Previous Posts: articles 2023
Does museum exposure increase the value of Old Masters?
October 23 2015
Picture: Sotheby's
News that Sotheby's will sell a $25m-$35m Orazio Gentileschi of Danaë recently on display at the Met in New York has raised the eyebrow with eminent US arts writer Lee Rosenbaum, who, on her blog, says:
[...] It now appears that Danaë’s golden sojourn at the Met was an extended presale exhibition. [...]
Veteran dealer Richard Feigen‘s family trust was outed yesterday by the Wall Street Journal‘s Jennifer Smith as the owner cryptically identified on the Met’s “Danaë” label as “private collection.” The trust stands to reap rich rewards from gilt-by-association: Sotheby’s has announced that “Danaë” will be the star lot of its evening sale on Jan. 28, bearing a presale estimate of $25-35 million. [...]
Does a dealer/collector have a right to show works in a nonprofit museum’s galleries before dispatching them to auction? Of course.
Should museums allow themselves to be commercially exploited in his manner? Of course not.
Loan agreements should contain a clause imposing a several-year moratorium on selling a work after its museum exhibition. Otherwise, museums may appear to be complicit in market maneuvers and curators may see their scholarly prose instantly recycled as sales pitches.
So, does museum exposure add value to an Old Master painting? In my opinion (as a valuer of and dealer in Old Masters), not really. What we're dealing with in this case is essentially a chicken and egg situation: does the Met's decision to hang a Gentileschi on its walls make it a great (and thus valuable) painting, or does the fact that Danaë is a great painting make the Met want to hang it on their walls?
It seems to me that the latter is the case here - and in fact it is almost all the time. In my experience curators like those at the Met and other leading institutions are no pushover, and are hardly likely to take up valuable hanging space at their museums by installing a second rate work just to do a favour to - gasp - a dealer, or even a private owner. Curators curate based on a painting's individual merits. Indeed, look at an auction catalogue and you'll often see pictures that have been recently on long-term loan to museums, even major ones, sell for not much money at all. After all, museums and curators are often interested in pictures for their academic and art historical value, and this is frequently different from their commercial value.
The situation I think is different when it comes to contemporary art, where, because we have generally lost our collective ability to objectively assess art made from old spoons (and the like) we look for institutional and curatorial approval as a means of telling us what is good or not. Hence all those contemporary art catalogue entries which list reams of exhibitions, even really minor ones, as a means of saying 'this work is Good', and thus valuable.
But in the Old Master market the dynamic is very different. Lee Rosenbaum may think that the sort of person to drop $25m on a Gentileschi is encouraged to do so because it was recently on display at the Met. But I'm not so sure. In my experience, Old Master buyers are perfectly capable of assessing a work of art objectively. The Danaë is without doubt a great painting - you can tell that just by looking at it, whether it's on the Met's walls or Sotheby's. And like most great paintings it has at some point in its life been exhibited at a museum. Big deal.
There are so many other factors to take account of in the Old Master market. Sometimes, an Old Master painting can generate the most excitement, and bids, if it is seen to be 'new' and previously unseen. Hence all those auction house press releases that say 'not seen for X years', or 'never before publicly exhibited'. The Old Masters that really get the market going are often those which have come out of an eminent collection, have not been seen widely before, are a bit dirty, and so on, or are important new discoveries. In those circumstances you are likely get both trade and private buyers bidding. But when a picture like the Danaë comes along, and everyone knows it well from being at the Met, and also that it belongs to a dealer, then arguably it's a harder proposition to sell because you're chasing just the handful of private buyers able to spend that kind of money. And they tend to buy what they like, not what a museum curator likes.
But let us for the sake of argument assume that a spell on loan does indeed add significant value to a painting. Should, then, museums be careful not to display such works? Should we take seriously Lee's suggestion of a 'several year' moratorium on selling works that have been on loan?
Well, why? I certainly agree that it is unseemly to swiftly sell something which has been on public display. But should we say to the public, you can't see this great painting, because it belongs to someone who might one day sell it, and make money because you liked it? I suspect most museum visitors wouldn't give two hoots. People want to see great art because it's great art, and would rather it was on public display not in a private house. Most of them know that such art is expensive, whether it's sold today, tomorrow or in seven years time. (And don't forget that once upon a time Gentileschi himself was likely paid a fair sum for his Danaë.)
I certainly agree with Lee that care must be taken when considering the relationship between private lending and institutional probity. But I also think we should be grateful to Richard Feigen for putting his pictures on display, and applaud those curators and institutions prepared to run the risk of criticism by accepting (with care) such loans.
Update - a dealer writes:
It is an interesting discussion wheather museums are providing a seal of approval to works of art that come to the market. As you know, a similar discussion takes place when a painting, sculpture or drawing is being published in a first rate journal or exhibition catalogue.
At the request of the editor of The Burlington I have signed twice a statement that a work that was illustrated in one of my contributions was not due to appear on the market for at least five years. But when you think of it is a silly thing to do because, not being the owner it is not in ones hands wheather a work is going to be on offer for sale or not in the nearby future.
The Burlington is notorious for being windy about anything privately owned, or which might have anything to do with a dealer. Which is daft because a) dealers often make important discoveries, and The Burlington is merely recusing itself from the wider art historical debate and b) I fear, alas, that The Burlington is no longer important enough to really make a difference to the value of a painting.
Another reader writes:
And if having “displayed at the Met” does add value, the Met and the public have enjoyed the free display of a valuable work. The Met didn't rent the painting, as with some exhibitions, or have to invest in acquiring it so there was a quid pro quo if the display of the painting added any value. Lending to an exhibition might add some value and curators still seek and occasionally pay for exhibitions loans of important works.
It is all right if a private party benefits from public display so long as the public gets an adequate benefit as well. Lending doesn't come with [tax] eductions that donations create.
Another reader adds:
Yes, to an established old master, I agree the pull-up is minimal, but public benefit museums should be just that - pro bono. Time on the Met's walls undoubtedly has a commercial value - and sticking pictures on their wall prior to an auction or indeed any commercial sale is not what they're supposed to be for. It just wouldn't wash in other commercial areas - it would be seen as a conflict of interests.
And that grey area is being exploited - wthout anybdy questioning it - so supine is arts journalism. Dealers are using museums to lend credence and substance to private offerings in the most blatant way. The quid pro quo is obviously that the museum gets interesting exhibitions but the prime purpose of a museum should be objective presentation of material - not to tease the public into buying stuff.
The above reader then mentions a regional UK museum which recently staged two exhibitions on 20th Century artists which were sponsored by a commercial gallery. The commercial gallery, he says, had listed the works for sale on their website while the exhibition was on.
White glove shot (ctd.)
October 22 2015
Picture: BBC
Ok, this is getting ridiculous now. Above is a press shot accompanying the Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art's acquisition of a 1913 Picasso. It's wrong on so many levels.
So I think that if museum press offices are going to insist on these daft 'holding' photos, then it's time to introduce some rules:
1 - if you must wear gloves, let them be white and cotton. If you're going to perpetuate the myth that people in museums really wear white gloves, then have actual white gloves to hand. Rubber ones of the type worn by vets at the back end of a cow are Not Good.
2 - if you must pretend to hold the painting, at least try and make it look like you're really holding it. This means the picture must not be: (a) screwed to the wall with the screw visible; (b) obviously fifteen times heavier than the person holding it with one arm; or (c) hung so high above the 'holder' that they cannot reach it.
3 - Or better yet, actually just hold it, maybe with two people, before you actually attach it to the wall.
4 - And maybe, just every now and then, can we let the 'holder' be a bloke? Just for a change?
Update - THanks for all your emails on this. A reader asks:
Why is she on her knees?
Another writes:
Do you think "white glove shots" are more to allow us to appreciate the dimensions
of a particular painting or piece of art? And The use of the pretty lady "holding" the painting reminds me of how female scantily clad models were once used to sell cars!
Another:
Lord Chesterfield springs to mind, the expense enormous and the posture ridiculous.
And another:
[...] the running stream of ludicrous pictures of women pretending to hold up paintings, has me in stitches. Others love it too.
As a woman, I appreciate someone pointing out the way women are still used as bits of décor. I pass no comment on what it says about rubber/white gloves.
Could there be a campaign to wean these galleries and dealers off by suggesting an alternative, like switching to electronic cigarettes as a first step to avoid severe nicotine withdrawal symptoms? I offer……. why not obligatory Xmas lights draped over in a suitably luscious fashion? And as the addiction wanes, another step down to Xmas baubles …
Another reader sends in this specially taken shot - thanks!
And here's the definitive word from an art handler, who writes:
I am an art handler who has worked in several museums and auction houses.
1. All types of gloves are used and would therefore be "realistic," for a staff member to wear in a photo. As an art handler you are not just wandering a well lit gallery polishing the glass on pictures, you are moving and unpacking wooden crates, handling extremely heavy and challenging objects, unpacking boxes, fabricating plinths, and moving gallery furniture. We use builders grip "vet" gloves (as in the Picasso pic,) white gloves and nitrile gloves. Sometimes these are our choices, dependent on what we are working with, other times the glove is stipulated by the department we are working for. White gloves for old master, nitrile for contemporary art, etc. I think it is felt by the auction houses that old master clientele want to see their prospective purchases handled with old school white gloves. It's as much about conveying a message as it is protecting the work.
Staff in museums really wear white gloves. Again there is no blanket policy, it likely comes down to the best intentions of whoever the head of conservation is. In the museums I have worked in I again have worn nitrile and white cotton gloves, and for a variety of (sometimes confusing) reasons. Just to correct an earlier comment you made white cotton gloves these days have rubber dot grips on them and are not slippy.
2. These photo opportunities are always "directed" by the photographer, or sometimes several photographers at once. They are only interested in feeding into the cliched public perception of what goes on in museums and auction houses.
3. I have been photographed in all stages with a work - on the wall, off the wall, hanging the work, tilting it, holding it above my head and most enjoyably running sideways with a £10m painting to achieve the blurry "rushing staff member strides past stationary gallery visitors," cliche.
4. Blokes outnumber women in this business but if there is a female around they will want to use her in the photo. Sometimes if there are no females around they will use a female staff member from another department dressed up as an art handler.
In other words, in the Old Master world it's pretty much all for show. The white cotton gloves sans grippy bits are the ones brought to the photo shoots by the press office. In my experience of moving and hanging thousands of Old Masters, from £500 pictures to £10m ones, gloves (even proper ones) do nothing but get in the way and make life more difficult. You're far better off just using your hands. The archive sector realised this long ago.
Thought for the Day
October 21 2015
$3m-$4m Gainsborough
October 21 2015
Video: Sotheby's
A fine late Gainsborough will be a star of Sotheby's January New York sale, at $3m-$4m.
Dress like a contemporary artist!
October 21 2015
Picture: BG
If you've always wanted to look like a contemporary artist, but never knew how, then this week's Sunday Times 'Style' section has all the answers (above). The key thing is, apparently, to be an unkempt middle-aged man a bit bald and unshaven.
Perhaps next week they'll do the contemporary art historian look. Jumpers at the ready everyone.
$25m-$35m Gentileschi
October 21 2015
Picture: Wall Street Journal
The Wall Street Journal reports that Sotheby's New York will offer the above painting by Orazio Gentlieschi for $25m-$25m in the January sale:
Measuring more than 7 feet across, Orazio Gentileschi’s “Danaë” portrays a mythological scene in which the god Jupiter enters the title character’s chamber in the form of a shower of gold.
The painting’s estimated value is $25 million to $35 million, according to Sotheby’s, which plans to offer the work at its Master Paintings evening sale in New York on Jan. 28, 2016.
“It’s the most important Italian baroque painting to come on the market since World War II,” said Otto Naumann, an old masters dealer in New York. “If I had it, I would have offered it at $75 million.”
A friend and contemporary of Caravaggio, Gentileschi began his career in Rome and later moved to England, where he entered the service of Charles I. His daughter, Artemisia Gentileschi, was also a painter whose works have been rediscovered in recent years.
“Danaë” was commissioned by the nobleman Giovanni Antonio Sauli in 1621 for his palazzo in Genoa.
The picture belongs to Richard Feigen - the eminent New York Old Master dealer who, regular readers will know, is given to saying the Old Master market is dying. Au contraire, Richard: if your picture sells - which it should - it'll be another sign that in fact the best Old Master pictures are fetching prices never before achieved.
If you go down to the Louvre today...
October 21 2015
Pictures: BG
...take a baby, and a duster. The first helps you jump the huge queues to get through security (over an hour and a half when we went last week).
And the second to help you see some of the paintings, because they seem never to dust them (as seen above). Some of the pictures were thick with dust, and frames even worse. Especially the highly hung works which evidently haven't been moved for years. I'm all for the Louvre's traditional reluctance to clean paintings,* but surely a light dust wouldn't do any harm every now and then...
The crowds inside are pretty intense. The Mona Lisa room was naturally the busiest, and it always amazes me to see everyone straining to see her, but completely ignoring the Raphaels in the next door room. But to be honest most of the rooms were thronged with people. I was interested to see lots of Chinese visitors, many with tour guides, but many taking a genuine interest in art of all periods, including French 19th Century, Dutch and Flemish 17th Century, and even in the tiny English and American room. All of which makes me feel optimistic for the future of 'Old Masters', or 'Classic Art' as some now call it. People still like the old stuff as much as ever before, perhaps more so. And although some might find looking at great paintings surrounded by noisy, selfie-taking crowds a little trying, I personally find it rather energising. I love to see the art I love loved by so many.
Another reason to take your baby to the Louvre is that the unfailingly kind and charming room wardens will occasionally insist on an impromptu walking lesson, as below.
* I had a good look at the newly cleaned Leonardo Virgin and Child - wowee, what a mess they've made of that.
The Arts Council meets Alain de Botton
October 21 2015
Video: ACE
Regular readers may remember Alain de Botton's starring role in a series of excellent 'Guffwatches' a while back, when he re-labelled pictures in the Rijksmuseum. Now he has been enlisted by the Arts Council here in the UK (that's the government funded body which supports and champions arts institutions and museums) to help 'make the case' for the arts ahead of the next Spending Review due in November.
The case for arts funding in the UK seems to swing endlessly between art's 'intrinsic' value (that is, art for art's sake) and its 'instrumental' value (that is, we fund the arts because it makes us healthier, cuts crime, that sort of thing). The problem with the latter is that it sounds great, but a) isn't really true, and b) even if it was true, it is impossible to prove to the satisfaction of Treasury beancounters. How do you show that because Joe Bloggs saw a Velasquez, he was less likely to rob a bank?
De Botton has gone for the full 'instrumental' argument in the Arts Council's latest piece of arts lobbying:
The purpose of art isn’t always necessarily to help people to think for themselves. It might be to console or to enliven, to reopen eyes or rebalance character. But the underlying point is that the arts should be able to do something – however minor or diffuse – for you. And this is the point so often missed in our culture, which still clings mistakenly to an ‘art for art’s sake’ mantra – and refuses to accord to art the power it so patently possesses to guide and inform our lives.
I wonder how much taxpayer's money the Arts Council spent on this attempt to get more taxpayer's money. The video above is another curious example, and I'd love to know how much that cost. It's had just 567 views on You Tube since it was uploaded in December 2014.
It's a shame to see the Arts Council trumpeting the 'instrumental' approach to arts funding, because it was all the rage in the early 2000s, and most people (especially the Treasury) have moved on since then. We shouldn't be shy about supporting the arts because of their own intrinsic value. If we seek to find other ways to justify supporting the arts, with feel-good but spurious claims about health and crime, then by definition we concede that the arts are just a luxury, and can thus be cut.
Update - the Grumpy Art Historian looks at the question in more depth here.
Is it a bird, is it a plane....?
October 21 2015
Picture: via Grumpyarthistorian
No - it's Super Art Woman lifting up a framed Rembrandt all by herself. And without White Gloves!
The Grumpy Art Historian says that the recent export block to save the above £35m Rembrandt is a mistake, and there are better ways of buying paintings:
The UK government has placed a temporary export block on Catrina Hooghsaet (above), which is being sold from Penrhyn Castle. The Telegraph reports that a private buyer has agreed to pay £35m plus sales tax of £660k. The painting is exempt from sales tax, so presumably £660k is due on agent's fees of £3.3m. UK buyers have until 15 February to register interest in buying the picture.
I hope no one does. The picture has been openly marketed for years; the Rijksmuseum came close to buying it. There was ample opportunity to negotiate a friendly deal without the need to pay millions to Sotheby's. I don't begrudge dealers' mark-ups or agents' fees, which are fairly earned in a competitive market. But British institutions have a woeful history of waiting until the last minute and then declaring a national emergency, when a bit of foresight would save millions. If anyone wanted it, the should have said so earlier. They will seem incompetent if they only raise their hands now.
I do hope an institution or two does make the effort to buy this work. It's true that the export system is not an ideal way for museums to buy art, and that it places a value on things that happen to already have been in the country for a long time. But in my view the UK has best export system in the world, one which fairly balances the rights of both 'the nation' and private owners.
UK museums on theft alaert
October 21 2015
Picture: TAN
Martin Bailey reports for The Art Newspaper that:
A warning of a “severe and imminent” threat of attack on UK museums has been issued by Arts Council England. William Brown, the council’s national security adviser, says that museums should ensure that their collections are held in facilities with “the best available defence against any attack”. He warns that staff should now be “extra vigilant to visitors paying undue attention to collections”. Although “attack” might suggest a terrorist threat, a council spokeswoman says that the concern is over “theft of objects”.
The Scottish Council on Archives, a government-funded body, has elaborated on the danger. It advises: “The National Crime Agency are aware of an imminent threat of theft of collections across the UK. They are aware of a group who has made reconnaissance visits to a number of museums and other venues across the UK. It is thought that smaller, more portable items will be targeted rather than items such as large paintings”. The National Crime Agency, a UK government body, has previously warned that organised criminals are targeting museums and galleries.
How to keep a Van Gogh
October 21 2015
Picture: Yale
The Yale University Art Gallery has defeated a legal claim that one of their star pictures, Van Gogh's 'The Night Cafe', should be returned to the heirs of a Russian collector whose art works were seized by the Bolsheviks in 1918. More on the legal case here.
It seems on the surface curious that US courts are always eager to restitute artworks if the Nazis were involved, but not the Bolsheviks.
How to grow a Van Gogh
October 21 2015
Picture: Smithsonian.com
Via Danny Lewis on Smithsonian.com:
It took [landscape artist Stan] Herd six months of digging and planting to recreate van Gogh's 1889 painting, which currently on display at the MIA. To mimic the artist's iconic brushwork, Herd grew patches of pumpkins, squash, watermelons and cantaloupes, while arranging mulch, rocks and soil to create darker lines, according to Nick Mafi at Architectural Digest.
Apologies...
October 20 2015
...for the lack of posts - I'm in that London on business. Back Wednesday.
Muffwatch
October 16 2015
Video: Vernissage TV
Ken Kagami is apparently the 'surprise hit' of Frieze, according to The Guardian: he draws people's breasts and penises. You don't need to undress - he just looks at your face, and 'knows'. Hence the blokes queuing up in some trepidation.
But he won't do vaginas. Because:
“Oh, the vagina is very simple. It’s just a hole,” he replies, sticking his forefinger in the air like someone pushing the button on a lift. “It’s difficult because it has no character. I want things that are long, short, sharp, pointed.” Does he think he could draw a vagina, at a push? “Yeah. Er, maybe,” he says.
Go figure.
Last chance to buy £35m Rembrandt
October 16 2015
Picture: Telegraph
The UK's Culture Minister, Ed Vaizey, has placed a temporary export bar on the above Rembrandt (Portrait of Catrina Hooghsaet, giving museums a last chance to buy the picture for £35m. It was sold privately to an overseas buyer earlier this year. Here's the press release:
One of Rembrandt’s greatest late portraits is at risk of being exported from the UK unless a buyer can be found to match the asking price of £35 million.
In order to provide a last chance to save it for the nation, Culture Minister Ed Vaizey has placed a temporary export bar on a painting by Rembrandt Harmensz van Rijn, Portrait of Catrina Hooghsaet.
The portrait is important, not only for the study of Rembrandt’s late career, but also of Dutch society. The subject of the portrait, Catrina Hooghsaet, was a wealthy Amsterdam Mennonite who, at the time of the painting, was married but separated from her husband, which reflects her strength of character and independence. She is accompanied not by her estranged husband, but by her pet parrot, who features in her will.
Rembrandt’s portrait of Catrina Hooghsaet has been in the UK for more than 250 years and is one of Rembrandt’s best-known paintings in the UK. It has been on loan and on public display at the National Museum of Wales, the National Trust’s Penrhyn Castle, North Wales (for which it was bought in 1860), and most recently at the Ashmolean Museum. The only comparable Rembrandt paintings in the UK, Jacob Trip and his wife Margareta de Geer (National Gallery) datable to about 1661, were executed in the Rembrandt’s ‘rough manner’ whereas the precision of Catrina Hooghsaet’s features recall a style that was present in his much earlier work.
Culture Minister Ed Vaizey said: “This Rembrandt painting has been enjoyed by the UK public for more than 250 years and provides a fascinating glimpse into history, helping us to better understand how society and art have evolved over the centuries. It’s important that paintings, especially one as famous as this, are available for our students to learn from. I hope that the temporary export bar I have put in place will result in a UK buyer coming forward to buy the Rembrandt painting to save it for the nation.”
Culture Minister Ed Vaizey took the decision to defer granting an export licence for the Rembrandt painting following a recommendation by the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and Objects of Cultural Interest (RCEWA), administered by Arts Council England. The RCEWA made their recommendation on the Rembrandt painting on the grounds of its close association with our history and national life, its outstanding aesthetic importance and its outstanding significance for the study of Rembrandt’s art and in particular his late works.
RCEWA Member Aidan Weston-Lewis said: “This is an exceptional portrait of a fascinating sitter, about whom there is still much to be discovered. Its departure abroad would be particularly unfortunate in view of its long presence in the UK, notably in Wales, which currently has no publicly-owned painting by Rembrandt.”
The decision on the export licence application for the Rembrandt painting will be deferred for a period ending on 15 February 2016 inclusive. This period may be extended until 15 October 2016 inclusive if a serious intention to raise funds to purchase the painting is made at the recommended price of £35,000,000 (plus VAT of £660,000).
Offers from public bodies for less than the recommended price through the private treaty sale arrangements, where appropriate, may also be considered by Ed Vaizey. Such purchases frequently offer substantial financial benefit to a public institution wishing to acquire the item.
The last paragraph presumably refers to the fact that tax concessions may be offered by the government. In other words, HMG will agree to forego the tax payable on the painting by the owners, leaving a smaller sum to be raised by a museum. I don't know, but I suspect in this case that the painting was 'conditionally exempt' from death duties, meaning that death taxes of 40% were not levied on the painting in cash terms, in return for allowing the public to see the painting at certain times of the year. Thus, if part of the proceeds of the sale are to be taxed at 40%, and the government agrees to forgo that sum, then the effective asking price to a museum is £21m.
So the question is, after the French and Dutch governments each bought a Rembrandt for EUR80m apiece, can we buy one (a considerably nicer one) for less? Will the recent success of "Late Rembrandt" at the National Gallery give momentum to any public campaign? We have until October next year to find out. Here's hoping...
New Ochtervelt for Washington
October 16 2015
Picture: TAN
Paul Jeromack in The Art Newspaper reports that the National Gallery of Art in Washington has bought a work by Jacob Ochtervelt:
The National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, has acquired a recently rediscovered genre painting by the Dutch Old Master Jacob Ochtervelt, A Nurse and a Child in the Foyer of an Elegant Townhouse (1663). The work was bought by the London dealer Johnny van Haeften at Sotheby’s New York for a record $4.4m in January 2014, and two months later he offered it at the Tefaf fair in Maastricht for $7.5m. Sources in the trade say the National Gallery paid a little more than $5m for the work; the museum does not comment on the value of works of art, but a statement says the acquisition was made through “the generous support of The Lee and Juliet Folger Fund”.
'Artsnight' looks at the art market
October 16 2015
Picture: BBC
The BBC's arts editor Will Gompertz (above right) has made an 'Artsnight' programme looking into the art market. I'm in it briefly, doing my bit on behalf of Old Masters. The programme is on tonight (Friday) on BBC2 at 11pm, and will be on iPlayer shortly afterwards. Here's the blurb:
For his edition of Artsnight, BBC arts editor Will Gompertz investigates the thriving art market. He meets collectors, philanthropists and multi-millionaires pursuing their passion for art, and asks whether record-breaking sales are a good thing or damaging creativity. Arguing for better regulations in the art market, he finds out why you can buy an Old Master for a fraction of the price of contemporary art. He talks to Nobel Prize-winning author Orhan Pamuk about his vision for a new type of museum and meets the 89-year-old grandmother of contemporary art - Delfina Entrecanales - who for 40 years has quietly nurtured a generation of British artists, including more than a dozen Turner Prize nominees.
I can report that Will is an extremely nice fellow, and has a terrific breadth of knowledge.
'Empty Lot'
October 15 2015
Video: Tate
Expect to hear and see a lot more of Abraham Cruzvillegas' new Tate Modern commission, called 'Empty Lot'. Here's the blurb:
Empty Lot is a large geometric sculpture created using scaffolding, a grid of triangular wooden planters, and soil collected from parks across London including Peckham, Haringey and Westminster. Nothing will be planted in the soil, but it will be lit by lamps and watered throughout the six month display. The unpredictable nature of the work, which may grow and change from one week to the next, provokes questions about the city and nature, as well as wider ideas of chance, change, and hope.
In the video above we see a rare thing - a contemporary artist actually making the art work himself. Or at least a bit of it.
Don't tell anyone, but I think Empty Lot looks pretty cool.
'New things' at the NPG
October 15 2015
Picture: NPG
The Art Newspaper reports that new NPG director Nicholas Cullinan is hoping for 'a very strong contemporary programme' in the years ahead. And in 2017 we have the great treat of a show on portraits by Cezanne to look forward to. It'll be staged at the NPG, the Musée D'Orsay in Paris, and the National Gallery in Washington. It's not often you see the NPG's exhibitions staged at such high-profile galleries - impressive stuff.
