For Love of Art

[drinkanddestroy]

n_l, you'll wanna check out this exhibit in Paris:

article from The Wall Street Journal

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-paris-museum-conjures-a-dealers-starry-era-1488476256

A Paris Museum Conjures a Dealer’s Starry Era
By Tobias Grey

Parisian art dealer Paul Rosenberg had a knack for picking winners. In 1918, he signed an exclusive deal with Pablo Picasso, giving Rosenberg priority in deciding whether to show the artist’s latest work. Similar deals followed with Georges Braque in 1923, Fernand Léger in 1926 and Henri Matisse in 1936, with the Picasso deal lasting until World War II.

Sixty of the finest works that passed through Rosenberg’s gallery are reappearing in Paris at the private Maillol Museum in an exhibition called “21 Rue La Boétie,” after the Rosenberg gallery’s address. The exhibition, which may travel to the U.S., includes more than a dozen Picassos, ranging from his cubist period to more traditional works such as “Portrait of Mrs. Rosenberg and Daughter” (1918), which depicts the art dealer’s family.

Other highlights include the refined cubism of Braque’s “Fruit on a Tablecloth With Fruit Dish” (1925), the tranquil geometry of Léger’s “Three Women” (1921-22) and Matisse’s “Woman in Blue in Front of a Fireplace” (1937), which was stolen by the Nazis during the war and finally returned to Rosenberg’s heirs in 2014. The show tries to demonstrate Rosenberg’s belief that modern art, including cubism, grew out of an earlier tradition of French art practiced by artists like Édouard Manet, Pierre-Auguste Renoir and Paul Cézanne. The exhibition includes paintings by all three.

The show’s paintings now belong to major museums and private collectors such as David Nahmad, a retired art dealer, backgammon champion and billionaire. The exhibition includes letters, exhibition catalogs, artists’ contracts and a 3-D stereoscope viewer showing 10 black-and-white photographs taken by the exacting Rosenberg to record his gallery’s evolution over the years.

French journalist Anne Sinclair, Rosenberg’s granddaughter, wrote a book about her grandfather also called “21 Rue La Boétie” and has worked closely with the curators. The 68-year-old Ms. Sinclair—who was formerly married to Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the scandal-plagued former head of the International Monetary Fund—credits her grandfather with having “an incredible eye.” She remembers how, as a 10-year-old, she often accompanied him on his visits to Parisian galleries. When they sat in the car afterward, Rosenberg would often mutter to himself things like, “That one’s a fake.”

Born in Paris in 1881 to a family in the antiques business, Rosenberg opened his gallery on Rue La Boétie in 1910. He displayed his collection of modern art on the ground floor and was careful not to alienate potential customers. “When he saw that a visitor wasn’t accustomed to this kind of art, or felt confused by it, he quietly ushered them upstairs,” where paintings by Edgar Degas, Camille Pissarro and Vincent Van Gogh hung, says Benoît Remiche, one of the show’s co-curators.

Rosenberg could also be withering, especially if he didn’t appreciate an artist’s work. “He rejected [Salvador] Dalí when he asked my grandfather to represent him by saying: ‘My gallery is not for clowns,’” says Ms. Sinclair.

Meanwhile, Rosenberg was establishing a reputation across the Atlantic. “My grandfather helped to organize the first exhibition of Picasso’s work in the U.S. in the 1920s,” says Ms. Sinclair. “In one of his many letters to Pic,” as the dealer liked to call Picasso, “he said that the reviews are great but that he hadn’t been able to sell a single painting. It was a long process.”

In Europe, the art dealer continued to thrive: In the first half of 1936 alone, Rosenberg was able to hold solo exhibitions of Braque in January, Georges Seurat in February, Picasso in March, Monet in April and Matisse in May. Mr. Remiche says that during Rosenberg’s lengthy career, he acquired about 4,500 paintings.

Then, in 1940, the Nazi occupation of Paris began to target Jewish art dealers. Rosenberg fled to New York and started a new gallery, while the Nazis turned his Paris location into a center for anti-Jewish propaganda.

During the war the Nazis stole around 400 paintings from Rosenberg’s collection. He recovered many of these before he died in 1959. Over the decades, his descendants have continued to make ownership claims, but around 60 paintings are still missing. The latest one returned to the family in 2015 was Matisse’s 1921 “Seated Woman,” discovered in the stash at German collector Cornelius Gurlitt’s apartment in 2012. Ms. Sinclair says that the painting is still being restored.

The Belgian cultural agency Tempora, which specializes in exhibitions mixing art and history, worked closely with Ms. Sinclair on the exhibition, which closes on July 23. “If there had been no Paul Rosenberg,” Mr. Remiche says, “it’s unlikely that modern art would have become so thoroughly implanted in Europe and the U.S.”

[drinkanddestroy]

Article from Associated Press about how the Met Museum is experiencing financial difficulty https://goo.gl/Jdpybk

You know I am a big art lover and go to museums frequently - the Met most frequently of all - but there's no reason why government should fund museums. The people who use museums (like anything else) should pay an appropriate admission fee to cover the costs. People who do not use it should not be forced to pay for something they do not use.

Metropolitan Museum of Art Works to Rebound From Money Woes

By VERENA DOBNIK ,  Associated Press


NEW YORK (AP) — The Metropolitan Museum of Art, a behemoth of culture and wealth, is rebounding from more than a year of internal turmoil and financial problems.

As part of its recovery efforts, the museum is considering a mandatory admissions fee for visitors from outside New York state. The set fee, possibly $25 for adults, would be the first in the venerable museum's 147-year history.

Facing a $15 million operating deficit, the Met filed a formal proposal with New York City this month to charge visitors who don't live in the state a set admission, instead of the current voluntary contribution.

"We've had financial challenges — significant ones — over the last couple of years that have culminated over the past year, and a rather significant need to reorganize the institution and to retrench our finances," said Daniel Weiss, the museum's president.

About 100 staff positions have been eliminated through buyouts and layoffs. The number of special exhibits staged each year is being slashed from 55 to about 40. A $600 million new wing that had been planned, but not fully financed, is postponed indefinitely. Instead, the Met will be focusing on more pressing capital needs, Weiss said, including spending as much as $100 million to replace a block-long "ocean of bad skylights" built in the 1930s over art galleries.

Met director and chief executive Thomas Campbell stunned the art world in February by announcing his resignation, amid criticism of the museum's financial management.

"It was clear we were on a path that was not sustainable, and if we didn't deal with it, it was going to get worse in a hurry," said Weiss, who took the reins from Campbell and is now the interim CEO.

He blamed the museum's financial problems on "a perfect storm" of money-sucking factors: too many costly special exhibitions; restaurants and gift shops where revenues declined; and public programming that was overly ambitious.

Revenue from admissions and membership also had slipped.

But make no mistake, there's no immediate danger to the museum, which has endowments of $3 billion.

Admissions fees might help ease the current budget deficit, which was about 5 percent of the $315 million in operating costs in 2016.

"The deficit is not high compared to the total budget, but remember, these numbers are not just about the money: Donors want to back a winning story, and any indication that it's not makes them skittish," said Andrew Taylor, an arts management expert at Washington-based American University.

The details of how the fees would work are the subject of talks with the city, which gives the museum $27 million in subsidies annually. The city also owns the museum site in Central Park and has approval rights for entrance policies.

An entrance fee of $25 would be in line with admissions to other New York art institutions, from the MoMA ($25) and the Guggenheim ($25) to the Whitney ($22).

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio gave some generalized support to the idea, saying it was "fair" for non-state residents to pay something. "I'm a big fan of Russian oligarchs paying more to get into the Met," the mayor joked recently.

Of the record 7 million visitors in 2016, 67 percent came from outside New York state and 39 percent of the total from abroad.

In recent years, the museum was targeted by a class-action lawsuit that challenged the Met's "recommended" $25 admission and accused the institution of obscuring the fact that people could enter for less. The case was settled last year when the Met agreed to say the price is only "suggested," with signs telling visitors that "The amount you pay is up to you."

Visitors have split on whether an entrance fee should be mandatory for some.

Angeleka Kunath, 64, visiting from Hamburg, Germany, said she feels foreigners should pay and would gladly do so to keep the Met running at its best.

"The price is worth it. Art is so important for our lives and humanity; it gives us inspiration it brings people together," she said.

Ken Wilson, 60, who was visiting from Greensboro, North Carolina, said he didn't think anyone would have a problem paying to get in.

"It's amazing and educational," he said. But he said it was unfair that New Yorkers would get a discount. And with the search for its new director underway, the museum could maybe discuss cutting the high six-figure salaries of its top executives.

---

Associated Press Writer Joshua Replogle contributed to this report.

[dave jenkins]

Why doesn't the $3 billion endowment generate all the revenue they need? Crooks, crooks, crooks.

[drinkanddestroy]

People like DJ don't pay for what they use. Cheapskates, cheapskates, cheapskates.

[Jessica Rabbit]

As always there are two sides to the story. I do believe a government should subsidize art/museums. Not necessarily to the point of funding them completely but to a certain extent. Patrons of the arts are also very important. People with lots of money who help built new museum wings.

$25 (it was $20 when I lived in NYC) is a lot of money for some people. Granted, the MET is a huge museum, actually too big to see in one day, and it's worth it. I like the suggested admission, basically pay what you want. There are many people in NYC who can't just pay $25 but they'd like to see the museum anyway.

[drinkanddestroy]

As always there are two sides to the story. I do believe a government should subsidize art/museums. Not necessarily to the point of funding them completely but to a certain extent. Patrons of the arts are also very important. People with lots of money who help built new museum wings.

$25 (it was $20 when I lived in NYC) is a lot of money for some people. Granted, the MET is a huge museum, actually too big to see in one day, and it's worth it. I like the suggested admission, basically pay what you want. There are many people in NYC who can't just pay $25 but they'd like to see the museum anyway.

 There are plenty of people who like plenty of things but don't want to pay for them.  If you want to argue that the government should give food stamps and subsidized housing,  considering that food and housing are necessities, that's another conversation.

But art is no necessity and it is THEFT to force people who don't use things to subsidize people who do use them.  Why stop at paintings or sculptures? Why not government subsidize movie theaters? Hell, why not government subsidize everything? Oh yeah, cuz then we'd be France    if you like something, you should pay for it. I love the arts. I go to art museums and symphonies and classic films. I am thankful to all the patrons who subsidize it - spending their own money of their own free will. Government takes people's money by force. It's theft.  

[drinkanddestroy]

A letter came in the mail today, asking me to renew my just-expired membership at the Met. The cost of membership has jumped to $110  which means I'd need to go 5 times in a year to make it financially worthwhile to get membership, assuming I'd be paying $25 per visit

[Jessica Rabbit]

Well, we could call it theft but then again, people's taxes pay for so many things that they don't want or have no intention of using. If I wanted to sound snotty - which I don't, but probably do - Art is a noble cause.

Why not government subsidize movie theaters?

OK, you got me there. People seem to have no problem spending lots of money on crappy movies, and movie tickets are expensive nowadays. If they can do that, why not pay full price for a museum?

[drinkanddestroy]

No doubt, my point about government not subsidizing art also applies to many other things tax dollars are used for, like parks. It should all be paid for by admission prices and voluntary donors. Not taxes, which forces people who do not use these things to pay for the people who do. Can you imagine, Jessica, being forced to subsidize theaters for the idiots who watch non-noirs?

[Jessica Rabbit]

Can you imagine, Jessica, being forced to subsidize theaters for the idiots who watch non-noirs?

Quelle horreur! I think everybody should be forced to subsidize the restoration of old movies, so I don't have to watch crappy VHS copies.

[drinkanddestroy]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-auction-week-the-winners-and-losers-1495147960

A Basquiat Sells for $110.5 Million at New York Auction Week
A look at the winners and losers at the impressionist, modern and contemporary art sales at Christie’s, Sotheby’s and Phillips

The Wall Street Journal - May 18, 2017

By Kelly Crow

Sotheby’s New York saleroom erupted into applause Thursday after a Japanese billionaire paid $110.5 million for a work by Jean-Michel Basquiat, the highest price ever paid at auction for a work by a U.S. artist.

The sale, to 41-year-old e-commerce king Yusaku Maezawa, provided a crackling cap to New York’s spring auctions, where sales exceeded expectations in many, but not all, categories.

The price for the Basquiat, an untitled 1982 image of a menacing, black skull painted in graffiti-style slashes, bested Andy Warhol’s $105 million auction record. It ranks the Brooklyn street artist in a rarefied, nine-figure canon alongside Pablo Picasso, Edvard Munch and Francis Bacon. The previous record for a Basquiat was $57 million, set a year ago by Mr. Maezawa, who is building a museum in Chiba, east of Tokyo.

“When I first encountered this painting, I was struck with so much excitement and gratitude for my love of art,” Mr. Maezawa said in an Instagram post shortly after he placed his winning phone bid.

Results of the auctions, which conclude Friday, suggest art shoppers are just getting started. Sotheby’s, Christie’s and Phillips reported more than $1.4 billion in art sales throughout a week that swung from stable to exuberant—a sign that once-wary collectors seem increasingly eager to splurge on blue-chip impressionist, modern and contemporary art.

Other notables include a Cy Twombly abstract, “Leda and the Swan,” which Christie’s sold for $53 million, and a Francis Bacon triple portrait of his lover, “Three Studies for a Self-Portrait of George Dyer, ” which the same house sold for $51.8 million.

Sotheby’s $319.2 million contemporary art sale Thursday surpassed its high expectations; two days earlier, it also sold Kazimir Malevich’s $21.2 million abstract, “Suprematist Composition with Plane in Projection,” for more than its $18 million high estimate. Phillips’s $110.3 million sale Thursday was led by Peter Doig’s $28.8 million “Rosedale,” a 1991 view of a manor house.

Ahead of these sales, the houses made financial deals to ensure that dozens of their priciest pieces sold no matter what—an unsettling move that suggests sellers didn’t want to shoulder their own risk. Yet plenty of artists still underwent major market tests. Here’s a look at a few of the strongest and weakest performers.

WINNERS

Sculptures: After papering their walls with paintings in recent years, collectors must have realized they still had empty tabletops or patios because sculptures sold well at all sizes this week. Hits included Christie’s $57.3 million melon-size Constantin Brancusi bronze, “Sleeping Muse,” which sold to private dealer Tobias Meyer. Sotheby’s got $16 million for a Max Ernst figure of a chess player, “The King Playing with the Queen,” that once belonged to painter Robert Motherwell.

Collectors pushed Isamu Noguchi’s garden totems to three times their asking prices at Christie’s. Phillips sold Roy Lichtenstein’s two-sided view of a woman in a ponytail from 1996, “Woman: Sunlight, Moonlight,” for $10.3 million on Thursday.

Scholarly Moderns: Collectors of impressionist and modern art appeared ready to pay premiums for cerebral works with more historical significance than wall-power punch this week. A dogged bidding war ensued Monday over Wassily Kandinsky’s 1925 “Top and Left,” an abstract intended to illustrate the artist’s Bauhaus color theories, with Christie’s chief executive Guillaume Cerutti fielding the winning telephone bid for $8.3 million. The Kandinsky was only expected to sell for up to $7 million.

Rich Hues: Why be content with a few colors when you can buy the entire box of Crayolas? That logic seemed to spur contemporary art collectors this week, benefiting artists like Mark Grotjahn and Njideka Akunyili Crosby. Both easily weathered their auction tests, thanks to works that contained dense kaleidoscopes of colors rather than spare, muted hues. Christie’s sold Grotjahn’s feathery abstract, “Untitled (S III Released to France Face 43.14),” for $16.8 million, just over its $16 million high estimate. Crosby’s patterned, nightclub scene from 2010, “I Refuse to be Invisible,” sold at Christie’s for $2.6 million, over its $2 million high estimate.

LOSERS

Bad Impressions: With so many A-list impressionist works already tucked away in museums, collectors sniffed or paid bargain prices for the classic leftovers that wound up at auction this week. Claude Monet is typically a powerhouse, but his “Waterlily Pond” from 1917-20 only drew a few limp bids, and it sold for $16 million edging over its $14 million low estimate thanks in part to Sotheby’s added fees. Monet’s wintry “Road to Vetheuil, Snowy Effect” also saw thin bidding, selling for its $10 million low estimate, or $11.4 million after Christie’s added fees.

Jeff Koons: Even as this New York artist’s 45-foot-tall “Seated Ballerina” was installed in Rockefeller Center, it was clear his art was almost nowhere to be found in the spring sales. This was a marked turnabout from recent seasons when collectors reaped tidy profits packing catalogs with examples of his painstakingly perfect figures of lobsters, monkeys and balloon animals. On Wednesday, Christie’s tried to stir competition for his 1981-86 sculpture of vacuum cleaners, “New Shelton Wet/Drys 10 Gallon, New Shelton Wet/Drys 5 Gallon Doubledecker.” In the end, it only took one bid from a collector on the telephone to win it for $7.9 million, just over its $7 million low estimate.

[drinkanddestroy]

DJ and I visited The Brooklyn Museum yesterday https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/
The museum was nice. Then we went to the Brooklyn Botanical Garden - that was disappointing. Mostly one type of green tree or another type of green plant. Then we went to a restaurant not far from the museum https://www.izzyssmokehouse.com/ DJ had the brisket and I had the (very spicy!) pulled beef sandwich. Terrific food. As usual, a good time was bad by all  

The Brooklyn Museum has a nice collection of American art. A small collection of European art. 4 mummies, plus other ancient Egyptian stuff, for those interested in that. A bunch of feminist crap for those interested in that. It even has restored/recreated several rooms of old houses, as well as two full houses - the entire house in the museum.

You can check out the stuff at the website.

 As I have mentioned previously, it's a pain in the neck to post pictures here, so I'll provide links to some of the interesting paintings we saw:

Edward Hopper, "Macomb's Dam Bridge" (1935) https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/1167

Albert Bierstadt, "A Storm in the Rocky Mountains, Mt. Rosalie" (1866) https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/1558
A few other Bierstadts here https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/artists/594/objects

Here is another Hopper, called "The Mansard Roof" (1923)
https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/22909
It was not on display yesterday. This watercolor is, I believe, the second painting that Hopper ever sold, 10 years after his first sale! (In between, he turned to etching and painting ads for magazines to support himself, as his paintings did not sell well until the 1920's. That's right - Hopper, born in 1882, did not start really making money on paintings until he was in his 40's.)


William Merritt Chase, "The Moorish Warrior," (1878) https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/1441
(BTW, Chase was one of Hopper's teachers, but Hopper didn't think much of Chase; he considered his real teacher to be Robert Henri, whom he studied under after Chase.)

We saw a number of paintings by John Sloan, including "The Haymarket, Sixth Avenue," (1907) https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/252


We also saw a number of artworks by John Singer Sargent https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/artists/11/objects

The Brooklyn Museum also has a nice collection of paintings by artists of The Hudson River School. Here is one example
Francis Augustus Silva, "The Hudson at the Tappan Zee" (1876) https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/1250

and here is one more example of a painting by a "Hudson River School" artist: Thomas Cole, "A Pic-Nic Party," (1846) https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/1356

Note that Cole was one of a number of painters of what became known as "The Hudson River School," (i.e., who worked near and painted images of the Hudson River, which runs from New York City way up into Upstate New York) who were actually born abroad (in Cole's case, England) though they can be categorized as American because they made artworks in America and about American subjects.

Since not all of you are able to come along on The Adventures of DJ and D&D, I hope that, through these posts, y'all are able to enjoy it vicariously. Especially the pulled beef 

[drinkanddestroy]

https://apnews.com/026d63adb9dc4520af480ea4d10802d0/Looted-painting-in-US-hands-ordered-back-to-French-family


Looted painting in US hands ordered back to French family

By PHILIPPE SOTTO

PARIS (AP) — A Paris court on Tuesday ordered an American couple to return a valuable Camille Pissarro painting looted during World War II to the descendants of a French Jewish family who owned it at the time.

U.S. citizens Bruce and Robbi Toll had loaned the painting “La Cueillette des Pois,” or “Picking Peas,” by impressionist master Pissarro to the Parisian museum Marmottan for an exhibition earlier this year.

But the painting was placed in temporary escrow after one of the French heirs recognized it and filed a lawsuit to have the work returned.

A civil court said Tuesday that the Tolls didn’t act in bad faith when they bought the painting from Christie’s auction house more than two decades ago.

But it ruled that initial and following sales of all goods looted to Jewish people by the French Vichy regime or its Nazi allies during the war were declared void by France’s post-war authorities in 1945.

Judges didn’t award any financial compensation for the Toll couple who purchased the painting for $800,000 in 1995.

“For them it’s a total loss,” their lawyer Ron Soffer told The Associated Press.

The Pissarro had different owners since it was confiscated and sold in 1943. Before the Tolls bought it in 1995, the painting was sold to an unknown buyer in 1966 by Sotheby’s.

The artwork’s estimated worth is now $1.75 million, based on the value covered by the insurance the Tolls paid for the painting.

Soffer, the Tolls’ lawyer, said his clients have decided to appeal the ruling. In the meantime, the canvas won’t be returned to the French heirs and will be kept in escrow by Paris’ Orsay Museum.

Soffer said the ruling could pose “legal uncertainty” on collectors who have bought paintings in good faith over the years.

At a court hearing last month, Cedric Fischer, lawyer for Bauer, argued that bona fide purchasers of looted property can still file legal action against intermediaries, especially auction houses.

The Pissarro painting was part of a collection of 93 master canvases amassed by French Jewish collector Simon Bauer over the first part of the last century.

The art collection was confiscated by the French regime of Vichy, which collaborated with the Nazis, and sold by a vendor designated by the then-General Commissariat for Jewish Questions in 1944.

Florida-based Bruce Toll, who came to Paris for the last month’s hearing, told the AP at the time that “there was no way I should know that.”

Bauer’s last surviving grandson, Jean-Jacques Bauer, 88, said he was “pleased” with the ruling and that the decision was “normal.” He added he respects the Toll couple and that they were probably “victims of a system” or “misguided” when they bought the painting.

The Tolls’ lawyer said in a phone interview that his clients “are disappointed, of course,” and that “they don’t understand why they have to pay for what happened during the war.”

“The Tolls just want to get back that painting they like so much and put it back in their living room,” Soffer said.

[dave jenkins]

Moral: Never Lend Valuable Works of Art!

[drinkanddestroy]

http://www.gettyimages.com/articles/travel/giverny-the-place-that-inspired-monet-s-art

http://www.gettyimages.com/articles/travel/van-gogh-s-paintings-vs-real-locations