The Museum Visit

Paintings and other items combined in this arrangement at the Barnes Foundation, Philadelphia.

As part of my art history classes I require students to visit a museum and report on works of art. And by museum, I mean an actual museum, not a book or an on-line gallery. There are several good reasons for doing this.

Photography and its delivery of images can be deceptive; when printed in a book, a painting may not have the life and subtlety, or in some cases, the impact of the actual work. When viewed on-line, the image created by the illuminated pixels on your screen again, may present an image more vibrant than the original. Whether these are good or bad effects, they are still at least one step removed from the physical artifact.

What do you see when you see the actual work of art? For one thing, the scale. It is not uncommon when coming across a work of art you have only seen in reproduction to be struck by the size. No matter how good the image, facing a wall size work involves you in a totally different way. By the same token, you can search in vain for a work you have seen pictured, because you didn't realize how small a painting it was.

Another aspect missing in reproduction is texture. Until we have some new technology (and we undoubtedly will), images are flat and smooth,  but the surfaces of the art work will be readily apparent in real life (sometimes even providing a temptation to touch the art work).

A third aspect to the museum installation is the relationship among the various works on display. Sometimes this will be an arrangement of works similar in technique, country of origin or historical period, but as is seen more often now in museums, juxtapositions to compare and contrast, making the viewer see artworks in new contexts.

Not that there aren't downsides to the museum visit. In addition to "museum fatigue", when we try to take in too much, this pace can also cause us to spend too little time having a personal interaction with the art. There was an interesting article in the New York Times October 9, 2014 by Stephanie Rosenbloom that suggested we slow down when visiting a museum.

From the article:

When you go to the library,” said James O. Pawelski, the director of education for the Positive Psychology Center at the University of Pennsylvania, “you don’t walk along the shelves looking at the spines of the books and on your way out tweet to your friends, ‘I read 100 books today!'” Yet that’s essentially how many people experience a museum. “They see as much of art as you see spines on books,” said Professor Pawelski, who studies connections between positive psychology and the humanities. “You can’t really see a painting as you’re walking by it.”

I have noticed when in museums, particularly ones with iconic works, the number of people photographing not just the works, but taking pictures of their companions in front of the work, or even "selfies" with the works. The reasons for this must be varied, and probably interesting. Have you done this? What does it say about your relationship to art? Reading the linked article may give you some thoughts.

Vermeer and Camera

Vermeer's "The Music Lesson"

The other evening we finally got to see the film "Tim'sVermeer". In short, this is the story of Tim Jenison, an inventor and entrepreneur who became interested in the "photographic" quality of  the Dutch painter Johanne Vermeer's work, and wanted to see if technology aided the artist. His theory is that a primitive (by our standards) optical device, the "camera obscura", which was well known at that time, was used for drawing. He did not understand, however, how this would have aided in the color. Bit of a spoiler, a mirror was also required.

Jenison, an art novice, finds he can make an almost perfect replica of a photograph using his technique. He then moves on to the next step, working as he believed Johannes Vermeer (1632–1675)  did.

The film takes us through the process of recreating the physical setup of the studio arrangement, including replicating the items appearing in the painting "The Music Lesson".

There are two art experts and authors appearing in the film.

Philip Steadman, author of  Vermeer’s Camera, examined the paintings of Vermeer and through geometry believes he has proof that the painter used a camera obscura to create the drawing/composition.

Artist David Hockney wrote Secret Knowledge, where he is convinced the use of technology (in terms of lenses, etc.) was in use by a number of artists, and earlier than believed.

I found this all intriguing, and like any modern person, found myself "googling" into the night to learn more.

As contrasted with the "Vermeer" replica in the film, it doesn't seem that these two authors actually put their theories to the test to create a painting. There were also some interesting comments in some of the reviews and articles below. The film comments that there was no underpainting or drawing in Vermeer's work - but this is contradicted by critics, as there is evidence of underpainting, and the fact that drawing done in chalk would be obliterated during the painting process. The film oddly enough shows Jenison's painting having a drawing marked on the canvas.

Another quibble was the selection of the work; probably for dramatic effect, the work selected is in the Queen of England's collection, and much was made of the fact that it was not available, but that Jenison was given an opportunity to see it privately, when in fact, the work is on view for special exhibitions, including the National Gallery.

So, still not conclusive. Did Vermeer rely on this technology? Use it in portions of paintings or only certain paintings? Or did he simply have a unique "eye" and a repertoire of artistic "tricks" to create illusions. When I look at images of  all the known Vermeers, they seem to vary in their "photographic" appearance, with some looking decidedly "painterly".

Young Woman with a Water Pitcher, ca. 1662. Metropolitan Museum of Art, Marquand Collection, Gift of Henry G. Marquand, 1889 (89.15.21)

Study of a Young Woman, ca. 1665–67, Metropolitan Museum of Art. Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Charles Wrightsman, in memory of Theodore Rousseau, Jr., 1979 (1979.396.1)

Perhaps more people will be inspired to experiment with these theories (or maybe Vermeer's equipment will turn up at a yard sale) and we will have a more conclusive ending to this story.

Some additional resources.

You can find just about everything we know of Vermeer here. See a page of this website dealing with Vermeer's possible use of a camera obscura here.

Some additional reviews, commentary and interesting stuff:

http://www.webexhibits.org/hockneyoptics/

http://www.arthistorynews.com/articles/2614_Tims_notVermeer

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/jan/28/tims-vermeer-fails

http://www.artsatl.com/2014/03/review-67/

Museum Visits: The New Barnes and the Michener

The warm and welcoming entrance to the new Barnes Foundation museum in Philadelphia.
 

I had been looking forward to a visit to the new Barnes Foundation Art Museum for quite some time.. We had visited the museum in its previous incarnation in Merion, on the outskirts of Philadelphia. Due to local restrictions, and the restrictions of the foundation, visiting the Barnes was a complete pain in the ass in those days. After a contentious battle to break the conditions of Dr. Barnes will, and a controversial grab by the art/charity establishment, the collection has moved to a new museum in Philadelphia's museum district. Inside a severely plain stone box, they have recreated the interior and collection arrangement of the original museum. In addition, whether by accident or intent, visiting the new Barnes is also a complete pain in the ass. Limited numbers of visitors, timed tickets and a strange arrangement makes it rather user-unfriendly.  

 What is interesting is the arrangement and juxtapositions of the works, espousing Barnes' theories about art and design connections (whether interesting or just whacko I'll leave to others to judge). In addition, the framing of many works was interesting, in that it showed the taste of Barnes and the period.

 Works are mostly tightly grouped, in fairly small rooms, along with African artifacts, early American iron work and furniture, etc. There are some masterpieces here, along with many smaller and lesser works, which makes the collection interesting in that it is a personal statement more so than a curated collection of a particular school or history of art.

 Some of the small works (which can often be overlooked in large institutions) are really gems, such as the Demuths, and there are some nice examples of  Prendergast and Mattisse. If you are at all interested in art, worth the visit, if only to see a different take on the museum arrangement and experience.

Wish I had some pictures taken inside, but of course they don't allow that. You can see some images on the Barnes website.

 

Entrance to the Michener Museum of Art

 

The next morning we visited the Michener Museum of Art in Doylestown, Pennsylvania. A wonderful small museum, with a collection that features local artists and craft workers. There is a good selection of works from the school of Pennsylvania impressionism, which to my view, seems a bit "grittier" and realistic than, for example, the "Old Lyme" artists.

 

 The Twins: Virginia and Jane, 1917 by Joseph Pearson. 60 x 72 inches.

The painting shown here, "The Twins", is one of the most arresting in the collection. I know that every time we see twins represented we immediately want to compare it to Diane Arbus, but there is something about this painting that makes it hard to look away.

 

 

 

 

 

At the Philadelphia Museum of Art

Your professor in front of a Barnett Newman painting at the Philadelphia Museum of Art.

Even though it would mean a long day of museums, the travel logistics required a full day spent in Philadelphia museums. Since  have been to the Phildadelphia Museum of Art, I tried to limit what we would view and not get "museum fatigue". Even trying to be casual about the visit, it is such a treasure trove that it was too easy to keep moving on and on.

We did get to see the Vermeer Young Woman Seated at a Virginal currently on loan to the museum. This is one of the last paintings by Vermeer, and one of the most recent to be authenticated. This discovery made quite a splash in the art world, and while accepted as Vermeer (apparently the canvas is from the same bolt as used for other Vermeer works) it is still questioned by some. One theory is that it was actually done by his daughter, or that there was assistance, or completion by someone else. Prior to this, I had only seen it in photos, so was anxious to view it in person. Having done so, I can say that if it is in fact by Vermeer, it is one of the most unappealing Vermeers I have seen.

There was an interesting exhibit in the gallery devoted to American crafts. One artist new to me was Bruce Metcalf, a jeweler/sculptor who created some very strange and eerie pieces.

Chance Encounter in the Wasteland
Bruce Metcalf, American, born 1949

 

You can find more about this artist at www.brucemetcalf.com/

 

Where would the art world be without dealers?

 



Photo of Edith Halpert from New York Times

It can take more than talent to become a successful artist, what you also need is an outlet for your work. And in the case of new schools of art, not just an outlet, but someone to champion these works. In recent years, we have had some interesting biographies of art dealers, and the stories of the roles they played are often fascinating.


One recent book is "The Girl with the Gallery" by Lindsay Pollock. This is the story of Edith Halpert, who instead of pursuing her own artistic career, became an early proponent of American modernists (many now considered iconic) such as Arthur Dove, Stuart Davis, Yasuo Kuniyoshi, Charles Sheeler and Jacob Lawrence. Trying to sell conventional art can always be a struggle, but it was particularly difficult trying to do this in the midst of 1930's great depression.

She persevered, and we have locally the benefit of her dealing in the Lane collection holdings of the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. She sold many works to the Lanes, and one gallery of 20th century art will give you an impression of what her gallery must have looked like.
Her story is a fascinating look not only at the emergence of the modern art marketplace in America, but of a particularly driven and resourceful woman in business.


You can read the New York Times review of the book here; this book is available in the QCC Library.

The Monuments Men

For those of you not that familiar with WWII, some background. When the Nazis came to power, as part of their actions against Jewish (and other populations), assets were seized, including works of art. Some, in particular art favored by Hitler and other officials was selected for personal use and also for display in German museums, including those to be built after victory.

Other works, considered degenerate (such as those by modernist and abstract painters), was displayed for mockery by the public, but as much as they didn't like the art, they liked the funds that could be obtained by selling it.

As the war was nearing its end, museums and art scholars were concerned about losses and damage to cultural treasures of Europe, both from war activity and from looting. The new movie, The Monuments Men, will tell this story (with the additional benefit of having the historical figures played by major Hollywood stars).

While it remains to be seen how accurate the film (based on a book of the same name) will be, there are many amazing true stories about how art professionals here and in Europe acted to hide and save works of art (as well as saving artists and scholars).

The book "Rape of Europa" has some fascinating stories. Even in America, the threat was serious enough that masterpieces from the major museums were shifted to parts of the country that were presumed safer.

Even to this day, art that was stolen during the war is still being returned (or settlements made) to family members or their descendents. And there is still a lot of art that has not yet re-appeared. Perhaps not lost for all time, as the recent discovery in Munich

Do You Need to Go Outdoors to Paint? Maybe Yes, Maybe No.

Wooded Upland Landscape by Thomas Gainsborough. Is this a real place?

When visiting the Norton Museum in West Palm Beach several years ago, there was an intriguing label telling how Thomas Gainsborough created models of landscapes using such items as broccoli and mirrors to serve as references for his paintings. It seemed that no one else had heard of this, and this made me think that it was something I imagined. But while doing some research on the internet, I came across a reference to this. It was on ibiblio, and while I couldn't ascertain exactly what collection it was from, it seems as it is from a booklet produced by the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. From the booklet:
 

• Thomas Gainsborough, though he was London's most fashionable society portraitist, preferred his beloved English countryside. "I'm sick of Portraits," he lamented, "and wish very much to. . . walk off to some sweet Village, where I can paint Landskips." In spite of his romantic longing for nature, he seldom if ever painted actual views. In accordance with much eighteenth-century art theory, Gainsborough was convinced that nature in the raw was an unsuitable subject. Only after an artist had refined a scene through his sensibilities could he begin to paint.

• Gainsborough's late works, such as this vista of butter-yellow clouds wafting through a mauve sky over a verdant valley, are fantastic reveries. Such idyllic scenery and extraordinary colors do not, of course, exist in the real world; so, Gainsborough invented them in his studio. He experimented with theatri­cal lighting effects, illumin­at­ing his subjects with candles shimmering through colored fabrics.

• Another painter recorded that Gainsborough "framed a kind of model of landskips, on his table; composed of broken stones, dried herbs, and pieces of looking glass, which he magnified and improved into rocks, trees, and water." Here, shiny hard coal may have served for the wet banks of the brook, a crushed mirror for the glistening ripples, and broccoli and brussels sprouts for the foliage. Thus, from a scale model, Gains­borough did indeed "magnify and improve" nature, creating a quiet escape from life's travails. (Quotes from The Letters of Thomas Gainsborough, ed. Mary Woodall [Green­wich, Connecticut, 1963], 115, and Sir Joshua Reynolds, Discourses on Art [1797 edition], ed. Robert R. Wark [New York and London, 1966], 220.)

Wooded Upland Landscape by Thomas Gainsborough (British, Sudbury 1727–1788 London) Date: probably 1783. Gift of George A. Hearn, 1906. 
More information at the Metropolitan Museum of Art website.

 

 

 

At the other end of the spectrum is landscape work by a contemporary artist, Rackstraw Downes. We saw an exhibit of his works a few years ago at the Portland (Maine) Museum of Art. He paints from life, in a photorealistic style. His subject matter is often not picturesque, but is of  places in our environment such as landfills, trash-strewn railroad sidings, etc., with a technique that reminds us of the Dutch painters such as Vermeer.

Lincolnville Beach - Rackstraw Downes 1977

Medium: Oil on canvas

Dimensions: H. 12-1/4, W. 44-1/2 inches

 

Bequest of Douglas Dillon, 2003
More information at the Metropolitan Museum of Art website.

Tim's Vermeer

Tim's Vermeer is a a new documentary focusing on how the 17th century Dutch painter, Johannes Vermeer may have painted his works has will be showing this year (although not likely out here in the suburbs, so we may have to wait for on-line distribution).

 The film is a joint effort between artist David Hockney (who has long had an interest in the collaboration between photography and painting, and Teller and Penn, the famous magicians/illusionists. It is believed by the film-makers that Vermeer may have used a "camera obscura", a device with lenses/mirrors to project a scene from life, to use as a guide when painting. This raises some interesting questions about the use of technology when creating art. It seems to be quite accepted now, and in fact, many contemporary works could not be created without the use of computers, lasers, etc. Is it just the fact that Vermeer painted so many years ago what makes this controversial? Apparently, in the film, a non-artist will use the method to create a painting.

 

Young Woman with a Water Pitcher.

Johannes Vermeer (Dutch, Delft 1632–1675 Delft)

Vermeer has always been something of a mystery; he did not leave a large body of work, and there have been controversies over the authorship of works over the years.

Some questions, that will perhaps be answered when I can finally see this film are: Was it "cheating"? Does it matter? If in fact this was his method, it was not entirely unknown, yet we don't seem to have other artists painting at the same level as Vermeer. Why not? Was it the additional talent that Vermeer provided, or an artistic vision different from what others had?

 For more information about the work shown above, visit the entry in the Metropolitan Museum site.

Happy New Year!

This year my blog will include more general art topics, as they may be of interest the students in the other art history/appreciation courses offered.

Looking forward to another interesting year,

R A Parente