Was it right to excavate?
October 1 2012
Picture: BG
A reader and viewer of 'Fake or Fortune?' writes:
...the part of the programme where the painting was cut down and relined literally made me feel mildly unwell! My problem, I guess, is that my background is in history, rather than art history - and that I have been thinking of SPAB-type building restoration issues rather than art per se recently.
I couldn't help worrying, though, about what boils down to be a decision to destroy one state of an extant work in order to create what is, in some sense, a new work - a work which includes autograph work by Van Dyck, but which also incorporates decisions by a conservator regarding the removal of old varnish and old paint, a radical change in the size of the canvas, and a bit of skilful restoration. The result is, admittedly, beautiful - but at the same time, something has been lost.
It's a very interesting point - when is it acceptable to destroy one art work in order to get at another? We have recently had a most extreme view with the Battle of Anghiari debacle. In the case of Henrietta Maria, it was thought, mainly on a basis of connoisseurship (gasp!) that the painting on top was obviously not a great work of art. It was possible to date it to the early 18th Century, to about the 1730s. But there was no identifiable hand, or even a very skilled one. It appeared to have been done by either an enthusiastic amateur, or perhaps a regional artist in the manner of someone like John Vanderbank. But it really wasn't a great piece of painting, and art history will recover from the loss of 28 x 24 inches worth of not particularly good bodice and drapery. The remainder, above, is on display at the Banqueting House (I'm hoping Philip will one day let me keep it as a souvenir).
So in this case, what lay beneath was clearly worth pursuing. But if it had been, say, a body by Joshua Reynolds over a Van Dyck, it probably would not have been. But then Reynolds would probably have never done such a thing...
Update - a reader writes:
The spectacular appearance of the Original work fully justifies the discarding of the repainted portrait, repainted to deceive a purchaser in the 18th century that they had a fully 'complete' work. The state the picture is in now, allows us to see the work as Van Dyck wanted us to see it, with the very Titianesque sleeve to the fore, congratulations on a wonderful conclusion.
Before 'n After
October 1 2012
Picture: Philip Mould & Company
Many thanks to all of you who wrote in and had a go at my 'Test Your Connoisseurship' on this picture.* Sorry it was so fiendish. One or two of you spotted the difference in quality between the head and the rest - well done.
If it's any consolation, I had no idea that it might be two paintings in one, so to speak, from the online image, and subsequently no idea of the inherent quality. I was sure it was an 18th Century copy - the hands and drapery were, to me, a clear sign that it was out of period. It was only until I stood in front of the picture in the auction room that I began to see how the head shone out from the canvas, how the curious 'tide mark' of over-paint beneath Henrietta Maria's cheek marked the transition from one painted area to the next, and how the cracking seams of the smaller rectangular shape of the original picture were beginning to emerge from the larger additions.
So, for any sleeper hunters out there, the moral of the story is, good digital images are useful. But nothing beats first-hand inspection of the work in question. And that's enough tricks of the trade for now...
* For overseas readers who may not have been able to see 'Fake or Fortune?', the story, briefly, is this: we bought this picture as 'After Van Dyck'. We had a hunch that underneath the oceans of blue and rather clumsy over-paint, there might be an original Van Dyck underneath, showing Henrietta Maria, wife of Charles I, as Saint Catherine. The composition was, until now, only known through copies. Over one thousand hours of conservation later (and five hundred scalpel blades) we were able to reveal the above picture. We don't know by whom or exactly when the picture was over-painted, but it was possibly done because it was unfinished, as can be seen by the areas of ground around the hand, and parts of the hair and crown. Van Dyck's typical umber under-drawing strokes can also be seen in the picture. Van Dyck scholar Dr Christopher Brown concluded the programme by saying, after he had had a first opportunity to examine the picture, that he thought it was certainly unfinished, certainly from Van Dyck's studio, and had a good chance, following further comparison and research, that areas such as the head were by Van Dyck himself. He was happy, until then, to call the picture 'Attributed to Van Dyck'. It is now on display at the Banqueting House in London, where Henrietta Maria used to live.
Vermeer in Rome
October 1 2012
Picture: Rijksmuseum
A major new exhibition on Vermeer and his age has opened in Rome, at the Scuderie del Quirinale. The show includes eight Vermeers, and fifty works by his contemporaries. More details and images here.
On the 'Isleworth Mona Lisa' - Kemp speaks
October 1 2012
Picture: TAN
If you haven't already seen it, Leonardo scholar Professor Martin Kemp has written a much-needed take down on the 'Iselworth Mona Lisa'. Money quote:
The book claims that none of the evidence of scientific examination indicates that the Isleworth picture is not by Leonardo. Nor does it show that it is not by Raphael. Even this ineffectual claim, with its double negative, is not justified. The infrared reflectogram and X-ray published on p. 253 do not reveal any of the characteristics of Leonardo’s preparatory methods. Leonardo, as the infrared images of the Louvre painting show, was an inveterate fiddler with his compositions even once he had begin to work on the primed surfaces of his panels. The images of the Isleworth canvas have the dull monotony that would be expected of a copy.
He also highlights the growing over-use of 'technical evidence', and how it alone seems to carry an unimpeachably convicing aura:
I see lots of dossiers of “scientific evidence” attached to purported Leonardos. It often seems enough to have the texts with the data, diagrams and images to “prove” the authenticity, whether or not the they actually tell us anything that actively supports Leonardo’s authorship.
Sadly, none of this will feature in the press. The story has had its splash, the media caravan has moved on, and the public will remain as confused as ever.
Van Dyck's Henrietta Maria on display
October 1 2012
Picture: BG
Thanks for your kind messages everyone - I'm glad you liked the final episode of 'Fake or Fortune?'. We had another strong audience showing - 4.3m viewers, peaking at 4.8m. The programme started off with 3.8m, then steadily put on another million viewers, despite the XFactor starting halfway through on ITV.
Here's a shot of the picture on display at the Banqueting House, where it hangs alongside one the best known studio of Van Dyck version (left). It's very instructive to see the two side by side - if you go and see them, let me know what you think. The BH's opening times are a bit sporadic, so it's best to check out their website first. In the middle is the remainder of the larger 18thCentury canvas. I'm afraid the lighting in the case could be better - we're hoping to improve it.
Caveat Emptor, again
September 28 2012
Picture: Mayfair Art Purveyors
They're back again - those curious 'investment level' art auctioneers I warned you about before.
New updates at 'The art world in Britain, 1660 - 1735'
September 28 2012
Picture: York.ac.uk
More handy additions at the University of York's art history archive project. Editor Richard Stephens tells us that the new material online includes:
Listings of over 250 late 17th century auctions and lotteries have been added, making the index of art sales complete for the period 1660 to 1699. 13 newly transcribed sale catalogues include the collections of surgeon Luke Rugeley (1697), painter Herman Verelst (1702), art collector 3rd Earl of Leicester (1703) and dealer and print maker Alexander Browne (1706). Among other additions, a group of letters from Christiaan Huygens provides a window into the studio practices of Sir Peter Lely in the early 1660s.
New Goya site
September 28 2012
Picture: Prado
Hot on the heels of the new Rembrandt database, Tribune de l'Art alerts us to a new Goya site, from the Prado. You can have a good rummage around the world of 18th Century Spain here.
That $7 Renoir
September 28 2012
Picture: Potomack Auction
Turns out it might have been half-inched.* More here.
*[that's 'pinched' in rhyming slang]
The white glove fallacy
September 28 2012
Picture: Keystone
I got a ranting letter yesterday from a viewer of 'Fake or Fortune?', berating me for not wearing white gloves when handling Turner's sketchbooks at the Tate Gallery. It's interesting how white gloves have taken hold in the public and media's imagination as an essential item of clothing when handling anything old. We can see them above in the photo of the unveiling of the Isleworth[less] Mona Lisa. The picture is in a glass encased white box and not even being handled. But still white gloves are demanded for the photo, just for pulling back a curtain.
White gloves are in fact more or less useless, and if anything more likely to cause damage, especially with old documents and works on paper. If, for example, you went to see Turner's sketchbooks at the Tate the staff there would not offer you white gloves, but ask that you wash your hands first, and then handle the material with great care. White gloves make tears and damage more likely, because you cannot handle the paper properly. Gloves make you clumsy. The real danger from handling works on paper comes from the grease on your fingers - that's why there is a sink by the door in the Tate prints and drawing room. Anxious viewers can rest assured that when I was being filmed showing Fiona Bruce the Turner material, I was doing so in front of two Tate curators, who had advised me of the best way to handle the works.
At the National Archives staff and readers do not wear white gloves when handling material, except when on TV. They are so weary of people writing in complaining if white gloves are not used, that they make an exception when the cameras are rolling.
Update - a reader writes:
Totally agree with you about white gloves. The other point is that, when you're offered them in a print room, they are invariably several sizes too small for your hands, making delicate handling that bit more tricky, and also very often darkened with dirt.
Update II - a curator writes:
Definitely agree about cotton gloves for handling paper, but might be worth pointing out that they do prevent damage and should be worn for some items. At both the Geffrye and Parliament we wore powder-free latex disposable ones (cotton gloves once you’ve worn them for a little while become sweat/grease permeable anyway, which is what your trying to prevent, and soon become dirty and can actually transfer dirt onto paper items) and probably would have worn them for handling paper collections – they’re smooth and tighter fitting than cotton so you don’t get loss off sensation. It partly depends how long you’re going to be handling things for, condition and temperature of room.
Good curatorial practice would recommend wearing gloves for some historic objects:
- polished metal
- gilded frames
- coins
- ceramics with gilding/overglaze decoration/lustre glazes or those with porous surfaces
- marble
- early plastics bandalasta/Bakelite (grease can damage all of the above and even with clean hands, it would only take minutes for the natural grease in your skin to return to your fingertips)
- delicate textiles (your fingernails/rough skin can snag on loose threads)
- anything which might harm you (rather than the other way around) – lead objects/vintage electrical items/early plastics (contained formaldehyde)
There’s probably more, but it’s a basic principal of assessing what best protects the object – if you handle glass objects in cotton gloves they’re going to be more at risk than without and glass doesn’t have a porous surface and can be relatively easily cleaned of fingermarks.
Sleeper of the week
September 27 2012
This fine Lely surfaced in a country sale today - but unfortunately we were outbid. One of the other underbidders was (as announced on Twitter) none other than Waldemar! An impressive bit of connoisseurship - well done.
Here, we think the sitter might have been William Brouncker, the famous mathematician.
'A' for effort
September 27 2012
Picture: Mona Lisa Foundation
Sorry folks, move along, nothing to see here. It surely is, as Martin Kemp says, a copy. The Mona Lisa Foundation has done a great PR job, with judicious leaking, a nice website, a video, and all sorts of technical sounding tests. But the evidence behind the claim starts off with some interesting facts, in terms of documentary material, and then becomes more and more obscure until, by the end, we're left with nonsense about age regression.
None of this would satisfy, say, the National Gallery in London, and nor should it satisfy you. Was the simplistic face, above, painted by the greatest artist that ever lived? No. It's just an early copy. If they cleaned the picture, its deficiencies would become painfully obvious. As it is, they are hidden by a pleasingly antique-looking layer of dirt and old varnish, the sort of obfuscatory layer that allows for optimistic conjectures.
You can zoom in here on various details of the picture (or, top tip, click 'save image' on the detail and download a high-res version of the whole thing). Then compare it here with the real thing, of which below is a detail [Picture: Louvre].
Update - a reader writes:
For once, you got it all wrong! Surely, it's the Mona Lisa… after a visit to Harley Street! Every little cosmetic surgery helps…
And another:
Alas, its not just a copy: its a pretty bad copy at that.
The story has done well in the press so far. But for how much longer will the media keep reporting arts discovery stories, if the 'discoveries' are so often nonsense? Will it end up like the boy who cried wolf? Will there be a time when genuine arts discoveries are greeted with a shrug of the shoulders, and ignored?
Update II - another reader asks about the mystery early provenance:
Seeing as the Mona Lisa Foundation is now supposedly revealing all about its Mona Lisa to the world, it is surprising it does not tell us who Hugh Blaker bought the picture from in 1913 - the person who inherited it (or whatever) from the aristocratic 18th century Grand Tourist of the Somerset manor house? Why should that have to be a secret? Issues of confidentiality and delicacy perhaps? Or perhaps Hugh Blaker forgot to make a note of the name of the Somerset nobleman? Or have I missed something?
'Isleworth Mona Lisa' - the evidence
September 27 2012
Video: Mona Lisa Foundation
The 'Mona Lisa Foundation' site has just gone live. Watching it now...
Update - a reader sends in this warning:
...why did you, en effet, let me waste 25 mins out of my life watching a ridiculous ‘programme’ on a “Da Vinci”? I knew from the start that I should not have been ‘sucked in’ to this sad saga and yet...
'Early Mona Lisa' unveiled
September 27 2012
Picture: Sky News
The picture has been unveiled to the press, but so far there are few specific details revealed. The 'Mona Lisa Foundation' website is still not available, but it says it will be at 3pm. Ooh, they are a tease. The evidence so far seems a little underwhelming, at least according to the quotes on the Press Association.
Apparently the key summation is this:
"So far, not one scientific test has been able to disprove that the painting is by Leonardo," said art historian Stanley Feldman, a foundation member and principal author of a foundation book Mona Lisa: Leonardo's Earlier Version.
Which is a long way from saying tests have proved that it is by Leonardo. Usually, scientific analysis can tell you what a painting is not, not what it is. As far as I know, even proponents of exclusively scientific attributions have yet to come up with an 'is it by Leonardo' test.
But there is at least a fat book you can buy! Tho' it seems you have to read it with white gloves...
Expect a big splash...
September 26 2012
Picture: TAN
Expect lots of media coverage for the unveiling of the 'earlier Mona Lisa' tomorrow. We've had two interview requests today already, including from ABC in the US. So it sounds like the mysterious 'Swiss consortium' has at least got their publicity right.
Diligent connoisseurs amongst you will be pleased to know that I spotted the large elephant trap marked, 'Make public attribution you may regret on basis of small digital image', and avoided it.
Academic Guffwatch
September 26 2012
A reader sends in this gem, from an art history conference next year at the University of York:
Call for Papers: Visual Culture in Crisis – Britain c.1800 – Present
'European mastery is always in crisis – and it is this same crisis that defines European modernity’ – Empire, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri
The word ‘crisis’ is frequently invoked to assess Britain’s current place in the world: crises in finance, journalism, politics and geopolitics dominate the media, all of which see the term used both to reflect, and manipulate, a sense of uncertainty and confusion on personal, national, and global levels. Taking its cue from Hardt and Negri’s location of ‘crisis’ as central to European modernity, this conference seeks to explore how visual cultures in Britain during the 19th and 20th centuries have simultaneously responded to – and emerged from – the successive crises that have been deemed to constitute the country’s (post)colonial modernity. Crisis might signify avant-garde break-through and embrace of modernity. It might impel artistic breakdown or flight from modernity, anarchic celebration, or resistance in the form of protest. Crisis in visual culture could above all be emblematic of the contingent nature of personal and political identities. As both a product and a precipitant of the inter-state and inter-subjective networks that have emerged in conjunction with imperialism and economic globalisation, crisis can articulate a disharmony between metropole and colony, centre and periphery, state and individual, working constantly to disrupt the geographical, cultural and class boundaries of ‘Britain’.
If you put this into Google Translate and hit 'Macedonian', it begins to make sense.
Test your connoisseurship, ctd.
September 26 2012
Picture: Philip Mould & Company
It's plug time again everyone - the final episode of this series of 'Fake or Fortune?' goes out this Sunday (BBC1, 7pm). The picture above is the subject of the show - and the question for all you budding connoisseurs is, is this by Van Dyck, or not? We bought it at auction as 'after Van Dyck' - so have we blown many thousands of pounds on a worthless copy, or is there more to this picture than meets the eye?
Be brave, and send me your immediate thoughts!
[Update II - I've posted some details of the head and hands below]
[Update III - before anyone gets cross about me asking you to make judgements from a digital photo, and not the real thing, remember, it's just for fun! And the auction photo online was the first image we had of the picture, so it's 'pretend you're a dealer' day.]
Update - a reader writes:
Would have said not much chance (forgive me, unless tons of overpaint) but as it is the subject of your programme I guess it will have a happy ending!!
In the last series we had two unhappy endings, and one happy one, and one indeterminate. For this series we've had two happy endings - so are we due an unhappy one?
Using the same logic, another reader writes:
The theme in FOF seems to be discovering in those I've seen so far that the works are indeed thought to be original. Having said that this doesn't seem to have the luminosity most Van Dycks have. I'm saying "after" or "school of" not orig.
Another:
Looking at the relatively high-res image on the Christie’s site, the drawing of the both arms, the bosom, the left shoulder, and the clumsy handling of the drapery is not masterly, but that is not say it is not Van Dyck. You have probably found enough comparisons to tell us that it is a late Van Dyck (+ studio?). I recall you saying that like most artists working in England, Van Dyck gradually descended in quality.
And another:
First impressions on this painting would suggest that it's a studio piece, possibly with the head by the master. The arms and hands seem weak, and the whole body seems stiff, with none of Van Dyck's ease, I hope to be proved wrong...
From Twitter, we have shorter reasoning. My favourite so far:
So not a Van Dyck.
More optimistically:
I say yes to the van Dyck. Subject matter is right, textiles look right. Hands were not what he did best. Needs cleaning.
Which reminds me of one of my favourite Van Dyck anecdotes - when asked why he took such care over painting hands, he replied, 'the hands pay the bill'.
Another 'no' comes in:
[...] my gut feeling is that it is not by Van Dyck, mostly because of the dress which I feel should be more crisp.
And from a new contributor:
First time I have ever posted anything.
I think it is a van Dyck – the lace looks right.
One reader goes for condition:
My guess - a Van Dyke that was harshly re-lined at some point, and over-cleaned.
While another sees the hand of another artist altogether:
Regarding the Van Dyck mentioned today that was recently bought at auction, is it John Michael Wright possibly emulating Van Dyck.
Behold, 'The Isleworth Mona Lisa'
September 25 2012
Picture: TAN
The Art Newspaper has a better photo of the 'first version of the Mona Lisa'. It will be unveiled in Geneva on 27th September. Martin Bailey has more details here.
Queen buys her own picture
September 25 2012
Picture: PA/Andrew Matthews, via Art Daily
And not just one, but four of them. More details over at Art Daily.
Touché
September 24 2012
Picture: ZCZ Films
Curious about Waldemar Januszczak's seemingly incredibly ability to tell whether a work of art is fake or genuine purely from a clip on the telly, I did a little research. I thought readers might be interested to see the above moment from Waldemar's film on Gauguin, when, halfway through, he waxes lyrical about the 'first ceramic that Gauguin ever made'. It's a Faun which is signed with the monogram 'PGo'. Waldemar tells us that this monogram is, 'the first time he uses the monogram 'PGo' which he [Gauguin] later uses in a lot of his paintings...' Apparently it was a way of, 'very deliberately harking back to his own sexual problems...'
All very interesting, but here's the thing; the sculpture is a fake. It was made in the 1990s by Shaun Greenhalgh, in his garden shed.
Now regular readers will know that I am full of admiration for Waldemar's films and writings - even when he was busy criticising the first series of 'Fake or Fortune?' I described him as the best communicator on the arts of his generation. (And anyone who makes a film about William Dobson must be a Good Thing.) But when it comes to connoisseurship, I think his record suggests that he may want to exercise a little caution before criticising the conclusions, and programmes, of others.
Apart from the minor fake faux pas, the Gauguin film is excellent. You can buy a copy here.
Update - a reader slaps me on the wrist:
By the way, on Waldemar etc, haven't we all made howlers at some point or other? For my part I bought a 'Downman' in a regional auction on the strength of the website image, only to get it home and discover that it was an old illustration, with a few washes of colour. Pretty embarrassing.
You invite people to test their connoisseurship on the strength of your website images, yet when someone like Waldemar makes a judgement from a picture on the TV, he is to be derided? You praise Philip Mould for his instinct, writing "almost the minute he saw the pictures that they were by Turner." But what if he'd been wrong? Would his rush to judgement have been praiseworthy, or rash?
But anyway, I think you should take a slightly different tack: why not come clean and have a story or two - encouraging others to confess - about your own connoisseurial mistakes? Otherwise it all sounds a little bit holier than thou.
