BS: Old pictures, waste of money!

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: Gurney
Date: 21 Feb 04 - 05:09 AM

Everyone is right.
Art should be preserved, as 'we' preserve songs.

Art is not worth the money. To me. I'm a do-it-myselfer.

Art is worth what someone is prepared to pay for it. Everything is, except a life.

Anyone who'll pay huge lumps of public money for art shouldn't be trusted with money. If it was public money, gouged out of taxpayers.

And I generally approve of artists, because they help redistribute money from those that have too much to the rest of us. But gallery owners and dealers get most of it.

And GUEST up there, sport figures are different, because they get their money from enthusiasts who WANT to see them, and pay voluntarily.

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Feb 04 - 03:25 AM

Most modern fakes are given away by using materials that were not available at the time. Its extremely difficult to fabricate things of that quality. So the most likely paintings that could be mistaken for the work of a master after a detailed examination are those produced at the time, usually under the direction of the master. These are usually given an attribution such as "From the school of Raphael", for example. Calling them 'fake' is perhaps misleading, but understandable in the age of the soundbite.

Remembering that most masters used pupils to paint substantial portions of even the 'genuine' paintings, it often boils down to a matter of judgement by experts whether a specific painting has any brush-strokes in it that were actually by the master concerned. Why should anyone be surprised if some experts don't agree with others?

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 21 Feb 04 - 02:19 AM

The ArtDaily article linked very early in this thread gives a fairly complete story on the "provenance" of this painting. The original loan to the NG was specifically for them to evaluate whether it was indeed a copy, as was then believed. They spent considerable time doing so, and their investigation included Xray examination which, they say, showed underlying work (probably sketch/layout stuff) that indeed was typical of Raphael. They concluded, and reported widely, that their determination was that the painting is authentic.

Anyone doubting the authenticity of this painting has had several years to contest their conclusion. Quite obviously, it was accepted by the Getty.

In the art world, as elsewhere, "scandalmongering" is a persistent tradition. I think it's safe to dismiss this guy who's screaming "fake." This story has already been unfolded, read, filed, and put away with respect to his claims.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 20 Feb 04 - 07:08 PM

Wouldn't put that past 'them' neither.

No doubt the story will unfold

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Feb 04 - 07:04 PM

The Getty museum failed to buy the picture.
Twenty five Raphael experts attributed it to Raphael.
The American expert disputes it..........ain't rocket science?

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 20 Feb 04 - 06:29 PM

I wonder what words are springing to mind at the National Gallery...

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 04 - 06:19 PM

I think they should let them have the Flying Scotsman - but on strict condition that they transported it all the way by rail.

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Feb 04 - 05:51 PM

The words Sour and Grapes spring to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 20 Feb 04 - 05:03 PM

Oh Dear!

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 19 Feb 04 - 11:09 AM

jOhn - you're only jealous because no-one wanted to buy your painting "The Madonna of the Curry Ship".

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: Cluin
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 05:25 PM

Functional Art!

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 04:35 PM

When Sylvester Stallone bought Alma Parens, reportedly for $30,000 (US), many of the critics said he got cheated. When he sold it at Sothebys about 3 years later for $2,650,000 (1999) most of those same critics had little to say.

It was apparently those same critics who applauded when the NG (or was it the Louvre) paid an outrageous price for that can of hermetically sealed sh..t not too long ago.

Art can be a sound investment, if you consider back alley crap games a "friendly recreation."

John

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 03:40 PM

There is an old saying, "those that know the price of everything, and know the value of nothing" It may be obscene to spend money renovating old paintings; but so is paying Rock Stars and Football/baseball players millions of dollars to play. Society dictates cost and value systems. There are those that pay, and those that merely watch in hunger.

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: Folkiedave
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 01:32 PM

GuestIf the current Duke of Northumberland is selling this painting to benefit the rural workers of Northumberland he will be the first of his ilk who as ever worried about them.

Dave
www.collectorsfolk.co.uk

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 01:19 PM

@%$#!!

Let's make that last paragraph:

While not too much into impresionism, the most massive collection of art on the web is probably at ARC index. They promote "classical realism," and can be pretty brutal about "modernist junk" on the home page, but the index pages may be helpful.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 01:15 PM

Uncle DaveO

As I said - "with tongue firmly in cheek." The whole point was that a lot of "deals," especially in the art world, have been either what we would now call "outright theft" or have been much like the purchase of Manhattan.

EBarnacle -

You might be interested in a couple of my other "favorites."

Artcylocpedia is the place to look up "good art" and artists displayed on the web.

While not too much into impresionism, the most massive collection of art on the web is probably at
John

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: EBarnacle
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 09:03 AM

Thanks, JohninKansas, for the link. As the representative of the leading contemporary marine impressionist, this is a valuable thing for me to check out regularly. Eric

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 09:03 PM

i reckon its a crap picture, and i wouldent even give them 35 quid for it, its rubissh.

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 04:11 PM

JohninKansas said, in part:

Fortunately, the anti-monopoly laws weren't developed until after a few of our rich "patrons of the arts" manage to buy quite a lot of it. (We also bought Manhattan Island.)

Well, sort of. Actually it was a ripoff--not of the Indians, but of the buyers. The "sellers" had no particular relation to the island, but were merely passing through. Some other Indian tribe had whatever proprietary rights there might have been.

All of which doesn't change the fact that the area was not turned back over to the rightful owners.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: Gareth
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 08:53 AM

Hmmm ! - There does seem to be a collision between the "When Ever I hear the World Culture I reach for my revolver" school of thought, and the "Let them eat cake" school.

However the fate of an obscure painting fades into insignificance when you consider it in comparison with this threat to our National Heritage which the "Gaurdian" picked up this morning.

Click 'Ere

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 03:42 PM

For those who might still be interested in what all the fuss is about, the link given above is to the "current issue" of Art Daily. The article, with a small image, is now at a back issue:

Art Daily Feb 16. 2004

There have been quite a few comments here that suggest less than full examination of the situation.

As to the question of how a painting by an Italian painter gets to be a British "national treasure," the official history of the National Gallery traces its beginnings to the necessity of having a place to keep all the "art treasures" plundered from the various places in which the "Empire" held influence some few years back. It thus contains a great deal of art not originally produced by British artists, but "national treasures" all the same because it was plundered fair-and-square according to the standards of the time.

"In the 19th century the painting was in the prestigious Camuccini collection, in Rome, acquired in its entirety (74 paintings) in 1853 by Algernon, 4th Duke of Northumberland (1793-1865). It was displayed at Alnwick Castle until 1992." (Price of this purchase is not noted.)

The National Gallery does not differ significantly from the similar institutions in other countries in this facet of their histories. No one needs to quibble about the Venus de Milo not being made by a French artist to agree that it is a now "national treasure" of France. (Although some do quibble now about the apparently deliberate fraudulent attribution.)

U.S. galleries have apparently been at a distinct disadvantage, with the usual assumption being that "most of the good stuff" had already been plundered by the time we got there. I'm not sure that "inept plundering" may not have been a more significant factor, but times do change. Fortunately, the anti-monopoly laws weren't developed until after a few of our rich "patrons of the arts" manage to buy quite a lot of it. (We also bought Manhattan Island.)

With respect to the painting in question, the NG does have a rather carefully organized and selectively acquired collection of works by this artist, representing the progress of his career and the changes in his "manner of doing" his art over his entire career. This collection is known and studied by artists from all over the world. This particular painting "fills a gap" in the collection, and in fact may be considered as "raising the value" of the collection, if not of other individual paintings in this group, possibly by more than the price paid for this one painting. One may question whether the increment in tourist dollars alone will ever justify the acquisition; but it was far from random. It was a purchase uniquely appropriate to the purpose of enhancing an existing asset of the NG.

The "price" paid is somewhat "fuzzy." The price "equivalent to £34.88 million, subject to the provision of an export licence," offered by the Getty for this painting should probably be compared to the 35 million "face" amount of the purchase by the NG. Had the painting been sold to the Getty, the seller would have paid taxes sufficient to erase any difference. Provisions of the "Douceurs" essentially waive the tax, resulting in the NG paying £22 million and the duke getting £22 million to spend. Sold to the Getty for £34.88 million, the duke's net after taxes would likely have been about the same. It is rather difficult to guess how much the deal had to be "sweetened" to stimulate the duke's patriotic fervor, but one might surmise that it was a relatively small difference, if any.

(It's also difficult to understand why some of these prices have changed since I copied a couple of articles a few days ago, but the "same" articles are a little different today.)

It must also be considered that Getty had applied for an export license, for which they, or the duke, would probably have paid a substantial export tariff, so the actual cost to the Getty might well have been nearer the £38 million that appears to have been quoted in early news releases, even if they only gave the duke £32 million of it. And the net, after tax and export fees, to the duke, much less.

The French do it a little differently, and seemingly more simply. When any buyer and seller agree on sale of a "national treasure," the Louvre has the statutory authority to preempt the sale and acquire the "treasure" for itself by matching the price. (You must also be a dealer licensed by the French government to bid at any auction that "might" involve something of interest to the Louvre.) This authority has been exercised recently at a couple of auctions, although the ones I've heard of have been for relatively "small" works. (I wonder if the Louvre pays a sales tax???) The Louvre, for all practical purposes, is the authority for determining what is a "national treasure" so anything one negotiates to buy from the French may become one, after the deal is made, if the Louvre wants it. (And it doesn't have to be by a French artist.)

Sometimes it works both ways:

"LONDON. - A Caravaggio painting was discovered in the collection of Queen Elizabeth II, after being considered during centuries as an anonymous work of little importance. A clean-up of a little-known painting in the British royal collection has revealed it to be a major work by the Italian Old Master. The painting - The Calling of Saints Peter and Andrew - depicts the two saints with a young, beardless Christ."

There's another few million back in the till?

And, on the other side of the "scandals:"

"… a painting by the 19th-century master, John William Waterhouse. In 1965, the Royal Cornwall Museum in Truro sold it for £200 ($300) to a private collector; today it is worth more than £5 million ($7.5 million)"

The life of a curator ain't an easy one…

Read all of the above with tongue firmly in cheek, as it was written.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 01:39 PM

It's all a matter of incentives--

If you give all that money to the poor, and never buy another one of Raphael's paintings, he'll probably quit painting them!

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 12:29 PM

LOL jOhn. (Next time one of your posts infuriates me, you can remind me that a couple here raised a chuckle!)

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: Cluin
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 11:32 AM

You first.

You offer your honour and I'll honour your offer.


... and I'll be on `er and off `er all night long

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: GUEST,Kate Rusby
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 10:56 AM

I've got some photos of me for sale, make me an offer ?

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: Bobjack
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 08:45 AM

What picture? I seem to be missing something here. Who sold what picture to who? Where there any guinea pigs in it?

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 08:40 AM

Stop The Lottery?

That only bit of hope that many have to further themselves in this World, given the present climate of hopelessness?
I would no more do that, than raise the price of alcohol or tobacco.
Because for some people, that's all they've got.

Of course, they now have a lovely painting, they can look at.

It'll take their mind off things, maybe.

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 08:27 AM

I am glad the asset has stayed in the UK. It wasn't bought from tax payers money. The £22 million would not have been miraculously ploughed into the NHS. Some of the cost was raised from Lottery funded grants and the rest it appears from private donations. I suspose you could always stop doing the Lottery.

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 08:17 AM

Art is important; more important than most things, in my opinion.

But I agree with The Stage Manager, in his post above, where he/she would like to see what on what basis are these works of art saved for the Nation.

Why could the sale not have benefitted the rural workers if it was sold to the highest bidder, ie The Getty Museum?
And as it doesn't really matter where international works of art are hanging, the extra 12 million would really have come in handy.

Preserving works of art is fine; a certain amount needs to be preserved, and that's fine.

Maybe the Elgin Marbles could be shipped back to where they come from, and this could make room for fine art of a more home-grown sort.

I would though prefer to have a nurse or a doctor who had slept well the previous night, thanks to staffing quotas being filled, attending me in the operating theatre, rather than resting assured (as I lie on a gurney or makeshift bed in the corridor) that the cultural heritage of the Nation has been saved for future generations once again.

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: Cluin
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 07:42 AM

Ah! Bumhug!

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: Wilfried Schaum
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 02:49 AM

All the gentle souls thinking that art is unimportant should stop singing and fiddling &c. and join the National Health Service as unpaid volunteers.

Wilfried

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 02:38 AM

Curious posting in a forum devoted to maintaining boring crappy old songs.

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 11:51 PM

Rejoice John....it is going to a new-home where it will be enjoyed and appreciated.

Part of the proceeds will perhaps enrich that Hull marvel of social engineering the community-housing-tracts.Z

Sincerely,

Gargoyle

Imagine Hull without its massive engine of economic influx....the University.....ugly thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: kendall
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 07:41 PM

a world without art is no place for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: Cobble
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 07:35 PM

The rail union I was in owned a lot of valuable masterpieces, they were forced to sell then by government, its hard to get money off assets that belong to the workers. But cash is a different thing. Labour or conservative they are all the same a bunch of thieves.

         Cobble

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 06:53 PM

The picture was on loan from the private collection of the Duke of Northumberland. It had been on loan since 1991 when it was brought to London to have it's authenticity established. The exhibitions in any gallery are generally made up of paintings on loan from private collections, from all around the world. The exhibition ends and they go back to the vaults of the private collectors, never to be seen again.

The Duke decided to sell it, his choice. The Getty Museum did bid with an enticing £35 million. The National Gallery in London bid with £22 million. He accepted the lower figure, because he wanted the sale to benefit the rural workers of North East England. The money from the sale will be partly used to regenerate rural and farming land in his business enterprise...Northumberland Estates. It will also help finance the restoration of Alnwick Castle.

The asset itself will also stay in the UK. Thus generating revenue from those coming to view it.

So what do we have here, someone deciding to sell their own property for £12 million less than he was offered.So as to enable his country of residence to retain the treasure.Call Inspector Clouseau?

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: Folkiedave
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 05:23 PM

Before this deal the picture was on show at the National Gallery.
Now the picture is on show at the National Gallery. The only thing that has changed is that a guy whose personal wealth is estimated at £300 million is £35 million richer.

But he does have his own piper (Pauline Cato).

Regards,

Dave
www.collectorsfolk.co.uk

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 03:54 PM

Noting the "size" controversy...does this mean that if I paint an impressionist painting on a canvas the size of the Astrodome that I can get $50 trillion for it? I can hardly wait to start!

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 14 Feb 04 - 07:33 PM

I know.

And there doesn't seem to be much we can say about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Feb 04 - 06:50 PM

The National Gallery in London just happens to be there. The paintings are from all over the world, as are the visitors.

I agree. so long as it is on view to those who wish to see it, it doesnt really matter where it is hung. And now it will be hung in a non entrance fee paying gallery and all can see it, if they wish to.

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: The Stage Manager
Date: 14 Feb 04 - 04:45 PM

Strikes me that there are some interesting questions to be asked here and some underlying assumptions to be challenged.

My first thought is how a picture by an Italian painter of High Renaissance fits so well into the wider scheme of English Culture that it should sit in the English National Gallery?   Would it not be better in an Italian Gallery? What exactly (besides from value) is its relevance?

If it is a work of international stature does it matter which gallery it is hung?

I'd be interested to know who decides what "must be saved for the Nation" and on what basis.

SM

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: Joybell
Date: 14 Feb 04 - 04:09 PM

Blow it up BIG so all us oldies with bad eyes can see it. Shouldn't cost much! That's what I reckon! Joy-who-was-a-nurse-on-low-wages

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: fat B****rd
Date: 14 Feb 04 - 01:07 PM

Yeah, but that garden of Lady Jane's must cost a few bob to keep tidy.

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: GUEST,09086532
Date: 14 Feb 04 - 12:49 PM

Agreed.

But it still doesn't help the nurses in Hull.
It just helps London.

It's not a huge deal I'm trying to make of it.
But I think sometimes we put too much importance about the significance of some of these things, and (wider picture in view), the morality of spending that amount on an object that you can only look at.

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Feb 04 - 12:07 PM

Yes, but it is also true that by exhibiting this, along with all the other treasures within the Gallery, wealth is generated by the visitors. We need to attract money spending tourists and Uk-ers.

They travel to and from the gallery, either paying towards the public transport system or the congestion charge. They have a coffee at the cafe around the corner, helping the owner to make ends meet. They ensure the staff of the gallery have jobs. They are needed to boost our economy and if we haven't got anything to attract them, they go elsewhere.

No pun intended, but we need to view the wider picture.

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 14 Feb 04 - 12:01 PM

Where's the punks anyway? I thought it was called Madonna and the punks.

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: GUEST,09086532
Date: 14 Feb 04 - 11:57 AM

Fine.
But the sentiment is still the same.

The Health Service could still well do with the extra investment.

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Feb 04 - 11:52 AM

09086532 The National Gallery is free to the public. Nobody has to pay any sums of money to see it.

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 14 Feb 04 - 11:50 AM

It's crap!, that picture looks nothing like Madonna.

Subject: RE: BS: Old pictures, waste of money!
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 14 Feb 04 - 11:11 AM

You don't give 22 million to the poor, John.

You invest it in infrastructure.

And the Duke's castle comes a little further down my list, I'm not particularly sorry to say.

It give me a sense of perspective.