2006-05-03 - Andrea del Verrochio David bronze

Louvre Atlanta, 2006-2009

The phenomenon of the traveling exhibition has always been a powerful tool, used by museums to boost attendance rates and bring works of art to a population that otherwise might not get the chance to see them.

But at what cost? ArtWatch has raised the issue of the danger of transporting works in the past, most recently when the Bargello Museum in Florence shipped Verrocchio’s bronze David to Atlanta’s High Museum of Art for an exhibition from November of 2003 to February of 2004, followed immediately by a two-month residency at the National Gallery in Washington D.C. Celebrated as the first time that the sculpturehad ever left its native Italy, the work, as frequently is the case, was restored for the occasion. New David, new venue, and large crowds.


The motivation is not purely altruistic, but a financial one. Attendance for special exhibitions far outpace those of the regular collections, and that increased attendance is reflected in sales. The High Museum, for example,had a record year in its gift shop the year it sponsored an exhibition of Olympic rings, and the <b>David</b> was intended to produce the same results. Hence, as the show drew near, Florentine paper products were imported to entice museum-goers. The High Museum’s new expanded site at the Woodruff Arts Center also doubled the size of the museum store and, hopefully, revenues. Also more than doubled in the last few years is their museum entrance fee, which was $6 in 2000, and is now $15.

Based on the success of previous exhibitions, the High Museum has now embarked on a more ambitious program of importing art objects, teaming up for a three-year deal with the Musée du Louvre in Paris. For a price of around $13 million (the actual sum has not been disclosed, though the compensation has been called “substantial”), the Louvre will lend to the High Museum (or, the “Louvre Atlanta”) some of its most famous artworks for a series of exhibitions. Already slated for shipment is Raphael’s portrait of Baldassare Castiglione, author of  The Book of the Courtier, which will be in Atlanta for the first of nine shows, “Kings as Collectors,” from October 2006 to March 2007, at which point it will be replaced by Poussin’s Et in Arcadia Ego. While those works may be the superstars of the loan agreement, approximately two hundred other works will be shipped from Paris to begin their long-term stay in the new Anne Cox Chambers wing of the museum. While some of the objects chosen for travel have never left France before, also unprecedented is the length of their absence from the Louvre. It is also the first time in the Louvre’s history that they have agreed to lend not just single objects, but entire collections to another museum for an extended period. At the end of the loan, much of what had been sent to the High Museum will find its new home in the new $100 million Louvre satellite museum in the city of Lens.

So what has led to this unprecedented situation, wherein the Louvre is literally renting out its great masterpieces? It seems as if the Louvre, while getting 60% of its operating budget from the French government, is looking for other ways to raise capital in response to recent rumblings that the museum may be receiving a cut in its federal funding. These financial concerns are surprising in light of the record attendance reported for 2005 at 7.3 million visitors, up from the previous record of 6.7 million in 2004, with the increase largely credited to the popularity of The DaVinci Code. Yet the Louvre is seeking greater autonomy from the French state, and part of the money from the “Louvre Atlanta” deal, contributed by American corporate sponsors, will be used by the Louvre to fund facility improvements, specifically the remodeling of their 18th century rooms.

As part of the partnership, the two museums will trade staff members as well, so that the Parisian institution will also get a closer look at the marketing strategies, corporate sponsorship, and fundraising techniques that American museums have been employing for quite some time. And undoubtedly they can learn a lot from the High, who had such tremendous success in their capital campaign that their chief fundraiser was jokingly nicknamed the “pickpocket.”

Despite the geo-political veil that has been cast onto the agreement — showing the collaboration of two countries that have had considerable tension over the past few years — many have been critical of the program, viewing it as a prestigious museum renting its objects out to the highest bidder. As can be expected, much of the criticism has come from within France, with the argument that the French people, rather than the museum itself, own the works and that they should not be made inaccessible to the people of that nation for the financial benefit of the Louvre. There is also some resentment that smaller French museums have had a difficult time procuring loans from the Louvre in the past, yet their shipment to Atlanta can be accommodated for the right price.

A French editorial in  La Tribune de l’Art asked if American museums were more “transparent” than those in France, after noting that even after American online sources broke the story of the “Louvre Atlanta” deal, the Louvre was less than forthcoming about the objects that were to be sent abroad. To wit, criticisms have been made of the museum’s “culture of secrecy” that are, in reality, not dissimilar to those complaints made of American institutions for their unwillingness to openly share information about their collections and operations.

The aura of international diplomacy aside, big business is a much larger player in the newly brokered deal. In order to raise the $13 million to facilitate the agreement, private donors as well as corporate sponsors had to be tapped. In addition, once the Louvre deal began to arise, the costs of the High Museum’s remodeling increased as well, as amenities were added to accommodate the expected crowds, bumping the overall project budget to $163.9 million, with other reports hovering at $178.4.

While some of that money came from private donors, Delta Airlines came aboard as the lead corporate sponsor of the venture, despite having filed Chapter 11 last September and suffering a net loss of $1.2 billion in the last quarter of 2005. Delta will provide air travel and cargo shipping for the exhibition. Other corporate sponsors for the venture include Coca-Cola, Turner Broadcasting, and UPS.

The Louvre’s unprecedented action — renting out a portion of its collection for an extended period of time — has upped the level of concern regarding the loaning of artworks. Not only do the objects continue to be subjected to the substantial dangers of transport, but museums have continued their descent into corporatocracy, with no end in sight.

/by
2006-05-03 - Fra Angelico Christ Crowned with Thorns

Reproductive Rights?

ArtWatch has previously reported on the way in which museums exert their power to suppress discussions in public forums that do not favor their actions or points of view.

Shortly after reporting on the MoMA’s possession of an Egon Schiele painting claimed to have been looted by Nazis during WWII in December of 2004, David D’Arcy, a long-time contributor to National Public Radio, was suspended, supposedly for not presenting the issue in a balanced way. ArtWatch continues to be concerned that museums, with their powerful boards of directors and their far-reaching influence, exert an undue pressure on the media to report favorably on the issues that affect them.

While that may be the case for large institutions, what is surprising is that smaller ones will also use the means at their disposal to limit discussions that they do not deem favorable to their interests. An example can be found perhaps were one might least expect it, in the small Italian town of Livorno.

Professor James Beck was recently asked to review an exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum on Fra Angelico (October 2005-January 2006) for Apollo Magazine. Critical of the museum’s attempt to arbitrarily re-write the chronology of the artist, the review called into question the value of the exhibition on a scholarly level.

As the review was being prepared, the Press Office at the Met had to be contacted in order to obtain permissions to reprint images from the show for the review. One painting considered for publication in Apollo was Christ Crowned with Thorns owned by the Parrocchia di Santa Maria del Soccorso (Livorno). Egle Zygas, Senior Press Officer responded that Livorno’s Museo Civico Giovanni Fattori (which has the work on deposit) would only release the image on two conditions: “one, that the attribution not be questioned; and two) that no disparaging comments be made about the work. If those conditions are fine with you, we are allowed to release an image to you or to your editor.”

The work ultimately appeared in the review, as a full-page color illustration, where it was used to demonstrate the chronological inconsistencies inherent in the exhibition. The incident, however, is chilling for the effect it could have on a scholar’s ability to discuss a work of art. If the thesis of an art historian’s argument is not advantageous to the institution that owns the rights to the work, will they be denied permission to reproduce the images necessary to make their case?

/by
2006-05-03 Rembrandt Portrait of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet before restoration

Pentimento

Several times in recent memory, the restoration of an artwork has led to the re-attribution of a painting, or at the very least, the shift in attribution from a workshop piece to one executed directly by the master. Rembrandt and Titian are the authors of two major works “uncovered” during recent cleaning campaigns.

The discovery of Rembrandt’s unsigned study, Portrait of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet, was announced in September of 2005, restored solely under the guidance of Ernst van der Wetering, director of the Rembrandt Research Project, and Martin Bijl, previously of the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. No other scholars were consulted or offered the opportunity to view the work, which was set to be seen in the Rembrandt House in Amsterdam in celebration of the 400th anniversary of Rembrandt’s birth, celebrated this year.

It was determined that the painting had been touched up at a later date, and what had been identified as later repaint, including the sitter’s fur collar and the black background (which masked a change in the shape of the panel), were not congruent with Rembrandt’s original intentions. The restorers argued that another artist after the fact had modified Rembrandt’s painting in an attempt to sell it. Even though the painting had been excluded from Rembrandt catalogues since the early 20th Century, the restoration paid off — it sold for $4,272,000 at Sotheby’s this past January. Thus, as Rembrandt’s painting had been modified once in an attempt to sell the work, the same decision was made again, centuries later.

 

2006-05-03 Rembrandt Portrait of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet before restoration

Rembrandt’s Portrait of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet – before restoration

2006-05-03 Rembrandt Portrait of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet after restoration

Rembrandt’s Portrait of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet – after restoration

Bonnet has received the most attention, although there have been other Rembrandts that have entered the market in this manner. In 2003, a supposed self-portrait was found beneath a portrait of a Russian aristocrat, later selling for $11.3 million at auction. Largely responsible is the Rembrandt Research Project, which has more than once consulted with the owner of a newly discovered painting, and then worked with restorers to unveil what is considered to be an original Rembrandt. As fewer and fewer works by the master remain in private collections and fetch ever increasing prices, the incentive to find and authenticate “new” works from the underpaint of modified canvases is on the rise.

Things did not work out nearly so well for the supposed Titian double-portrait that was discovered under a painting depicting Tobias and the Archangel. Previously attributed to the great Venetian master, it had twice failed to sell at auction, first in 1947 and again in 1963.

As in the case of the Rembrandt, the “discovery” was made that the painting had been retouched by an inferior hand, in this case at the death of the master. Since the unfinished work was not saleable as it was — showing an unknown woman and her daughter — it was presumably modified into a religious subject so that it would have wider appeal on the market.

The nearly two-decade-long process of removing what had been deemed repaint had been begun as far back as 1983, and then the work was put up for auction as a Titian, yet again, this past December at Christies’ in London. Every effort was made to justify the importance of the painting
within Titian’s artistic output, with scholars and interested parties variously proposing that the mature female subject was one of Titian’s own daughters, his cousin, or his mistress. Although the sale price was estimated between $10 and $16 million, the bids failed to meet the reserve, and the work went unsold, as it had in its pre-restored state.

Interestingly, in both the cases of the Rembrandt and the Titian, the works were seen to be somewhat anomalous, something that should have raised a question as to either the authorship of the work beneath, or the original intentions of the artist. Without questioning Rembrandt’s authorship of <b>Portrait of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet</b>, it was noted that Rembrandt rarely posed his sitters in profile, that the bonnet was atypical of the master, and that the state of the work — an oil sketch — was less common for his oeuvre. For Titian, it was noted that this was the only mother-daughter portrait known by the artist. Yet even though both discoveries fell into the category of unique works, the traits that made them such were used as ways to increase the value of the works, rather than question their authorship.

The trend is likely to only increase. In February, it was announced that an original Frans Hals portrait of Pieter Jacobsz Olycan was discovered underneath heavy repaint that had caused the work to long be identified as a copy. Once worth just a few thousand pounds, it is now expected to fetch 7 million pounds at auction. In this case, the delay in identifying the true master of the work was exacerbated by the fact that Hals himself is believed to have changed the costume on his sitter, covering the original suit with a fur-trimmed coat.

While restorers have always been interested in the notion of discovery, uncovering heretofore unseen details of well-known works, this process of treasure-hunting on old master paintings is even more ominous. Good paintings will be destroyed at a faster pace, with the hopes — whetted by x-ray studies — of finding better, or at least more marketable, paintings beneath. As the art market clamors for more originals in what should be a finite pool, the temptation will grow to discover more works by the master painters, even incomplete ones, ones that the artist never intended to sell or show, hidden under the paintings of others.

/by
2006-05-03 - Euphronios krater

Has the Met Been Rewarded for Looting Antiquities?

The Metropolitan Museum website may now indicate that the famous 2500-year-old Euphronios krater is “Lent by the Republic of Italy,” but that has hardly been the case since the acquisition of the object thirty years ago. Shortly after the Met acquired the krater, Italy claimed that the work had been stolen from a tomb in Cerveteri.

Despite Italian rumblings from the start, the Metropolitan, they say on the basis of switched documents, insisted that they believed the work came from a Lebanese collection. Nonetheless, proof has finally been accepted that the krater, which was purchased for $1 million during the tenure of Director Thomas Hoving in 1972 from Robert E. Hecht, was stolen from an Etruscan tomb the year before.

The Met’s deal includes the return of the krater as well as fifteen pieces of silver looted from the Sicilian site of Morgantina, acquired by the museum in 1981 and 1982. In that instance, although claims of the illegal provenance have been made since 1987, the Met has only recently acquiesced.

While many may not be surprised at the reluctance of the Metropolitan to return the objects, and the complete refusal to admit any wrongdoing in their acquisition policies, more shocking is the manner in which current and former Metropolitan officials have spoken of the matter. In a recent interview (Time Out New York, March 2006) former Director Hoving lauded Phillipe de Montebello’s arrangement with the Italian government. “It was there for 30 years. Now they can exchange it for other great things. They’re going to get fabulous stuff over an indefinite period, stuff they could never buy, never find and never afford if they found it. It’s sensational. It’s a landmark move. It’s gutsy, and I think [Met director] Philippe de Montebello did a great thing.”

Even though Hoving chalks up his acquisition of the stolen krater as the normal practice of the time, saying it occurred in the “days of raw piracy, when nobody cared,” he simultaneously touts his role in formulating the UNESCO
treaty back in 1970.

In his book, Making the Mummies Dance, the former Director wrote about the experience of landing the Euphronius krater: “I sat back at my desk shuffling black and white photos of my passion and felt a near-sexual pleasure. We had landed a work that would force the history of Greek art to be rewritten, perhaps the last monumental piece ever to come out of Italy, slipping in just underneath the crack in the door of the pending UNESCO treaty which would drastically limit the trade in antiquities. We had gained a triumphant work, one of surpassing power and infinite mystery, one, I knew, that would one day reveal surprises.”

One might, however, expect a more conciliatory attitude on the part of the current Metropolitan Director and other officials at the Museum. However, despite overwhelming evidence that the objects were improperly acquired and withheld from Italian collections for decades, Philippe de Montebello seemed less than apologetic.

The United States participated and played a key role in the UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) agreement signed in Paris in 1970, entitled Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. Regardless of the government’s official position, Montebello told the New York Times shortly after the agreement was struck, “I am puzzled by the zeal with which the United States rushes to embrace foreign laws that can ultimately deprive its own citizens of important objects useful to the education and delectation of its own citizens.” His own words suggest that the only reason that the Metropolitan decided to finally address the Italian claims is because the issue, one he referred to as an irritant, did not appear to be dissipating.

Much to the chagrin of archaeologists everywhere, Montebello minimized the importance of preserving the archaeological context of objects, information that is lost when objects are stolen: “How much more would you learn from knowing which particular hole in — supposedly Cerveteri — it came out of?” he asked. “Everything is on the vase.” Despite the fact that Montebello claims that the attention given to the issue of stolen objects in recent years has greatly reduced the number of antiquities entering into American collections, the Metropolitan’s policy, dating to 2004, is not particularly rigid. It allows for the purchase of any object with documentation that dates back at least ten years, unless the object is deemed especially important.

Even with the recent decision to return several items, including the famed krater, the Met feels they have achieved something of a victory, a point not lost on Hoving. Montebello thinks the real achievement in the current agreement is not the return of stolen objects, but rather that Italy “has agreed to the principle of a fair exchange of like material.” To wit, the Euphronius krater, in deference to the re-opening of the remodeled Roman and Hellenistic galleries at the Met in Spring of 2007, will remain in New York until early 2008.

This same attitude, that no real wrong was committed, was celebrated at a panel discussion entitled “Who Owns Art” at the New School in New York on March 6th. Montebello said: “I thought that some sort of formula where reciprocity and exchange could be arranged would be successful for both sides and not deprive the American museums altogether of antiquities when the objects were returned to Italy. As you know, Italian museum storerooms are engorged with works of art. It’s not as if they needed them. This is a political statement.” He criticized the Italian government strongly for pursuing their case through the press, calling the process “shabby”. The audience, reportedly composed largely of collectors who paid $25 each to attend the event, was criticized by some as a staged publicity event. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the panel discussion was organized by the New York Times, a paper with notoriously close ties to the Met.

The Metropolitan isn’t the only institution to come under fire for their practices of acquisition, past and current. The Getty, embroiled in a scandal known as “Gettygate”, has been questioned regarding a full half of the antiquities in their large collection. Just recently, the villa (in Paros) of the Getty’s former antiquities curator, Marion True, was raided, and several undeclared antiquities were confiscated. True is, by the way, already facing trial in Italy for the looting of antiquities. This was followed shortly thereafter by the discovery of thousands of undeclared ancient objects in a cache located on the Greek island of Skhoinousa, many of which had been purchased by Christie’s and Sotheby’s. Authorities have released few immediate findings, but there was an expressed interest in determining if any of the objects were intended for the already embattled Getty Museum.

The scandals may grow tiresome, but museums, especially public institutions like the Metropolitan, have a responsibility to the public, and they should show an interest in serving more than their legacies.

/by
2005-11-07-Leonardo-da-Vinci-anatomical-man
,

A Manifesto to Save Leonardo

SALVIAMO LEONARDO!
MANIFESTO ETICOADARTE, 2005

Salvatemi per mirabile necessità (Leonardo, Codice Atlantico)
Save me out of admirable necessity (Leonardo, Codex Atlanticus)
Salvatemi dai barattieri e dai pomposi trombetti (Codice Atlantico)
Save me from tricksters and pompous trumpeteers (Codex Atlanticus)
Salvatemi dalle sette di ipocriti (Trattato della pittura)
Save me from the clans of hypocrites (Treatise on painting)
Salvatemi dalle umane pazzie in aumentazione (Trattato della pittura)
Save me from human madnesses which are always increasing (Treatise on Painting)
Salvatemi dalla bava di cane rabbioso (Codice Atlantico)
Save me from the mad dog’s slaver (Codex Atlanticus)
Salvatemi dalle frecce lingue dell’invidia e dei malpensieri (Oxford)
Save me from the tongues lashes of nasty-minded people (Oxford)
Salvatemi dall’assedio della calunnia e dall’ingratitudine (Oxford, Ash I, BM)
Save me from a siege of false accusations and ingratitude (Oxford, Ash I, BM)
Salvatemi dalla fitta infamia (Ms H)
Save me from serious public dishonor (Ms H)
Salvatemi dalla sozza fama (Ms H)
Save me from filthy reports (Ms H)
Salvatemi dalle barerie dei parlari (Codice sul volo)
Save me from the gossipers (Codex on the Flight of Birds)
Salvatemi dalle bugiarde dimostrazioni (Codice Atlantico)
Save me from false proofs (Codex Atlanticus)
Salvatemi dalla mucillagine (Forster I)
Save me from gummy secretions (Forster I)
Salvatemi dai matti e giuntatori (Codice Atlantico)
Save me from lunatics and cheaters (Codex Atlanticus)
Salvatemi dalla ruggine dell’ignoranza e dai vani e instolti desideri (Codice Atlantico)
Save me from rusty ignorance and vain, foolish desires (Codex Atlanticus)
Salvatemi dalla smisurata superbia dei presuntuosi (Codice Atlantico)
Save me from the conceited people’s unbounded arrogance (Codex Atlanticus)
Salvatemi dagli ambiziosi tiranni (Ash. II)
Save me from ambitious tyrants (Ash. II)
Salvatemi dagli ambiziosi che non intendono la bellezza del mondo (Codice Atlantico)
Save me from the ambitious who do not understand the beauty of the world (Codex Atlanticus)
Salvatemi da chi non difende la libertà, dono principale di natura (Ash. II)
Save me from those who do not defend freedom, which is nature’s greatest gift (Ash. II)
Salvatemi da chi nega la ragion delle cose (Madrid I)
Save me from those who deny the cause of things (Madrid I)
Salvatemi da chi vende il Paradiso (Codice Atlantico)
Save me from those who sell Heaven (Codex Atlanticus)
Salvatemi da chi è generato senza amore (Weimar)
Save me from those generated without love (Weimar)
Salvatemi dai fratelli avari (Codice Atlantico)
Save me from avarous monks (Codex Atlanticus)
Salvatemi dai figli nemici (Codice Atlantico)
Save me from hostile sons (Codex Atlanticus)
Salvatemi dagli allievi infidi (Codice Atlantico)
Save me from treacherous disciples (Codex Atlanticus)
Salvatemi dagli homini grossolani e di tristi costumi (Windsor)
Save me from rude and unrefined men (Windsor)
Salvatemi dai capricci della moda (Trattato della pittura)
Save me from the quirks of fashion (Treatise on Painting)
Salvatemi dalla decadenza dell’arte nell’imitazione (Trattato della pittura)
Save me from the decay of the art when it comes to imitation (Treatise on Painting)
Salvatemi dai pittori che non sono universali (Trattato della pittura)
Save me from painters who are not universal (Treatise on Painting)
Salvatemi dalla pittura che fa sbadigliare (Codice Atlantico)
Save me from painting that makes people yawn (Codex Atlanticus)
Salvatemi dai bugiardi interpreti di natura (Codice Atlantico)
Save me from nature’s false interpreters (Codex Atlanticus)
Salvatemi dai negromanti e dai cercatori d’oro (Windsor, Forster II)
Save me from alchimists and gold diggers (Windsor, Forster II)
Salvatemi dall’impazienza, madre della stoltizia (Windsor)
Save me from impatience, the mother of foolishness (Windsor)
Salvatemi dal pericolo della ruina (Trivulziano)
Save me from the danger of ruination (Trivulziano Codex)
Salvatemi dalla discordanza di elementi che ruina e disfa (Codice Atlantico)
Save me from the discordance of elements that spoils and destroys (Codex Atlanticus)
Salvatemi dalle armi sleali dei traditori e assassini (Codice Atlantico)
Save me from the dishonest weapons of betrayers and assassins (Codex Atlanticus)
Salvatemi dalla discordia e dalle battaglie, pazzia bestialissima (Trattato della pittura)
Save me from strife and battle, a most beastly madness (Treatise on Painting)
Salvatemi con hostinato rigore (Windsor)
Save me with obstinate determination (Windsor)
Salvatemi con destinato rigore (Windsor)
Save me with predetermined determination (Windsor)
Salvatemi con l’eccellenzia della verità (Codice sul volo)
Save me with the excellence of truth (Codex On the Flight of Birds)
Salvatemi con la giustizia, che vuol intelligenza e volontà (Ms H)
Save me with justice, which requires intelligence and will (Ms H)
Salvatemi con l’esperienza e la ragione (Ms E)
Save me with experience and reason (Ms E)
Salvatemi con le infinite ragioni della natura che non furono mai in esperienza (Ms I)
Save me with the infinite explanations of nature which have never occured in experience (Ms I)
Salvatemi con la sapienza, figlia dell’esperienza (Forster III)
Save me with wisdom, which is the daughter of experience (Forster III)
Salvatemi con l’occhio dei sogni (Arundel)
Save me with the eye of dreams (Arundel)
Salvatemi con i rebus della felicità (Windsor)
Save me with the puzzles of happiness (Windsor)
Salvatemi con i semplici (Windsor)
Save me with the simple people (Windsor)
Salvatemi con le armonie di numeri, proporzioni, suoni, tempi, siti (Ms K)
Save me with the harmonies of numbers, proportions, sounds, times, sites (Ms K)
Salvatemi con la pittura che è invenzione, scienza e filosofia (Ash. I)
Save me with painting, which is invention, science and philosophy (Ash. I)
Salvatemi con quell’arte che avanza tutte l’opere umane (Ms A1)
Save me with the art that puts forward all human works (Ms A1)
Salvatemi con la pittura che accende ad amare (Trattato della pittura)
Save me with painting that kindles love (Treatise on Painting)
Salvatemi con la città che si fa bellezza (Codice Atlantico)
Save me with the city that turns into beauty (Codex Atlanticus)
Salvatemi con i ponti salvatici (Madrid I)
Save me with saving bridges (Madrid I)
Salvatemi con i ponti in core (Forster I)
Save me with bridges in the heart (Forster I)
Salvatemi con la concordanza (Codice Atlantico)
Save me with harmony (Codex Atlanticus)
Salvatemi con la forza, virtù spirituale, potenza invisibile (Ms A)
Save me with strength, which is a spiritual virtue, an invisible power (Ms A)
Salvatemi con la potenza dell’immaginazione (Madrid I)
Save me with the power of imagination (Madrid I)
Salvatemi con la figurazione al di là del visibile (Trattato della pittura)
Save me with representations which are beyond the visible (Treatise on Painting)
Salvatemi con i pensieri che si voltano alla speranza (Codice Atlantico)
Save me with thoughts which bring us hope (Codex Atlanticus)
Salvatemi perché intenderansi e abbracceransi li omini di remotissimi paesi… (Codice Atlantico)
Save me so that men from very far away countries will understand and embrace each other (Codex Atlanticus)

SALVIAMO LEONARDO!
MANIFESTO ETICOADARTE, 2005

Salviamo Leonardo dalle interpretazioni anestetiche
Let’s save Leonardo from ugly interpretations
Salviamo Leonardo dalle iperboli della retorica
Let’s save Leonardo from the hyperboles of rhetoric
Salviamo Leonardo dai restauri lifting
Let’s save Leonardo’s paintings from cosmetic cleanings
Salviamo Leonardo dalle attribuzioni vaganti nel tempo
Let’s save Leonardo from willy nilly attributions
Salviamo Leonardo dagli equivoci leonardeschi
Let’s save Leonardo from leonardesque misunderstandings
Salviamo Leonardo dalle inflazioni
Let’s save Leonardo from exaggerations
Salviamo Leonardo dalle infiltrazioni
Let’s save Leonardo from infiltrations
Salviamo Leonardo dalle inibizioni della burocrazia egocentrica
Let’s save Leonardo from the inhibitions of the egocentric bureacracy
Salviamo Leonardo dalle devianze della politica S.p.A.
Let’s save Leonardo from the deviance of official politics
Salviamo Leonardo dal barattar consenso
Let’s save Leonardo from tricking into having consensus
Salviamo Leonardo dai gerarchetti di tutte le mafie
Let’s save Leonardo from all the different Mafias
Salviamo Leonardo dagli avventurieri
Let’s save Leonardo from adventurers
Salviamo Leonardo dalle scorrerie mercenarie
Let’s save Leonardo from mercenary raids
Salviamo Leonardo dal sonno della ragione che genera mostre
Let’s save Leonardo from the sleep of reason, which produces exhibitions
Salviamo Leonardo dalle grandi mostre a grande rischio
Let’s save Leonardo from risky block buster exhibitions
Salviamo Leonardo dai modellacci e modellini
Let’s save Leonardo from ugly and ridiculous models
Salviamo Leonardo dai modellastri funzionanti
Let’s save Leonardo from improperly functioning reconstructions
Salviamo Leonardo dai “musei” dell’orrido banale e dell’atroce virtuale
Let’s save Leonardo from dreadful and horrid virtual shows
Salviamo Leonardo dal museo fast food e dal circo dei cloni
Let’s save Leonardo from fast food like museums and the circus of clones
Salviamo Leonardo dall’egemonia del marketing
Let’s save Leonardo from the hegemony of marketing
Salviamo Leonardo dal kitsch senza humor
Let’s save Leonardo from kitsch without humor
Salviamo Leonardo dalla credulità per misere leggende
Let’s save Leonardo from credulity for wretched legends
Salviamo Leonardo dalla pagina 62 del Codice da Vinci
Let’s save Leonardo from the Da Vinci Code, page 62
Salviamo Leonardo dagli epigoni di Dan Brown
Let’s save Leonardo from Dan Brown’s imitators
Salviamo Leonardo dalla censura
Let’s save Leonardo from cuts and censors
Salviamo Leonardo dall’ignavia
Let’s save Leonardo from indolence
Salviamo Leonardo dall’arroganza
Let’s save Leonardo from arrogance
Salviamo Leonardo dalla falsa bicicletta
Let’s save Leonardo from the fake bicycle
Salviamo Leonardo dalla falsa cucina
Let’s save Leonardo from false kitchens
Salviamo Leonardo dalle false tradizioni
Let’s save Leonardo from false traditions
Salviamo Leonardo dai misteri idioti
Let’s save Leonardo from idiotic mysteries
Salviamo Leonardo con i suoi pensieri attivi
Let’s save Leonardo with his active thoughts
Salviamo Leonardo con coraggio
Let’s save Leonardo with courage
Salviamo Leonardo con ironia “salvatica”
Let’s save Leonardo with saving irony
Salviamo Leonardo con impegno civile estremo
Let’s save Leonardo with strong civil engagement
Salviamo Leonardo con musei etici
Let’s save Leonardo with ethical museums
Salviamo Leonardo con l’etica-estetica della città ideale
Let’s save Leonardo with the ethic-aesthetics of the ideal city
Salviamo Leonardo con la coscienza dell’identità e dell’alterità
Let’s save Leonardo with a conscience of identity and otherness
Salviamo Leonardo con il divenire della ricerca nel molteplice
Let’s save Leonardo with flowing, multiform research
Salviamo Leonardo con la riscoperta del disperso, del dimenticato e dell’inaccessibile
Let’s save Leonardo with the rediscovery of lost, forgotten and inaccessible things
Salviamo Leonardo con la sintesi della complessità
Let’s save Leonardo with the synthesis of complexity
Salviamo Leonardo con la fertilità del dubbio e dell’autocritica
Let’s save Leonardo with the richness of doubt and self-criticism
Salviamo Leonardo con il respiro della memoria
Let’s save Leonardo with the breath of memory
Salviamo Leonardo con le provocazioni alla sensibilità
Let’s save Leonardo by challenging sensibility
Salviamo Leonardo con la voce del silenzio in antitesi ai frastuoni pervasivi
Let’s save Leonardo against pervading noises with the voice of silence
Salviamo Leonardo con la creatività mercuriale
Let’s save Leonardo with mercurial creativity
Salviamo Leonardo con nuovi alfabeti
Let’s save Leonardo with new alphabets
Salviamo Leonardo con tecnologie sostenibili
Let’s save Leonardo with sustainable technologies
Salviamo Leonardo con l’arte libera e l’umanità della scienza
Let’s save Leonardo with free art and the humanity of science
Salviamo Leonardo con originalità e filologia
Let’s save Leonardo with originality and philology
Salviamo Leonardo con gli ingegni palindromi
Let’s save Leonardo with ingegni (ingenious) palindromics
Salviamo Leonardo con i nodi vinciani
Let’s save Leonardo with da Vinci knots
Salviamo Leonardo nel Labirinto dei Vinci
Let’s save Leonardo in the Vinci Labyrinth
Salviamo Leonardo fino agli antipodi
Let’s save Leonardo up to the opposite ends of the earth
Salviamo Leonardo per realizzare frammenti di utopia
Let’s save Leonardo by creating fragments of utopia

Savage he is who saves himself
Salvatico è quel che si salva (Leonardo, Codice Trivulziano)
© MILDV 2005

/by
2005-10-11 - Fondazione CittàItalia Leonardo The Last Supper ad

Art Restoration and Advertising

2005-10-11 - Fondazione CittaItalia

A new advertising campaign was announced in August, aimed at raising money to fund upcoming restoration projects. The non-profit agency Fondazione CittàItalia (founded 2003) has scheduled its second such initiative, called “The Days of Art — Fundraising Campaign for the Restoration of Italian Cultural Heritage”, set to run from 24 September to 2 October 2005. It will feature “shock” ads, showing famous works of art in badly damaged states, to encourage public donations.

The website for the organization employs numerous questionable devices to solicit donations. With the slogan “Restoring Art is as Important as Making It,” donors are asked to vote for the object they’d most like to see restored — a somewhat dubious methodology if the goal is to restore the work most in need. There are also lottery tickets distributed when donations are made, so that donors can win prizes for giving. One Euro donations can even be made by text-messaging from a cell phone.

The serious matter of restoration is increasingly becoming a subject of media campaigns. We’ve long grown accustomed to posters and exhibitions exhorting art lovers to come see the “new” Masaccio, the “new” Giotto, or the “new” Michelangelo. The sad fact is now the commercialization of art restoration is expanding, and more and more we are becoming aware of restoration as a big business industry.

The advertising campaign itself is remarkably deceptive. According to CittàItalia, the purpose of their organization is to raise money to help those objects that are neglected and off-the-beaten-path. It has been reported that the Italian government will spend 26 million Euro on restoration and conservation in the coming year, and supposedly twice this amount is needed.

To encourage donations, ads will show Michelangelo’s David missing a leg, Botticelli’s Birth of Venus torn, and the Leaning tower of Pisa missing. Yet there are two major problems with such a campaign. The first is that it capitalizes on what is already a serious problem in the world of modern restoration, which is that private citizens and organizations primarily contribute to the restoration of only the most famous works of art. The second, related to the first, is that none of the objects used in the advertisements are in need of restoration.

For example, Botticelli’s Birth of Venus was cleaned in 1987, and the hotly contested restoration of Michelangelo’s David was completed just last year, so neither work will likely benefit from any fund-raising. In addition, although it was discovered that David has a weak ankle, the project was merely cosmetic, and did nothing to ensure the longevity of the work.

Leonardo’s Last Supper is likewise not in need of any cleaning, having undergone a 20-year procedure ending in 1999. In an almost comical twist, a CittàItalia ad featuring Leonardo’s famous work shows Christ’s face obliterated, which was actually what occurred as a result of the last restoration, necessitating a modern repainting of the central figure’s visage. The Leaning Tower has also been restored repeatedly, and in the 1990s, although no ad will tell you that the previous restoration campaigns put the famous campanile in serious jeopardy in the first place.

So will David break a leg if you don’t donate? Will Leonardo’s Jesus lose his face? No. In fact, history has shown that damage will be more likely if you do so.

2005-10-11 - The Last Supper Christ before and after

/by
2005-09-15 - Mount Rushmore

Making-over Mount Rushmore

Beginning on the 4th of July, the famed sculptural monument of Mount Rushmore in South Dakota was cleaned in a matter of weeks, hailed by the press as a “facelift”. Yet is was far more than a cleaning, it was a… pressure washing.

2005-09-15 - Mount Rushmore WashingtonFeaturing the 60-foot high likenesses of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln, the monument was carved between 1927 and 1941 by sculptor Gutzon Borglum and team of 400 men from twenty-one granite blocks, containing many pre-existing cracks.

In addition to the purely cosmetic motive of removing accumulations of dirt, the project has been billed as preventative maintenance, emphasizing the threat caused by lichens growing on the stone, the roots of which could have eventually exacerbated cracks and destabilized the sculpture. Be that as it may, Mount Rushmore spokesperson Judy Olson has stated that prior to the onset of the recent campaign, there were no plans to clean the monument. This suggests that a) there was no urgent need, and b) that there were no extensive studies done regarding the effects of such a treatment. Olsen said, “When they said they would do it for free, that’s when we started considering having this done.”

“They” are Alfred Karcher GmbH & Co. KG (the Karcher Company), a German company that manufacturers consumer, commercial and industrial cleaning equipment. In a method that has been likened to a car wash, the team of approximately fifteen workers blasted near-boiling water onto the surface of the stone from five gas-powered pressure washers at the rate of 3000 gallons per day.

This is not the first time that the Karcher Company has donated their services. In fact, their world-wide campaign to pressure wash major monuments has been ongoing for two decades, totaling some eighty projects, including the base of the Statue of Liberty, the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, the Statue of Christ in Rio de Janeiro, the Colossi of Memnon in Luxor, and the colonnade of St. Peter’s cathedral in Rome, which they blasted with an “environment-friendly abrasive” for the Jubilee.

Using the tag-line, “Kärcher cleans the world!”, the company’s website promises that “No matter what has to be cleaned, Kärcher has the answer.” Along with their sponsorship of Formula-One cars, Kärcher uses these cleaning projects to promote their company, and to test their equipment on various surfaces. The question must be asked, however, whether the availability of sponsorship dollars should be the determining factor of any intervention.

/by
2005-09-01 - Saint Jerome The Louvre

Lotto at the Louvre

Lorenzo Lotto (1480-1557)

Saint Jerome doing penitence in the Desert

1500 or 1508

2005-09-01 - Saint Jerome The Louvre

 

/by
2005-07-20 - 2 Columbus Circle Gallery of Modern Art Edward Durrell Stone

The Case of 2 Columbus Circle

Conceived of as the home of the Huntington Hartford’s Gallery of Modern Art and completed in 1964, the 9-story building at 2 Columbus Circle by Edward Durell Stone (d. 1978) now stands vacant, as it has been since 1998. Its unique design is now threatened by a planned “renovation”, based upon the plans of architect Brad Cloepfil of Allied Works Architecture (in collaboration with Gary Edward Handel & Associates), which would destroy the appearance of the building, redesigning the interior and replacing the alternately admired and disparaged marble facade.

2005-07-20 - 2 Columbus Circle Gallery of Modern Art Edward Durrell Stone

Gallery of Contemporary Art, 2 Columbus Circle, Location: New York NY, Architect: Edward D Stone

There has been an effort underway to fight for landmark status for the building, thus protecting it from renovation projects like that currently planned by the Museum of Arts and Design (formerly the American Craft Museum), which arranged to purchase the building for $17 million from the city, which had since acquired the building. The charge has been championed by many organizations, including Landmark West!, the National Trust for Historic Preservation (which named it one of the 11 Most Endangered Places for 2004), the Historic Districts Council, Docomomo and The Preservation League of New York State (which named it among its 2003 Seven to Save). The battle shortly after the building met its age requirement to be considered for landmark status, though the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission has declined to grant it, rendering that decision in 1996.

With demolition set to begin in the fall, the organizations and individuals (notably the architect Robert A. M. Stern) fighting for the building’s preservation have stepped up their efforts. On 27 May 2005, Landmark West! filed one of a handful of lawsuits against several parties, including the chair of Landmarks Preservation Commission, Robert Tierney, and the Museum of Arts and Design. Landmark West! accused them of “conspiracy to obstruct and subvert the lawful functioning of New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission,” the result of which has been the apparently inexplicable refusal on the part of the Commission to hold a hearing on the matter. Nevertheless, the work permits required for the project was granted in late June. On 11 July, a letter was sent on behalf of seven concerned organizations to Mayor Bloomberg, petitioning him, without success, to support their call for a hearing. The negative result is not surprising, considering that Bloomberg himself appointed Tierney and has had close ties to the museum. This was followed up by a “People’s Meeting” on the 14th of July at the General Society for Mechanics and Tradesman Library.

Although the fight is not over, those who stand on the side of preservation have met with little success thusfar. Regardless of the end result, it is only just that the case of those who feel that the building merits landmark status, and the protection it would guarantee, be heard.

/by
2005-06-15 - Raphael Deposition Borghese Gallery detail

Jaguar Sponsors Promotional Restoration of Raphael’s “Deposition”

Raphael’s Deposition in the Borghese Gallery, a masterpiece from his pre-Roman phase, has recently undergone a vigorous cleaning at the hands of restorer Paola Tollo Dickmann (after the original chief restorer, Laura Ferretti, resigned citing personal reasons).

Even though the work had been restored and reintegrated between 1966 and 1972, according to Kristina Herrmann Fiore, Direttore Storico dell’Arte at the Borghese, the intervention was necessitated by the detachment of the paint from the panel at the seams. In addition to addressing the issue of the adhesion of the pigment, the recent intervention also examined the efficacy of supports added to the back of the panel during the 1966-72 cleaning. Varnish, said to have been applied at that time and blamed for obscuring the colors, was also removed with an alcohol mixture, although the restorersthen applied a new coat of “protective varnish” (which it is acknowledged will yellow and have to be removed and replaced in 50-60 years).

2005-06-15 - Raphael Deposition Borghese Gallery detail

Raphael, The Deposition, 1507 (detail) Courtesy: Borghese Gallery.

Despite the proud acclamations of those involved in the restoration, there have already been several voices of dissent, and from within the restoration establishment itself. The Roman restorer Antonio Forcellino wrote a long item in the daily paper Il Manifesto on 8 May 2005, questioning the very need for the intervention and asserting, “This reconfirms how crucial and dubious the situation surrounding the care and the conservation of masterpieces is.” Other critics of the cleaning have also emerged. One is Carlo Guarienti, who was trained at the Istituto del Restauro and contributes to ;Nuances, the journal of ArtWatch’s French associate ARIPA. Another is restorer Laura Mora of the Istituto del Restauro, who worked on the Deposition during its last intervention, and who therefore has intimate knowledge about the work and its condition. Both spoke out in interviews for Il Messaggero on 14 May. Guarienti, when asked about the results of the cleaning, said bluntly, “They have ruined it. It is a disaster.” He argues that the cleaning was too severe, and rather than just removing later applications of varnish, the restorers removed Raphael’s own velatura, the translucent layers of pigment used to harmonize the underlying colors. Mora, whose name has been invoked as the teacher of Paola Tollo Dickmann, argues that the work was in perfect health, and was in no need of restoration.

The recent restoration, which also involved the Opificio delle Pietre Dure of Florence, l’Enea and the Vatican Museums, was carried out with the sponsorship of Jaguar Italia S.p.A., who put forth 40,000E for the project. The considerations of deep-pocketed sponsors, as always, seem to affect the decisions regarding which objects require interventions. As Guariento notes, private sponsors are only interested in the works of major masters, like Raphael, Botticelli, Michelangelo, and Titian, and in the end, they expect a noticeable change in the work. The result has been an epidemic of these “promotional restorations,” which for financial reasons the restoration establishment has been all too willing to carry out. Raphael’s broad appeal has made him a favored artist for this practice, presumably for his public relations value in the eyes of marketing experts who advise companies like Jaguar and Estee Lauder, the latter of which in recent years sponsored the restoration of Raphael’s ;La Fornarina and the diagnostics (i.e. pre-restoration) of his La Bella.

For Jaguar, the sponsorship fits into its thematic Year of Culture, during which they’ve sponsored various events, as well as an exhibition in Naples’ Museo di Capodimonte, Caravaggio, l’ultimo tempo 1606-1610. Jaguar has related its passion for masterworks to their interest in technology and the design of their automobiles. In sponsoring the restoration, the company has expressed its desire to leave permanent evidence of their involvement, which they term the “Jaguar Difference.”

The museum, too, appears to have had one exceptional motive — besides the well-being of the painting — for carrying out the restoration. Even at the time of the 15 March 2004 announcement, there was already a plan for a blockbuster exhibition at the Borghese Gallery, now set for the Spring of 2006 and entitled Raffaello a Roma. 1507. The newly restored work, which was executed in 1507 for Raphael’s Perugian patron Atalanta Baglioni, will be its star attraction. Undoubtedly there is an interest in capitalizing on the success of the recent Raphael show at the National Gallery in London, which rode on the coattails of the media buzz surrounding the purchase of the Madonna of the Pinks, and to which the Borghese lent their recently restored ;Lady with a Unicorn. And the show will be a blockbuster indeed, as it will be the first major exhibition on the artist in Rome, for which they fully expect international cooperation.

Despite the protests of several restorers, the press is largely celebrating the results of the cleaning, championing Raphael as a great master of color and writing of “Un’esplosione di colori freschi e cangianti”, recalling the spectre of the Sistina restoration. Yet with the underlying thought of a major exhibition looming, one cannot help but be skeptical that, as Forcellino stated, the urgent conservational need regarding this painting may have been overstated. Perhaps the desire to establish Raphael as a brilliant young colorist at the end of his Florentine period (in which case the work could be compared to the similarly over-restored Doni Tondo of Michelangelo) and right before his move to Rome — where Michelangelo would display his use of bright, unmodulated hues in the Sistina (as they now appear post-restoration) — was enough to whet the appetites of the powers involved. According to the eyewitness account of an ArtWatch member in Rome, the results are highly negative, despite the promises that the cleaning would be done with “absolute delicacy and maximum prudence”.

In this case and today, more the rule than the exception, interventions are done without first establishing a consensus — or at least engaging in a debate among experts in the various fields involved — regarding the need for and the goals of such an intervention, so that there are no controls whatsoever. In fact, it has been claimed that the Istituto Centrale del Restauro was not consulted or advised even as decisions were made regarding the cleaning, and that uninvolved experts did not see the restoration while in progress. ArtWatch believes that potentially opposing voices should, for the sake of the object itself, be solicited by the superintendents and the museums, so that the aesthetic judgments or underlying motives of a small and intimately involved group of individuals do not permanently affect the oeuvres of the great masters. And just as it is both right and necessary to question these motives, we should also make the public aware of the potentially hazardous influence of corporate sponsorship, and urge them to refuse to buy products of those companies who sponsor such illicit interventions.

/by