Today

January 9 2012

I'm off to Wales to look at possible paintings for 'Fake or Fortune?'. My colleague Lawrence Hendra has kindly volunteered to babysit the site in my absence. Thanks Lawrence!

An important Van Dyck discovery in Scotland

January 6 2012

Image of An important Van Dyck discovery in Scotland

Picture: Scottish National Portrait Gallery

Since today is assuming a bit of a Van Dyck theme (see below), it may be a good time to mention an important re-attribution at the Scottish National Portrait Gallery. The above portrait of Civil War hero James Graham, Marquess of Montrose, was for a long time thought to be by William Dobson. But the Gallery's sixteenth and seventeenth century senior curator David Taylor has now changed the attribution to 'Studio of Van Dyck'.* 

This is a bold step, and an absolutely right one. In fact, I'd go further, having seen the picture recently, and say that it is very probably by Van Dyck himself, albeit rather damaged. Later over-paint gives the picture the appearance of a less skilled work from Van Dyck's studio. The canvas had been heavily re-lined in the past, and this combined with some abrasion had given the picture a slight look of being painted on the type of thick canvas that Dobson ocassionally used.

I'd say it is a late Van Dyck, and I note that Montrose was in London in 1636. If he did sit to Van Dyck then, this picture would accord reasonably well with the artist's style at that time. It is similar to his portrait of Lord Goring, which was recently on the market, and which Sir Oliver Millar dated to later in Van Dyck's career, and as late as 1638-40. There is, incidentally, no other surviving candidate around to be Van Dyck's original of Montrose. So Scotland seems to have lost a Dobson, but gained a Van Dyck. With any luck, the SNPG may one day have the picture cleaned, and take off the later restorations. Then we can see what it is really like.

*The SNPG's website is a little muddled - it attributes the picture to Van Dyck in full, but dates it to 1644, after Van Dyck died. The label on the wall at the SNPG says "Studio of Van Dyck".

Van Dycks everywhere...

January 6 2012

Image of Van Dycks everywhere...

Picture: Elite Auction

A reader writes:

In response to your latest post, here's another slightly more interesting example [above] of exactly the same subject that I stumbled across recently! 

The catalogue states:

Antique oil painting on board in gold frame depicting a man with mustache. 18th/19th century. Authenticity guaranteed. $300-400.

I'm note quite sure what they're guaranteeing here - that he has a mustache? Anyway, well spotted - it is indeed a copy of Van Dyck's self-portrait, in this case a lost original painted in the mid 1630s. Hard to say from the photos, but I would say the copy dates from the 18th Century. Someone rescue him, please! A portrait of Van Dyck is top of my wish-list, but I'm going to pass on this one, and keep my powder dry for something a little better. Happily, I get to see the real thing every day. Unhappily, I know I can never afford it... 

A Van Dyck sleeper!

January 6 2012

Image of A Van Dyck sleeper!

Picture: Bentley's auctions

Well, not quite. But I can't stand to see a portrait of my favourite artist continue to be neglected as 'Portrait of a Gentleman', even if it is a much later copy. So if you want to rescue this picture, it's at least worth a little more than the £80 estimate. Sale is tomorrow. 

To clean or not to clean?

January 6 2012

Image of To clean or not to clean?

Picture: Louvre

Here's a belated notice about the row in France over the cleaning of Leonardo's Virgin and Child with St Anne [Louvre]. I hadn't commented on it till now largely because there seem to be few tangible facts - and certainly no images of the cleaned work. But essentially it seems someone has resigned from the Louvre's conservation board in a huff, saying the picture has been over-cleaned. Predictably, it is all the fault of Les Anglais. From The Guardian:

The Louvre source said that Keith and Syson [of the National Gallery, London] were particularly keen on this restoration: "The English were very pushing, saying they know Leonardo is extremely delicate but 'we can move without any danger to the work'. There was a row a year ago about solvents because they said they were safe and Bergeon Langle said they're not safe. It took a long time before the committee really had explanations on the chemicals used on the picture. Details were asked for [by the critics on the committee], but didn't come for months …

"There are people who are very much for bright hues and strong cleaning. Those people are in charge."

For what it's worth, Leonardo was quite keen on bright hues too. Anyway, we can make no judgement till we see the cleaned work. In the meantime, feast your eyes on this super high-resolution image of the picture before cleaning, to which I was alerted by the ever-invaluable Three Pipe Problem. He has even spotted what appear to be a couple of finger-prints in the top left of the painting. Are they Leonardo's? Who knows - but it'll be interesting to see if they are still there in the cleaned painting...

Daftness

January 5 2012

Video: You and I Films

I learnt last night of a group calling itself 'Liberate Tate'. Their aim is to:

Free art from the grip of the oil industry through creativity.

They have an anonymous 'spokesman', who has given an interview to Artinfo, and there's also a snappy website. Their actions so far have included: 

  • a contribution to Tate Modern’s 10th Birthday celebrations (28 May 2010) by hanging dead fish and birds from dozens of giant black helium balloons in the Turbine Hall 
  • an 'oil' spill at the Tate Summer Party celebrating 20 years of BP support (28 June 2010) 
  • the installation art work, 'Crude' which saw over 30 members of the collective draw a giant sunflower in the Turbine Hall with black oil paint bursting from BP-branded tubes of paint (14 September 2010)

The video above shows one of these events, the 'oil spill' at Tate Britain. It's worth a watch to see how idiotic these people are. First, marvel at their self-consciousness as they prepare to protest wearing veils. Then note how they arrive at Tate in fossil-fuel burning cars (not bikes?). Feel your lip curl as they throw 'oil' (molasses) and feathers all over the floor both outside and inside the museum, and then walk away to leave some other poor sod to clear up the mess (above). 

Liberate Tate call this performance art. I call it making a mess. Actually, it's disgusting (and in the manner of its execution, cowardly). For what it's worth, their actions constitute a criminal offence, under the Environmental Protection Act (section 87), for which the maximum penalty is a fine of £2,500. I guess that explains the veils. Liberate Tate seem to miss the irony that their actions achieve publicity only because Tate (and I suppose by extension, BP) tacitly allows them to take place.

If Liberate really want to free Tate from commercial sponsors like BP, then they should get out their wallets, and give the museum some cash. It'll be more effective than littering. 

Gawd bless ya, Ma'am

January 5 2012

Image of Gawd bless ya, Ma'am

Picture: National Portrait Gallery, London

What splendid news it is that the Duchess of Cambridge is to be a patron of the National Portrait Gallery. It's been a while since a leading royal played a really active role in supporting Britain's art galleries. Kate's degree was in art history, so one assumes that she has chosen the NPG as much for its fine 'historic' collection as the headline-grabbing contemporary portraits. And perhaps she might even be a reader of Art History News!

To celebrate this happy event, here is an image of the NPG's portrait of Catherine Parr. It used to be called, erroneously, Lady Jane Grey, and was re-identified thanks to Catherine Parr's list of jewels. Let's hope that when the next Queen Catherine's portrait enters the NPG, it never loses its identity.

Vandal of the week

January 5 2012

Image of Vandal of the week

Picture: Denver Post

This is Carmen Tisch, who, according to the Denver Post:

[when] apparently drunk, leaned against an iconic Clyfford Still painting worth more than $30 million last week, punched it, slid down it and urinated on herself, according to a criminal case filed against Carmen Lucette Tisch.

"It doesn't appear she urinated on the painting or that the urine damaged it, so she's not being charged with that," Lynn Kimbrough, a spokeswoman for the Denver district attorney's office, said Wednesday. "You have to wonder where her friends were."

Tisch is being charged with criminal mischief in the incident that happened at the Clyf ford Still Museum at 3:30 p.m. on Dec. 29. Damage to the painting — "1957-J-No. 2." — is estimated at $10,000. [...]

Tisch allegedly committed the offense with her pants pulled down, according to the police report, and struck the painting repeatedly with her fist.

Nice

New information on Jane Austen

January 5 2012

Image of New information on Jane Austen

Picture: Guardian/Dr Paula Byrne (detail)

Dr Paula Byrne, the Jane Austen scholar who featured in the BBC2 show on the possible portrait of Jane, has been in touch with an interesting new fact, not broadcast in the programme. Jane's brother, Francis Austen, was appointed a Companion of the Order of the Bath in September 1815. Now the chapel of the Order is the Henry VII Chapel at Westminster Abbey. So this could mean that the view of Westminster Abbey seen in the drawing does have a connection to Jane's life, which was one of my main questions over the picture. One of Jane's visits to London was in late 1815. Furthermore, Francis Austen was officially gazetted as Francis Austin.

My other questions on the picture remain, and it seems that perhaps the view in the background is centred more on St Margaret's than the Abbey. But it means I was wrong to state below:

The main clue in the drawing, the very obviously placed background showing Westminster Abbey and St Margaret's, Westminster, bears no relation to anything in Jane's life.

Pictures that make you smile

January 4 2012

Image of Pictures that make you smile

Picture: Christie's

This is by Louis-Leopold Boilly (1761-1845), a master of illusion. Coming up at Christie's New York with an estimate of $150-250,000. 

Crowd sourcing the National Trust's collection

January 4 2012

Image of Crowd sourcing the National Trust's collection

Picture: National Trust

Following my post on the new National Trust online database, the NT's registrar and blogger-in-chief, Emile de Bruijn, has written a piece for the NT's own excellent blog, and points out the great potential of the web when it comes to identifying lost paintings:

Paintings expert Bendor Grosvenor has been perusing our new online National Trust Collections database (which I first posted about here), testing his eye on various ‘school of’ and ‘attributed to’ portraits. He has reported his hunches on his Art History News blog.

For instance, he thinks that this portrait of a lady at Petworth [above], attributed to Van Dyck, really is by the artist himself, done in the mid 1620s in Italy.

This kind of response is really encouraging. It means people are now starting to use the National Trust Collections site for research and comparison. The site itself (and the National Trust’s curatorial records) will also benefit from these responses, as more information comes to light and opinions are exchanged.

Once again we see the potential of crowd sourcing – which, in the slightly rarified area of old master paintings expertise, should perhaps be called in-crowd sourcing (but an in-crowd accessible to all).

Emile has also kindly sent me a higher-res image of the portrait above; it certainly does seem like an Italian-period Van Dyck to me, albeit one that appears to have suffered a degree of damage. Now I just need to wait till Petworth reopens to go and see it 'in the flesh'...

The wrong 'Bloody Mary'

January 4 2012

Image of The wrong 'Bloody Mary'

Picture: Chile Foundry

The Twitter-sphere* is great for throwing up curiosities like this - a bottle of 'bloody mary spicer' with a portrait of Mary Queen of Scots on the label, not, as it should be, Mary I. 

*in this case TheAnneBoleynFiles and TudorTutor.

Jane Austen?

January 4 2012

Image of Jane Austen?

Picture: Guardian/Dr Paula Byrne

A number of readers have asked what I thought of the 'Jane Austen' drawing which featured in a BBC2 programme on boxing day. It was an intriguing bit of telly. But I wasn't wholly convinced by the claims made for the drawing being Jane the novelist. Here's why;

  • There is no evidence for the sitter being Jane outside the drawing itself. That is, there are no documentary references to it, and no enticing hints of provenance.
  • We have no idea who made the drawing, and thus whether they can be connected to Jane. 
  • The main clue in the drawing, the very obviously placed background showing Westminster Abbey and St Margaret's, Westminster, bears no relation to anything in Jane's life. [update, new evidence means this is incorrect, see above post]
  • The clothing argument, that a dress worn by Jane revealed similar dimensions to the sitter, is flawed. The early provenance of the dress used in the programme is far from certain - it may well not be Jane's. Here's the early history of the dress from Hampshire County Council's website:

The pelisse was given to Hampshire Museums Service in 1993. The donors' great, great, great grandfather was Jane Austen's elder brother James (1765-1819), who got it from their grandmother, who had received it from Eleanor Steele (nee Glubbe, b1857). She had visited the Knight family as a young lady of eighteen, and was given the dress by Miss Marianne Knight, sister of Captain John Knight, around 1875. At the age of seventy three she eventually felt that the pelisse should return to the Austen family, and sent it to James's great granddaughter Mrs Winifred Jenkyns. Her note accompanying the parcel reads: "I missed the little coat for a long time but lately it turned up. I cannot remember if it was 'Jane's' but it seems probable"

  • The 'isn't her nose similar to her those of her brothers' argument doesn't hold water, sadly. One cannot rely on those kind of claims when identifying sitters in portraits, especially when comparing a rubbed drawing by an amateur. The sequence in the programme where a modern forensic expert was used to give his view on the sitter in the drawing was a touch misleading. If only it really was that easy to identify sitters. Furthermore, the programme didn't deal convincingly with the written description from Jane's nephew that her nose was 'small' - the nose in the drawing is enormous - and nor did the programme touch on the possible Jane Austen silhouette, also in the NPG, which, if genuine, would be our best guide to Jane's nose. The programme omitted to discuss the nose of Jane's sister, Cassandra, which apears beautifully rendered in a silhouette, and is not like the large thing seen in the drawing of 'Jane'. 
  • The 'the cat denotes spinsterhood' argument. Well, perhaps. But a pet in a portrait could mean just about anything, if you want it to. And would an amateur artist be familiar with the cat-as-indicator-of-spinsterhood tradition, if it existed? And would Jane herself want to be defined as a spinster, even in her thirties? Incidentally, the sitter was wearing a lot of jewellery; there are lines of pearls in the cap, apparently three necklaces, a brooch at her waist, and a number of rings - all of which may not accord well with our idea of a relatively poor spinster up from the country. 
  • The best evidence for the drawing remains the 'Miss Jane Austin' inscription on the back. I thought the programme dealt well with the Austen/Austin argument. But I would liked to have seen some more rigorous analysis of the inscription; what type of script was it, and when was it added? If, for example, the word 'Miss' had been spelt with an old-fashioned long first 's' (which looked like an 'f', so 'Mifs'), as Jane herself used, then that would have suggested the inscription was more likely to be nice and early. I know the long 's' was falling out of use in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, but it still would have been good to have some discussion on the handwriting used in the inscription, which to my unexpert eye looked later than the drawing.
  • Finally, no effort was made to preclude any other 'Jane Austins' out there. I know this is a tangential argument, but a quick look through Family Search highlights what a common name 'Jane Austin' was in early 18thC England (and I presume still is!). It seems there are even some 'Jane Austins' who got married in Westminster at about the time the drawing could have been made.  

So, on balance, the evidence for the identification of this anonymous and not particularly good drawing seems to me to be a little thin. I note that the National Portrait Gallery curators were conspicuous by their absence. But we certainly can't rule it out - and hopefully more research and analysis will help us to solve the mystery. In the meantime, I'll stick with Cassandra Austen's undisputed drawing of Jane. 

Second time lucky for another Bolton deaccession

January 4 2012

Image of Second time lucky for another Bolton deaccession

Picture: Bonhams

Last year, Bolton Council decided to fund the construction of a new art storage facility by selling 36 paintings from Bolton Museum's collection. The pictures included works by Millais, Romney, Burne-Jones and Sickert. They hoped to raise £500,000, but have fallen short with £395,816, according to This is Lancashire.

Regular readers will know that many of the works have sold below their lower estimate, and some have failed to sell at all. The latest casualty is Charles Napier Hemy's The Riverside, which failed at £30-£50,000 at Bonhams in September. It will now appear again in January at £20-£30,000. The whole charade (lack of transparency, consigning with only one auction house, ill-advised sales etc.) should serve as an example to other councils in how not to conduct future deaccessions. 

A Saenredam discovery, and the power of the web

January 3 2012

Image of A Saenredam discovery, and the power of the web

Picture: BG

Here's a very satisfying discovery with which to begin the year - a rare exterior landscape by Pieter Saenredam. You may remember that I recently posted an article on the picture when it was at auction last year, catalogued as 'follower of Saenredam' at Christie's South Kensington. It was estimated at £3-5,000. It looked to me a little better than 'follower of' (I wrote that 'it shone out at the viewing') and I was hoping to bid on it myself.

Sadly, it was withdrawn (perhaps another dealer paid too much attention to it), and the picture was expunged from the online catalogue. But happily Saenredam scholar and noted art historian Gary Schwartz saw the picture here on AHN. And now he has written a fascinating entry on his own blog about the picture. His conclusion, along with that of his colleague Marten Jan Bok (co-author of Schwartz's 1989 book on Saenredam), is that there is little doubt the painting is indeed by Saenredam.

How then, if they have only seen the image on Art History News, can they be so sure about the attribution? Through excellent research. Read their analysis in full here, but the crucial facts are these:

  • The scene shows the town of Assendelft, where Saenredam lived. The main building is the town hall. In front of it is the scourge post to which local villains were tied. The church is that of St Odulphus.
  • The house in which Saenredam grew up can be seen in the painting, to the left of the church. 
  • The picture is dated 1634, when Saenredam is documented as returning to the town, and making a series of drawings that relate to the painting. 

Obviously, this is not only a fantastically rare work by Saenredam, but a highly important document in relation to the artist's life. While it will always be a shame I couldn't buy it for £3,000 (tho' I suspect it would have made far more), it is wonderful that the full story behind the picture has now come to light.

The story is also an example of how the internet is driving art history forward at an unprecedented rate. Further proof of this can be found at the end of Gary Schwartz's blog post, for after reading Gary's post, a reader got in touch with news of some early provenance for the picture - dating to 1784. Sounds like the auction houses need to start their own blog...

PS - top AHN tip, if you think you've seen a sleeper at auction, don't stare at it for too long. It may get withdrawn.

PPS - curious coincidence: my post on the picture being withdrawn from CSK was made on 8th December, exactly one year after the last Saenredam sleeper sold for over a million pounds at Bonhams.  

Taxing success

January 3 2012

Image of Taxing success

Picture: TAN

Over in the US, the mayor of Boston, one Thomas Menino, has come up with a typically bonkers political response to a succesful arts institution: tax it. He wants to massively increase the 'fees' paid by the Museum of Fine Arts to the city in lieu of taxation. As a charity, the museum is exempt from city taxes. But the city gets round this by asking for a seperate 'pilot fee'. Now, Mayor Menino, wants to raise the fee from the current $55,000 to $1,025,000 in four years time. 

In The Art Newspaper, the director of the MFA, Malcolm Rogers (above), points out that the museum brings untold benefits to the city, all for free:

The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (MFA), is one of the world’s great cultural institutions, whose impact on the quality of life of its city is immeasurable. But the generosity of spirit that built this great museum is being buffeted by a surprising entity—the City of Boston itself—which has put in motion a plan to drastically increase the “voluntary” contributions cultural institutions make through its payment in lieu of taxes (Pilot) programme. When civic leaders look to cultural organisations as a source of revenue, rather than as an invaluable resource for the communities they serve, it has dire implications nationwide.

Since the MFA opened its doors on 4 July 1876, it has been almost entirely privately funded. Unlike our peer museums—the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and the Art Institute of Chicago, which receive millions of dollars in financing from their cities—we are not funded by our municipality.

Rogers speaks with some modesty, for it is largely under his 17 year directorship that the museum has become one of the world's great cultural institutions. Oddly enough, Mayor Menino is a trustee of the MFA. He must be the only museum trustee in the States proposing to make his museum a million dollars worse off. 

Last year I had to fly to New York, a city I dislike, to look at a possible Van Dyck. Thanks the MFA, I chose instead to fly to the US via Boston where I stayed for a couple of days, and then took the early morning flight to NY for the day. 

"All the works here were made by the artist himself, personally."

January 3 2012

In a riposte to those artists who rely on others to make their work for them (Koons, Hirst et al), David Hockney has ensured that his forthcoming exhibition at the Royal Academy is preceded by the above statement. He also said, in The Guardian;

"I used to point out, at art school you can teach the craft; it's the poetry you can't teach. But now they try to teach the poetry and not the craft."

Sounds like a pretty accurate summary of what's wrong with art schools these days.

Oops

January 3 2012

Happy new year everyone!

I must begin 2012 with an error. An 'avid reader from Belgium' writes:

May I point out to you that Dendermonde [see below post] is definitely not a town in Holland, but securely situated in Flanders on the confluence of Scheldt and Dender. 

Our Lady's Church was heavily damaged in WW I but is still a magnificent city church, well worth a visit - not in the least because of its two fine Van Dyck altar pieces.

Here's hoping for less mistakes this year... Or should that be 'fewer'.

Merry Christmas everyone

December 24 2011

Image of Merry Christmas everyone

Picture: topical-stamps.com

Wherever you are, I hope you have a good Christmas. Thank you for all your interest in, and support for, AHN this year. We're now up to a thousand visitors a day. I am very grateful.

The image above is a little out of date, but as topical as I can get for a festive image by my favourite artist, Anthony Van Dyck. Clearly, whoever designs the stamps in Micronesia is highly cultured. The original Adoration of the Shepherds is in the Church of Our Lady in Dendermonde, Holland Belgium. Unusually, Van Dyck has decided to cast one of the shepherds as female. I like to think that not only was he a great artist, but enlightened. 

National Trust paintings go online - can you find any sleepers?

December 23 2011

Image of National Trust paintings go online - can you find any sleepers?

Picture: National Trust

At last! The UK's greatest single collection of paintings has gone online. The site apparently went live last week, but I've only just stumbled across it today. What a resource. I can barely contain my excitement; it's nirvana for anyone interested in British art history, and this particular British art history anorak will now be spending a lot of time on his iPad over Christmas. Well done to everybody involved. With this and the Public Catalogue Foundation putting museum pictures online, Britain now leads the way in digital access to its art. 

Being slightly obsessed with Van Dyck, I searched immediately for works by him. As you might expect, there are many fine things. But also some more mysterious works. I'm taken with the above Portrait of an Unknown Lady at Petworth, called 'attributed to Van Dyck'. It is not in the 2004 catalogue raisonne, but looks to me as if it has a good chance of being 'right', probably done in the mid 1620s in Italy. 

For all you budding connoisseurs, it's a great site for playing guess the attribution. Have a search for unattributed works, by entering 'English School' for example, and let me know if you find anything good. Below are a few pictures that have caught my eye in the last hour or so... [all images (C) National Trust]

This painting of a Madonna and Child, is attributed to the 'Studio of Willem Wissing'. The Trust catalogue correctly notes that it is a partial copy of Van Dyck's painting of Cesare Scaglia adoring the Virgin and Child [National Gallery, London], albeit without Scaglia, and an altered Madonna. However, the original of this composition is in fact by Sir Peter Lely, and is now in an American Private Collection. It's one of the nicest Lelys I've ever seen, fluidly painted and richly coloured, and evidently done for his own pleasure. Lely was fascinated by Van Dyck, and copied many of his works. Intriguingly, a ghostly pair of hands in Lely's copy reveals that he initially planned to paint Scaglia too, but then changed his mind and left him out.  

Other things that briefly caught my eye include the above 'English School' portrait at Erddig in Wrexham, of whom the Trust is unsure of the identification, calling it 'Supposedly Joshua Edisbury, or ?James Hutton'. It is in fact a copy of Benjamin West's Portrait of Governor James Hamilton, which hangs in Independence Hall in Philadelphia. How a copy of Hamilton's portrait ended up in Wrexham masquerading as a welshman is a mystery... 

This 'English School' Unknown Gentleman is by John Riley. 

And Mary of Modena, wife of James II, would have been most displeased to find her portrait at Chirk Castle (above) identified as Charles II's mistress Moll Davis. The Chirk portrait is based on this original by Lely.

And going really off piste, the above Portrait of John Throckmorton is called 'Circle of William Larkin', but looks to have a chance of being by Marcus Gheeraerts. 

So if you have a few idle moments this Christmas, have a look at the site and see what you can find. Between us we should be able to wrap up all those unattributed pictures... The only sad thing about the site is the tiny photos. You can zoom in a bit, but they really should be larger. Presumably it's the old 'we must protect our copyright' fallacy. 

Notice to "Internet Explorer" Users

You are seeing this notice because you are using Internet Explorer 6.0 (or older version). IE6 is now a deprecated browser which this website no longer supports. To view the Art History News website, you can easily do so by downloading one of the following, freely available browsers:

Once you have upgraded your browser, you can return to this page using the new application, whereupon this notice will have been replaced by the full website and its content.