'Diary of an Art Historian' (ctd.)
March 18 2019
Picture: Louvre/Mona Lisa Foundation
Here's my latest Art Newspaper column, in which I look at the allure of Mona Lisa copies.
Sir John Richardson (1924-2019)
March 18 2019
Picture: The Guardian
Sir John Richardson, the biographer of Picasso, has died. Michael McNay has a good obituary in The Guardian. It includes this sad fact about image fees:
At least part of the reason for the gap of many years between volumes [of Picasso's life] was because the fees to the Picasso estate for reproductions of his work were so high that Richardson was forced into writing volumes of memoirs to raise money.
One of my favourite Richardson facts is that his grandfather was born in the reign of George III.
A feminist guide to art history
March 18 2019
Picture: National Gallery
The National in Gallery in London is doing a five session course (spread over 5 weeks) on how women have shaped art history, which looks like fun.
Find out how women have broken into and reshaped the ‘boys’ club’ art establishment; whether the female nude can survive #MeToo; and how women leaders are redressing the balance when it comes to the representation of women artists.
This course explores the work of women artists, patrons, collectors, art writers, and leaders in the arts. It considers how women have represented themselves in paintings, the challenges women artists grapple with, and how feminism has opened up an alternative history of art.
It starts on 22nd March. More here.
The Carabinieri Art Squad strikes again!
March 18 2019
Video: via Thelocal.it
AHN is a great admirer of the flair with which the Italian police's specialist art squad goes about its business. They seem to be much more active than comparable police forces in Europe, though this may have something to do with their PR department. I love the shots of immaculately attired Carabinieri standing in front their latest haul. Above we see works recovered after they were stolen from churches in the aftermath of the terrible earthquakes in Aquila in 2009. More here.
Restoring Van Dyck's equestrian portrait of Charles I
March 18 2019
Video: Tefaf
The National Gallery in London are restoring Van Dyck's large equestrian portrait of Charles I. The conservation has been funded in part by Tefaf, who have made the above video. I saw the picture in the conservation studio when work was just beginning, and although the condition is generally excellent, it was clear that there are many gains to be made, especially in the rear legs of the horse, which had become difficult to see, largely because of surface and varnish issues.
Leonardo's Nude Mona Lisa! (ctd.)
March 12 2019
Video: France 3
Regular readers may remember that back in 2017 it was reported that experts in the Louvre were taking a fresh look at the 'Joconde nue', a drawing held at Chantilly previously considered to be by Leonardo da Vinci himself. The results are now in, and the answer is... inconclusive. They've determined that it was mostly made by someone who was left-handed (as Leonardo was) but that the drawing's overall condition make it impossible to determine attribution with any certainty. More here.
Perhaps the best painted version of the drawing is this one in the Hermitage.
Sorolla at the National Gallery
March 12 2019
Video: National Gallery
A new exhibition on Joaquín Sorolla y Bastida's (1863–1923) opens at the National Gallery in London on 18th March. More here.
The women who shaped the National Gallery
March 12 2019
Video: National Gallery
Director of Collections Caroline Campbell looks at how women have shaped the works and history of the National Gallery in London.
A lost Leonardo sculpture in London?
March 11 2019
Video: via You Tube
Research for a new exhibition on Andrea del Verrocchio in Florence has raised the fascinating possibility that a small terracotta sculpture in the V&A previously attributed to Antonio Rossellino is in fact by Leonardo da Vinci. If so, it would be the only known, surviving sculpture by him. The attribution has been proposed by Francesco Caglioti, and is supported by Carmen Bambach of the Met.
A video preview of the exhibition is above, with the terracotta appearing about halfway through. More on the attribution here. A link to the exhibition is here. The V&A's online catalogue still gives the attribution as Rossellino (readers of my Art Newspaper column may know that the V&A doesn't always leap enthusiastically on new attributions, if they are proposed by outsiders - though to be fair this is common in major museums, which can get very territorial). If you click on the download button and promise not to be naughty with the V&A's images, you can access a number of high resolution photos. Let's hope that the V&A are preparing to capitalise on the news by putting the sculpture on display as soon as it gets back from Florence in July.
Online Bosch course
March 7 2019
Video: Prado
The Prado has launched an online course all about Hieronymous Bosch. You'll need to speak Spanish, but it looks like fun. More here.
'Boilly: scenes of Parisian Life'
March 7 2019
Video: National Gallery
I've always liked the work of the French 18th Century artist Louis-Leopold Boilly, so am looking forward to seeing the new exhibition on him at the National Gallery in London. In the video above, curator Francesca Whitlum-Cooper introduces the exhibition and the artist. Show runs till 19th May.
Art Fund sacks its volunteers
March 6 2019
Picture: ArtFund
I've been meaning to mention the Art Fund's decision to get rid of all its volunteer committees. These are the 48 or so volunteer committees (480 members in all) who organise fundraising events across the UK, drive membership, and help maintain links between museums and their local communities. They've been going for many decades, and are brilliant. I'm often asked to do talks for Art Fund groups, and always agree (and never charge) because it's heartening to see how people engage with the art and institutions around them, all whilst helping to raise money to support new acquisitions.
The Burlington has written an excellent editorial on the Art Fund's bizarre decision, and asks some pertinent questions:
Why was there no consultation with the committees in advance of this decision? Why was the announcement made before a fully worked-out alternative to their work had been decided upon? And, crucially, what are the motives for the decision? The only reason given in the article is that participatory opportunities are now better organised by means of ‘digital and other media’, but that does not explain why a system that is working well needs to be closed down. [Art Fund director Stephan] Deuchar also fails to acknowledge that the volunteer fundraising programmes function as much-appreciated educational activities in regions where, in many cases, few such opportunities exist. [...]
Finally, how much do the volunteers contribute financially? According to the Art Fund’s website they raise £100,000 annually, but its most recent annual report states that in 2017 the volunteer committees raised ‘£354,000 through a variety of special events across the country’.
The last point - about the amount the volunteers contribute annually - is an interesting one. The AF website now says they only raise '£100k after costs', but this is a recent change. A snapshot of the same page before the story broke gives a figure of £350k. In previous years, going back to 2012, the same page has said '£300k', so it appears the net revenue was growing. Which figure is true? Did the Fund quickly tweak their website to make the decision to axe the committees seem less daft?
But the money is almost beside the point. I think the decision to tell the volunteers to go away is rude, mistaken, and needlessly damaging to the Art Fund's long-term interests. Most organisations would kill to have a profitable, nationwide volunteer body. It's the sort of decision which should have prompted trustees to ask the executive some serious questions. But like most boards of trustees these days, the Art Fund's is another list of the great and the good, who tend not to have time for detailed scrutiny.
Update - a reader lets rip:
The post about the art fund was excellent. I have to admit its an organization that I've found challenging for a long long time. I've thought about contributing but have always held back. Your article sort of confirms my view that it really has lost its way. My own difficulties are as follows
I'm a great believer that organizations should have a clear brief. In the old days as the NACF I knew where it stood it's primary aim was to support the acquisition of artworks by public collections. I'm not actually sure what it does now if you look at its website its actually incredibly difficult to find the information on the purchases/acquisitions it has supported. In the current environment of cut-backs I really cannot see an excuse for not focusing on this agenda.
It really seems to prefer to commissioning work rather than saving existing work. It seems to really want to be the contemporary art society rather than the National Art Collections Fund. Again in an age when it is increasingly difficult for museums to purchase existing work why is the Art Fund wasting resources as a commissioner.
What is the point of the museum of the year completion which seems to be its focus for a lot of time. No one outside the sector has a clue what it is and I'm sure no one visits the V&A or anywhere else because it has won this rather odd award that pitches institutions which have very little in common against one another. It does, however, take up a lot of staff time at the Fund , which again represents a wasted resource which could be allocated to buying stuff. I'm sure that the Fund would argue that it raises the profile of the organization with philanthropists both individual and corporate but I'm afraid I'm not convinced.
A final point that you may disagree with me on is what I feel to be the utter waste of time that is their curatorial training programme. It seems to largely recruit individuals from well established departments of Art History. These individuals already seem to largely have MA's in a relevant discipline so I would argue they are probably ready for the world of work even if that might perhaps mean gaining relevant experience in the commercial sector.
In short the Art Fund really has lost it sway, it's original purpose was clear but it has been lost in a cloud of projects which I can only assume are the individual priorities on members of staff or trustees. Given this total organizational drift I've never felt able to join the Art Fund. I would really like to support an organization that focusses on supporting museums and galleries to purchase works. Perhaps its time to consider founding something that might be called a National Art Collections Fund (NACF) which might have this focus.
The sad thing is, we can perhaps assume that members of the 480 committees might now agree.
Update II - I'm told some trustees are unhappy about the move. But I have yet to hear of any resignations. If I was a trustee, I'd particularly want to get to the bottom of this confusion over the revenue brought in by the volunteers. Was the figure changed on the website purely to suit the PR message? If so, someone should be sacked. Or is it true that the Art Fund is so well off, that it can be seen to enthusiastically forgo a revenue stream of between £100k-£350k a year?
Update III - I've had a deeper look into the Art Fund's accounts. In the 2017/18 accounts (p.89), the Fund states that volunteer committees 'raised a value of £354k net of costs'. So this figure is quite at odds with the current Fund webpage which states that the committees 'contribute £100k a year to our charitable programme after costs'. In 2016/17 (p.74), the committees raised even more, £387k. The 2015/16 accounts (p.84) give more context to the committee's fundraising abilities, saying; 'the network of volunteer fundraising committees raised £809,000 which net of costs of £453,000 generates a contribution of £353,000.' The net figure in 2014 £356,000. So, it seems that income from the volunteers is a pretty stable £350k a year. The costs of running the operation seem to be quite high; I don't know how they're calculated, but I'd have thought there was room for efficiencies to be made in the operation, rather than closure. For 2017/18, the Fund's total income was £13.6m, so it's true to say that the committees only raise a small portion of their overall income, 2.5%. But £350k is still £350k, and then there are the uncountable benefits, such as how many memberships are sustained and created by such a volunteer network. Total grants paid in 2017 were £5.56m.
Update IV: a reader writes:
I understood that there was quite an issue with the newish Data Protection rules and my county committee were unhappy that the ArtFund stopped them from communicating at all with their local members - instead taking it all to a central office. Perhaps the discontent with this contributed to a breach of trust between the main body and the regions which in turn contributed to the decision to disband those committees.
I also entirely agree with the notion that the Fund has lost its way. The ArtQuarterly has become heavily weighted towards contemporary art, a trend which sends a message about its priorities. This may suit some members very well but but what message does it send to those numerous small museums in desperate need of assistance to buy local items of historic interest, who would naturally have looked to the Fund for that help?
Another reader has this suggestion:
Regarding the Art Fund's disingenuous justification for disbanding its local volunteer organization, the only answer is that they should subcontract its management to the WI, who have a century of experience in managing local groups profitably and in the national interest.
Update V - I have asked the Art Fund press office for an explanation on the £100k vs £350k figure. So far, no response.
Update VI - Jane Crease writes:
I read with great interest your blog on the Art Fund's disbanding of its volunteer network.
I am the regional chair for Yorkshire for the Art Fund volunteers and so am at the sharp end of this controversy. As might be expected, the volunteers themselves are incandescent with rage at this development; a decision taken without consultation but with the fig leaf that we can all now go away and support our local museums and galleries (almost all of whom have Friends who already perform this function). The letter from the Director announcing the decision to the volunteer network contained not a word of thanks to the volunteers for their efforts over the years. Only a swift intervention by the Chair of the Fund, Chris Smith, who sent out a courteous and grateful letter to us, together with an invitation to a function at the House of Lords and life membership for current volunteers, saved the Fund's face.
However, we did not run all those events and raise all that money to have it spent on events at the HoL and life memberships (I shudder to think what all that will cost). We raised money for the core purpose of the Fund; the purchase of works of art for public collections.
It is not only the volunteers who are angry. What surprised (and touched) me was the dismay expressed by so many of the Art Fund members when they heard the news. Many have written to the Art Fund (all receiving the same, anodyne response) and some are likely to resign their memberships. It may well impact on legacy income; I have personal knowledge of an individual who had bequeathed 40,000 pounds in her will and is now considering re-writing it.
Two things: we simply cannot understand the reasons behind the decision nor can we see any sign of the alternative "vision for volunteering" which was suggested as a substitute.
The Art Fund is a cause to which I have devoted over 25 years because I believe in its core purpose. In common with other volunteers we want to enrich both local and national collections so that anyone can come face to face with art which moves and excites them. I am saddened that the practical contribution that I and other volunteers have been able to make is now regarded as worthless.
Update VII - I see that the Fund's annual salary bill is £2.1m. If we go back to the Fund's core purpose, helping museums buy artworks, then that's an inefficient way to distribute £5.56m.
Update VIII - another Art Fund member writes:
When I joined the Art Fund some 15 years ago it was to save art, with discounts to exhibitions very much a secondary consideration. Back then, the website was updated on an almost weekly basis with news of latest grants, the online database of all art-funded works was fully searchable and the letters page of the Quarterly magazine provided a voice for the membership.
Now, the Art Fund positions itself as a membership body offering discounts through the National Art Pass - not dissimilar to Costco in the retail sector - and the promotion of the acquisition of artworks is very much a secondary consideration. The Art Fund website and their social media channels almost never highlight acquisitions. There are none on today’s home page with seven out of the eight new items centred on curators. I am aware of a significant Art-funded Old Master painting secured at auction last summer which has still not been publicly announced. News of acquisitions is now relegated to the back of the Quarterly magazine. The Annual Review, an in-depth review of acquisitions was abandoned long ago and there is no longer a letters page in the Quarterly. It is nw no longer possible to search online for art-funded works by year of acquisition.
I was recently asked to complete an online member survey. All the questions were focused on the effectiveness of the National Art Pass. There was no curiosity about my views on the core activity of funding artworks.
The disgraceful treatment of the volunteer network is very sad and highlights how this institution has lost its way. Whilst the Art Fund is busy promoting all sorts of ‘other’ rather than its core activity, the flow of precious artworks leaving these shores is unabated.
Rent-a-Rembrant!
March 6 2019
Picture: English Heritage
In the FT, James Pickford has news of a rather alarming new policy for English Heritage. They've agreed to lend the celebrated Rembrandt self-portrait from Kenwood House to an exhibition at Larry Gagosian's gallery in London. I've no problem with public institutions lending pictures to commercial galleries, indeed I've been involved with such shows before when I used to work for Philip Mould. Ultimately, both dealers and museums are interested in the same thing; getting people to look at art.
But there has always been an understanding that such shows would not be selling exhibitions. The Gagosian show, however, will have works for sale, including new works by Jenny Saville, Richard Prince, and Albert Oehlen. (The Saville portrait will be commissioned directly in response to the Rembrandt.) These artists are all multi-million dollar selling artists. And what is English Heritage getting in return for being such an integral aspect of Gagosian's shop window? £30,000 towards the repair of the painting's frame. That'll be a snip for Gagosian to pay.
English Heritage are making a big noise about the reduction in their public subsidy, and the fact that they are meant to be self-funding by 2023 (although they're more reticent about the one-off payment of £85m they recieved in 2013 to help manage the new policy). So they claim that this is an example of 'a new model'. From the FT:
Anna Eavis, curatorial director at English Heritage, said: “This sort of partnership, the first of the kind we’ve done, shines a light on the collection. It’s a way of reminding people of this great asset we have and I hope will lead to other things which will enable us to take care of Kenwood in the long term.”
But if this is a new model, then English Heritage are selling themselves cheap. The Kenwood Rembrandt is one of the best known paintings in the world. To lend it to a commercial gallery, which will be selling paintings in the same show for millions of pounds, for over a month, for just £30,000 is hopelessly naive. Don't you think?
But it's probably typical of the sort of bad decision we can come to expect from English Heritage. Recently, we asked if we could film a scene for Britain's Lost Masterpieces at Apsley House in London, which is run by English Heritage. The fee quoted was £1,000 for an hour, in addition to an unspecified additional bill to cover things like staff costs on the day. While we're always happy to pay a fee to cover costs, we simply don't have the budget to pay that kind of money. In vain did we try to point out that the exposure might be good for Apsley House, which is one of the jewels of London, but which few people know about (mainly because English Heritage are no good at marketing it). But I got the impression they're not that interested in visitors. Opening times for Apsley House have now been reduced to weekends in the winter. Which is odd for a central London site, with an amazing history and collection. English Heritage's response was that it costs them so much money to keep Apsley House open that they have to charge such high fees. But when I asked (under the Freedom of Information Act) to know how much their annual costs and revenues were for Apsley House, they refused, saying it was 'commercially sensitive information'. I've never encoutered that response from a public institution before - there is simply no way that the running costs for a public asset like Apsley House can be regarded as 'commercially sensitive'. I'm appealing the ruling. Often, if an institution is reluctant to tell you something, it's because they're telling porkies.
Update - a reader writes:
It is quite possible that Gagosian is paying more to transport, guard, and insure the Kenwood Rembrandt Self Portrait for a month than he is paying English Heritage to rent it.
Sculptures on ArtUK
March 5 2019
Picture: ArtUK
The first of many sculptures have been uploaded onto the ever wonderful ArtUK.
Brexit and the Art Market (ctd.)
March 5 2019
Picture: via TAN
Anny Shaw has a good piece in The Art Newspaper on the coming peril of a No Deal Brexit, and how it might effect the shipping of artworks between the UK and the EU after March 29th. None of it is good:
The prospect of hefty EU import taxes is already disrupting exhibition programmes in the UK. Tornabuoni Arte in London is closing its show of paintings by Alberto Burri and Lucio Fontana two weeks early and transporting the works back to Italy to avoid a potential multimillion-pound reimport bill. Italy’s import rate stands at 10%.
“We are covering our backs because no decision has been made yet, but we are looking at an enormous amount of money to reimport incredibly expensive works. It’s crippling,” says a gallery spokesman.
Whatever happens on March 29th, the moving of artworks from the UK to the EU will be more difficult and expensive.
Is there a €120m Caravaggio in your roof? (ctd.)
March 5 2019
Video: Cabinet Turquin
Regular readers may remember the Judith & Holofernes painting that was discovered in an attic in Toulouse in 2016, and declared to be by Caravaggio. When it was discovered, the picture was placed on the list of French national treasures, but now the picture is not listed as such, and can therefore be sold internationally. To publicise the forthcoming sale, the French art expert who first helped find the picture, Eric Turquin, brought the picture to London for a press conference. It is now described as 'the Toulouse Caravaggio'. The picture will be sold later this year in Toulouse, but with no reserve. It's a bold move, and Turquin has been quite open about the picture's mixed reception among Caravaggio scholars.
I've never met Eric Turquin, but I like his approach to this picture; as you can see in the video above, it's combative, which is unusual in the art world. Normally, you're supposed to be exceptionally deferential, and modest. People will shower more claim on you for finding a minor, footnote worthy document than for discovering anything as vulgar as a new painting. Turquin is having none of it, and points out that there are many more discoveries to make.
Scott Reyburn has a good article in the New York Times on the split scholarly opinions on the attribution, after the picture was put on display in Milan. Backers of the picture include Keith Christiansen of the Metropolitan Museum in New York, who is highly respected. At least one of the doubters has been shown, from another recent case, to be a good scholar on Caravaggio, while not having a good eye for Caravaggio. Some doubters point to areas of apparent 'crudeness', and yet it's worth remembering that Caravaggio could often be exceptionally crude. We can happily dismiss those whose kneejerk reaction was the picture was a modern fake. I wouldn't presume to have an opinion, not having seen the picture, but I think nonetheless that Turquin and his colleagues have made a strong case. If I were the powers that be in France, I would think twice about letting the picture out of the country.
The "National Gallery 27" win their case
February 28 2019
NEWS JUST IN
Some breaking art history news; the group of lecturers suing the National Gallery in London have won their case. Background here. More to follow.
Update - from the NG27's press release:
Twenty seven Claimants who started litigation against the National Gallery over a year ago have won their case to be given the rights of workers. This status case is believed to be the first in the public sector and comes in the wake of several high profile gig economy cases, such as the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Uber.
The Employment Tribunal found that the Claimants were in fact workers, despite having been denied their legal right to this status by the National Gallery for decades. The Tribunal Judge concluded that “in short, the Claimants worked ‘for’ the Gallery as members of its team of educators” despite arguments to the contrary by the Gallery.
These individuals had worked for the National Gallery collectively for over 500 years before their existing arrangements were brought to an abrupt end in October 2017. During their collective tenure, they had not been given any holiday, sick pay, pension or maternity pay despite having paid taxes through the payroll as employees. One individual had worked for the Gallery for over 45 years without these benefits which most people take for granted as part of their working relationship. They were denied these rights as the National Gallery alleged that they were “self-employed” a position which the Employment Tribunal Judge has found to be “unsustainable”. About the Gallery’s arguments the Judge said that “it is unreal to describe the dealings between the parties as transactions in which the Gallery stood as the “client or customer of any business undertaking” carried on by any of the lead Claimants”.
Without wishing to take anything away from the NG27's legal team, it seems to me that it was always likely the lecturers would win. I cannot understand why the National Gallery contested the case (to say nothing of why they decided to dismiss the lecturers in the first place). It speaks of a distant, arrogant institution, blind to logic, and deaf to reason. The case should act as a wake up call to the leadership, and the trustees. But I doubt it will.
Restitution (ctd.)
February 21 2019
Picture: The Times
Another day, another story in the British press that makes life uncomfortable for the British Museum. The latest, an article in The Guardian by an Australian art historian Alice Procter, has been widely circulated on social media. Alice organises Uncomfortable Art Tours of museums which focus on the legacy of colonialism, and takes as its starting point her belief that (as she says on her website):
The history of British art is also the history of empire and genocide, written by collectors who traded in landscapes and lives.
In her Guardian article, Alice carries on taking a swipe at British museums more widely, writing:
Museums are in crisis. In the past, their social role has been taken for granted – they’re spaces for preserving objects and educating the deferential public that comes to admire them. It’s a tidy, completist dream: wouldn’t it be nice to see the whole of human history, free and open to all?
Except that history is nasty and ugly. It’s full of violence: every moment, every event, takes place within a power dynamic – there’s always a hierarchy in play. The whole concept of The Museum is a colonialist, imperialist fantasy, born from the fallacy that somehow the whole world can be neatly catalogued, contained in a single building, mapped out for easy digestion. There’s no such thing as a free object, and every piece in a museum has been moved from its original context.
I think this is slightly overstating things. How does it apply to, say, the National Coal Mining Museum? Furthermore, there's something about the determination to use historical events to mock museums, the people who work there, and those of us who visit them 'deferentially' - as Alice assumes we do - that I find rather grating, especially if it is wrapped up in language of eye-rolling insincerity. Should we cease to like, or admire, or even enjoy, looking upon some of the most beautiful and important objects ever made, because of the circumstances in which they may have been acquired or made? I don't think so, because I suspect most of us are able to make the distinction already.
But I do admire Alice's chutzpah and the energy with which she presents her case. More importantly, I suspect it's an argument she's going to win, because we appear to be reaching something of a tipping point in the colonial restitution debate. Even an old stick-in-the-mud like me has changed their mind on the Elgin Parthenon Marbles. (I think the call for their return to Greece would meet my four tests for restitution).
And not only have I noticed that there are fewer people willing to defend the British Museum, especially on other related objects like the Benin Bronzes, but the British Museum itself seems to have trouble mounting a defense. The old line that 'there is a public benefit in being able to see these objects in the context of a world collection' doesn't work anymore, not in a digital age, and especially not when it keeps 2m objects in storage at any one time. A recent attempt by the BM's director, Hartwig Fischer, to come up with a new defence - that removing the Marbles to London was a 'creative act' - has been met with some derision.
I'm far from a 'let's send it all back' person. But I hope that soon we in Britain do take a hard look at our tradition of hording cultural objects which rightfully belong to the rest of the world. We are, after all, entering a period in our history when we'll be needing as many friends as we can get. I also hope that we don't just focus on museum collections. One item which I think should be a priority to return is Cleopatra's Needle, which currently sits unnoticed on the Thames embankment, rotting away in the traffic fumes, serving no purpose except to remind us of colonial glories past. Put a replica in its place, and send it back to Egypt.
Update - a reader writes:
I agree with the idea of making excellent copies of certain museum 'possessions', like the Parthenon marbles and Cleopatra's needle, and handing back the originals. Not on the grounds of colonial guilt, but because, in this day and age, it would be more interesting to see such things in their proper, original context.
The ownership issue is irrelevant - whether modern Greeks are any more or less worthy of inheriting the objects of the ancient Greeks than Londoners, etc - the point is, Athens is the place where the ancients made the marbles, that is their proper context. It would be perfectly possible to move Stonehenge to a park in central London, but that is not their proper context.
I also think the arguments about violence and art a bit of a red herring. Throughout history, everywhere in the world where there has been competition between humans for land and resources, there has been violence. In Britain and the rest of Europe, hardly a year passed for centuries without one feudal lord attacking another. Really big battles seem to have cropped up about once a decade. The same was true in the rest of the world, outside of Europe. These were not, by and large, innocent, peaceful paradises subjected to violence by Europeans, who then stole all their valuables. Where land and resources were at a premium, they had also had their own forms of feudal warfare, stretching back into pre-history. Violence and bloodshed was a global, human phenomenon.
Art is one of the few worthy achievements to emerge from the context of global inter-human violence. We should look at it with collective human pride, not with a sense of post-colonial shame. You might as well look at buses and trains with shame, considering the raw materials we also 'stole' during the period of their development.
'All the Rembrandts'
February 21 2019
Video: Rijksmusem
The Rijksmuseum is showing all of its Rembrandts in an exhibition to mark 350 years since the artist's death. It will include 22 paintings, 60 drawings and more than 300 of his prints. It's on until 10th June, but if you can't make it, then you can listen to the audioguide here, and zoom in on the excellent images on the Rijksmuseum's terrific website. Isn't the above video good? The Rijksmuseum shows us again how to make Old Masters accessible and appealing.
New Cranach at the National Gallery
February 21 2019
Picture: National Gallery
The National Gallery in London has been gifted a picture by Lucas Cranach the Elder, from the estate of Drue Heinz. More on the picture here.
A reader points out that the new acquisition number is nine more than the previously announced acquisition of an Artemisia Gentileschi self-portrait. Which suggests that there are more acquisitions to be announced soon.
