establishes itself as art, assessing it within an artistic context rather than judging it against the external reality it's trying to represent. That question can't be answered abstractly, as a purely philsophical problem. That opens the door to a materialist philosophy of art that engages with actual works of art rather than just using art to illustrate more abstract thinking."
Or it might mean something else entirely. Perhaps we could ask the authors when you've had a few more contributions?
Update III - a reader asks:
Could you induce your native guide (excellent, I must say) to clarify the following for me and/or your readership (?). The original states;
"Because a work of art is never a direct copy of reality, we have to consider how it establishes itself as art, assessing it within an artistic context rather than judging it against the external reality it's trying to represent."
But why can't a work of art just remain an indirect copy of reality without 'establishing itself as art' when it already self-evidently is - a work of art, that is, otherwise it wouldn't be self-evidently obvious that is was an indirect copy of reality.
I'm still impenetrably lost, so can't answer that alas.
Update IV: another reader writes:
In the guff, perhaps the work of art means work of creating art Versus a work of art which is a sculpture. Still unintelligible.
Van Dyck or Rubens? (ctd.)
August 19 2014
Picture: Courtauld Collection
Or neither? The above picture has recently gone on display at the Courtauld Gallery in London. It's currently catalogued as 'Van Dyck'. I think was last published by the late Erik Larsen (whose Van Dyck catalogue raisonne is, alas, probably the worst single demonstration of connoisseurship ever published).
The picture was not included in the 2004 Van Dyck catalogue raisonne published by Yale. And I think rightly, for my instincts keep leading me towards Rubens. But I wouldn't want to go to the stake on it. While it's almost certainly good enough to be by one or the other, it dates to that fiendishly difficult period of about 1615-18, when Van Dyck was able to paint almost entirely in Rubens' style.
Unfortunately, this area of scholarship has become very muddled of late, with there seeming to be something of a fashion amongst some Rubens scholars to say things are 'early Van Dyck', despite the outright rejection of such attributions by Van Dyck scholars. The continuing (but entirely unnecessary) uncertainty over Rubens portrait of a young Van Dyck [Rubenshuis] is illustrative of this (incidentally, Larsen thought that picture was by a Scottish artist called Jamesone, of an unknown sitter!) I showed some good photos of the Courtauld picture to a leading and highly respected Van Dyck authority, who also thought it more like Rubens. The characterisation reminds me of an exquisite portrait of a Carmelite Monk sold by Sotheby's in 2011 as Van Dyck, but which had always been known as a work by Rubens, and even descended from that artist. Again, the attribution to Van Dyck of that picture was rejected by Van Dyck scholars.
The Courtauld very kindly allowed me to see the picture in their stores a couple of months ago. If you happen to see it, I'd be interested to know what you think about the attribution.
Update - a reader writes:
Was never wholly convinced by the van Dyck attribution but wouldn’t want to bet on it either.
The thing that intrigues me is that such a fine painting is in store. Seems to be just one more example of a significant work in the Courtauld’s collection not on display and proving yet again what unsuitable premises the Somerset House Fine Rooms are: not enough space to cater for the collection, rooms not being conducive to exhibition (poor side-lighting from windows and works over fireplaces), etc.
It was a disastrous decision to move out of their galleries in Woburn Square – generally reckoned to be the finest small spaces in London being both intimate and light-filled, I wonder what’s happened to them.
And having moved, what do they do? Parcel up the famous Great Room and block out the light. What’s worse, they’ve had at least two goes – and two lots of funding – at improving the public spaces.
Fine paintings in store is nothing knew alas. At any time, 80% of the national collection is in store. I never knew the Woburn Square galleries. I'm a fan of Somerset House, I must say.
Update II - a reader tells us what happened to the Woburn Square galleries, as highlighted in this 2004 University of London report (p.24):
In February 1991 the University granted a 21 year lease of the former Courtauld Gallery in Woburn Square to University College, London for a payment of £900,000.
Bargain. One might say that it's a shame the University isn't as generous when it comes to the Warburg Institute. But we should note that the introduction of the report states that the UL wrote off £7.5m when assigning the lease of Somerset House to the Courtauld Institute.
Update III - a reader wonders:
In response to the van Dyck or Rubens attribution. Instead of neither, could it be by both? A collaboration of sorts? I’m certainly not well versed enough in the career of either artist to offer an erudite opinion, but as they were in the same studio at the same time could the master have completed a section and then his student (van Dyck) have painted another?
Quite possibly!
Update IV - a reader from the Courtauld writes:
The move to Somerset House was meant to reunite the Institute with its collection (which was not the case before, when the collection was in Woburn Square and the Institute in Portman Square). We are actively working on plans to restore the Great Room to its former glory.
Splendid.
Update V - a reader adds:
When the Van Dyck 'portrait of a man in an armchair' was sold from The Lord Penrhyn collection by Sotheby's in 1924 it was sold as Rubens, so the pendulum seems to be swinging back...
Update VI - a Facebooking reader writes:
I have Le Connoisseur (Facebook) on the case and members of the Rubenianum are helping as well with your query regarding the Courtauldʼs Rubens or Van Dyck painting ! Will get back to you if anything is forthcoming. [...] "fat files" in Antwerp sound promising.
Here's a link to the Facebook group, but you need to be a Facebooker to get into it. Which I'm not.
'Could computers put art historians out of a job?'
August 19 2014
Picture: University of New Jersey
So asked yesterday's Daily Telegraph, which reported that:
Computer scientists have used the latest image processing techniques to analyse hundreds of works of art and unearth previously unconsidered sources of inspiration between artists.
Art can be analysed by looking at space, texture, form, shape, colour and tone, but also more mechanical aspects such as brushstrokes and even historical context. Traditionally this has been the role of art historians, but computers could soon be sufficiently advanced as to be able to take over, claim researchers at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.
The story boils down to the fact that computers can recognise things in paintings. Researchers concluded that the above pictures by Van Gogh and Joan Miro had 'similar objects and scenery but different moods and style'. They soon realised that 'determining influence is always a subjective decision. We will not know if an artist was ever truly inspired by a work unless he or she has said so.’
So I think art historians are safe. This is the sort of story which reminds me of an episode from the old TV series The Prisoner, in which Patrick McGoohan is confronted with a new 'wonder machine' which knows the answer to every question in the world, and which will render man redundant. But when McGoohan simply asks it 'why?', it explodes.
That said, I've always thought that computers should be able to practise some form of connoisseurship. It's probably just a question of loading enough high-res images.
You can read the original research paper here. Jamie Edwards at the University of Birmingham's art hitory blog Golovine has further thoughts here.
Update - a reader writes:
The whole thing reminds me of what one of my professors said to me in undergrad "just because they look alike doesn't mean they're the same". And isn't that just where computers fail - in distinguishing between similar 'objects' and the numerous ways those combinations of objects are used to create meaning.
Regardless, computers can only truly generate data, so we still need historians to research, analyse, and interpret that data. Let alone disseminate it. If x-rays can't replace connoisseurship, then I hardly think algorithms can replace art historians.
Although, if they were to be used as a means to supplement connoisseurship as you suggest, then I think they would be more successful if the focus was limited by a particular artist, historical era, or artistic genre in some way so that they're not analyzing such wide stylistic swatches. I imagine that could get interesting, especially for your work looking for 'sleepers'.
Museum swapshop in Washington (ctd.)
August 19 2014
Picture: Wikipedia
The sad closure of the Corcoran museum in Washington DC (which I reported in February) is now official. Yesterday, a court ruled that it could go ahead with its plans to merge with the National Gallery of Art. There had been a last minute attempt to prevent the new arrangement.
Now, the building (above) will be closed on 1st October for renovation, and a redution in the amount of gallery space. The National Gallery will get first pick of the art collection (which you can peruse here), with other museums in the US getting what's left. I expect the National curators will enjoy their shopping spree. More details in the Washington Post.
Gurlitt horde (ctd.)
August 19 2014
Picture: Zuma Press
The German government body looking into restitution claims around Cornelius Gurlitt's collection has decided that the above Max Liebermann painting was indeed 'Nazi loot' (the Wall Street Journal reports) and should be returned to the heirs of David Friedmann, a German-Jewish collector who died in the early 1940s. However, that doesn't mean the heirs can claim their painting just yet, for the Kunstsmuseum in Bern, which Gurlitt bequeathed his collection to, has yet to decide whether to accept the works. If it does, it will have to return the Lieberman. The WSJ article tells us other intriguing facts; the picture has a 'milky white grime' over it, as a result of being stored amont fruit in Gurlitt's flat.
'Two minutes in front of the Sunflowers'
August 19 2014
Video: Jon Sharples
For anti-photoists, the video above is evidence of gallery armageddon. There's even a flash! O.M.G.
Personally, I think it's pretty encouraging; the scene is orderly enough, people seem happy to be near the picture, some of them even take photos and 'look'. In fact, for one of the most famous pictures in the world, and certainly the most popular in the National Gallery, I'd say that it shows photography isn't nearly as distracting as some fear. And, although we've no video of the picture from before photos were allowed, you can be sure that it was just as busy.
Update - a reader writes:
Shock horror, there was a woman actually looking at the sunflowers, blocking snappers from getting a good clear photograph. Can we now establish a new etiquette?
Yes, urgently needed.
Update II - Rebecca Atkinson of the Museums Association writes of 'Selfie Scaremongering' here.
Update III - a reader writes:
I am an avid reader of your blog and following all your posts on photography in art galleries. Almost every art gallery abroad I have been to have been ok with photography (without flash!). I even think that photography has become a huge part of my culture, we see something pretty or weird and we whip out our camera phones and take a snap.
Last year I was naughty and snuck two photos of Michaelangelo's David at the Accademia Gallery. Though I did notice lots of others doing so as well! During my studies I was obsessed with Michaelangelo's work and so couldn't resist (I am usually one for respecting the rules and even check them before visiting places). I still managed to come out with a book and a jigsaw puzzle post card of the statue. I don't think it damaged their profits from me!
Update IV - a reader adds:
You won't be able to establish a new international etiquette, I'm afraid.
The last time I was looking up close at the Baptistry doors in Florence, a woman tried to nudge me away so she could have her photo taken in front of them. I told her I hadn't come to Florence to see her having her picture taken. She harumphed, rolled her eyes and moved on.
You really have to be tough, determined and stand your ground to look at art these days!
While another reader makes this essential point, which should be taken up by the National Gallery swiftly:
One small practical point that should be addressed is that there is no clear signage about what current National Gallery policy is. Now that photography is permitted, that might as well be stated big and boldly, with an accompanying statement about flash photography. At the moment there is nothing and the demoralised guards are left to fight a hopeless battle.
Update V - a reader asks:
Wouldn't it be nice if people left looking happier. The first selfie was the only one to smile, and that was for the camera. Everyone else seemed to come away tight-lipped and slightly desperate.
Probably people feel quite self conscious.
Update VI - another reader adds:
The sunflower video makes me want to go and stand in front and ‘look’ at the picture for a few minutes. It looks like there is so much pressure from the photographers, forcing the lookers to keep moving.
I would find that extremely annoying, luckily my 18th century tastes mean there generally isn’t such a scrum!!
Apologies
August 18 2014
I've been changing email servers, and seem to have missed quite a few over the last days. So sorry if you've sent one and not had a reply yet. I'm trying to get to the bottom of it now.
