One of my happy places – and I understand it so much better now after this spring!
Grrrr – I’m fiddling with an idea for my Arth 101 class this fall and am frustrated with the British Museum website. So far as I can tell, you can’t search by “Museum Number” – the catalog number.
Then type its Museum Number, EA36297, into the search field (you know, I might want to find my way back sometime). No hits.
Then try 36297! Yes, there he is.
So at home on Sunday mornings my mother always watches CBS Sunday Morning. There was just a story about a neat new show of Civil War photographs at the Met. Someone (the voiceover, I think) said that this was the first photographed war.
Humbug! Crimea was heavily photographed! Just look.
I don’t know if that was the first – but it sprang to mind immediately.
In 1931, the man who built the collection, director William Valentiner, argued for continued city funding by citing how much the works’ value had appreciated. “The Brueghel painting we purchased for $38,000 is valued at more than $150,000,” he said. “If the city were to sell, piece by piece, the objects of art it has purchased, they would realize more than five times the amount paid for them.” Valentiner certainly wasn’t advocating such sales, but his statement demonstrates that they weren’t inconceivable.
Acquire with city funds, go down with the sinking ship. Maybe the van Gogh self portrait would keep some fire stations open for another year?
The Egyptian Museum is one of the world’s great collections – but!
Two exaples. On my way out I turned the corner on the first floor near the exit. Jusst before the corner is the head – with its paint intact, of one of theOsiris-Hatshepsuts from her mortuary temple. Labelled. Fine.
Just around the corner, one of her sphinxes and a kneeling Hatshepsut in a Nemes-crown making offerings. Neither one labelled. I happen to know them from 25 years of teaching Art 101, but I’m not ereally the average tourist here in this museum – not highly informed but better than most.
Mounted on the wall nearby are two stelae – flat slabs of stone with text and images.
One was is fairly good condition, the other in pretty bad conditino and more fraagmentary, too.
For the first one, the label mentions, “ALthough of wretched workmanship it is not without a certain interest.” The other was labeled a “very fine relief from an XVIIIth dynasty tomb.”
There was no explanation of why one is of wretched workmanship and the othher very fine. There was almost nothing more said about the 2nd. All in all reeally bad museumsmanship!
(sorry for the delay – my web-based editing is going very badly on the iPad.
When someone who knows art through pictures (digital images, nowadays) encounters the real thing he sometimes suffers scale shock – finding out that something is much bigger or much smaller than he always thought.
That’s certainly me and this fresco from the Coptic Monastery of St Apollo – Christ in Majest with the Four Beasts of the Apocalypse from the 6th Century.
I always thought it was an apse fresco over an altar, not the conch of a NICHE I can stand inside!
A British effort to put pictures of all the oil paintings in the UK online pays off – an art historian spotted a previously unknown Van Dyck portrait.
The painting, which was not thought to be important and in a bad condition, was covered in layers of dirt and varnish and was not on display at the Bowes Museum.
But it was photographed as part of the Public Catalogue Foundation’s mission to document every oil painting in public ownership and added to the BBC’s Your Paintings website, where it was spotted by art historian and dealer Dr Bendor Grosvenor.
“Although as part of our national heritage values are irrelevant, for insurance purposes it should now be valued at anything up to £1m,” Dr Grosvenor said.
“Had it appeared at auction as a copy, and in its dirty state, it would probably only have been estimated at about £3,000-5,000.”
Grosvenor runs Art History News – here’s an example of what he’s doing with this picture.
The general initiative is called Your Paintings.
The Met owns Jacques Louis David’s Death of Socrates. One of their curators managed to buy a David preparatory drawing for $700 at auction because it was misattributed!
Catalogued and illustrated . . . as “French school, early 19th century”, the 24.5cm by 38.2cm sheet (est $500-$700) depicting The Death of Socrates in brush, black ink and grey wash was described as “lightly squared for transfer in pencil. After the painting by Jacques-Louis David in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.” [my emphasis]
Instead of “after the painting” it was “for the painting.” Good call!
Good question! That’s the title of a story in a new online magazine from the Getty. Go read it and see — great photos, as you might expect!
The intro reminds me of my sister’s reaction to the Grand Canyon. Our mother woke us up very early and drove to get there as soon after dawn as she could (my mother’s not a natural early riser herself). My sister took one look into the Canyon and said something like “OK, it’s a big hole in the ground.” In her defense, she was 12.
Professor Cowen was asking about the deadweight loss of stuff in storage in museums. Look at one way the Met tries to get around that. Suboptimal viewing experience – but they’re still up. This is the The Henry R. Luce Center for the Study of American Art, which they claim is everything that’s not up in the main galleries.
A Matisse stolen from a Swedish museum was recently recovered in the UK. I can’t decide if the standard line is meaningless optimism or just a negotiating tactic:
At the time of the theft, a spokesman for the museum said the painting was too “well-known” to “sell on the open market”.
Mr Marinello agreed with the sentiment, adding: “I commend the museum for not giving in to ransom demands a quarter century ago.
“Stolen artwork has no real value in the legitimate marketplace and will eventually resurface… it’s just a matter of waiting it out.”
Well, they had to wait 25 years. Is that optimism?