Beth's Everything Blog

Archive for October, 2010

We are now faced with the story of the month or the year or the century in the art world.  It is the discovery of a drawing under serious consideration as being the work of Leonardo da Vinci.  Experts are weighing in on both sides of the question as to its validity.  Lawsuits are multiplying against a leading auction house’s estimation of the work.  Technology meets art history along the way.  This is perhaps the most exciting debate to have hit the art news.  Is it or is it not the work of the divine Leonardo?  Ask Martin Kemp, a leading scholar of Leonardo, in Oxford, England.  Kemp’s opinions carry the weight of history; they can place a painting securely within the world’s cultural heritage and forever celebrated in museums or headed for the trashcan and further obscurity.  His approval is so valuable that he must guard against forgery of his name.  Kemp refuses to accept payment for his services to avoid becoming entangled with any financial interest that could undercut his opinion of the work.  He has spent more than 40 years in “the Leonardo business” publishing articles on nearly every aspect of the artist’s life.  He knows the brushstrokes, composition, iconography, and pigments that reveal an artist’s hidden identity.  But he also relies on his eye and his knowledge for an almost instantaneous estimation of the work.

So it was a shock to Kemp to receive an e-mail of a drawing on vellum of a girl on the cusp of womanhood, with pale skin and glowing brown hair pulled back in a long ponytail.  Her profile intrigued him.  The visible eye had a lifelike translucence.  Her upper lip pressed secretively against her lower one.  Her features had been rendered with pen and colored chalks.  Kemp felt a shiver of recognition.  He felt that he had found a work from the hand of Leonardo.  The drawing had no provenance; it seemed to have come from nowhere.  Kemp decided that he must see the work and went to a warehouse in Zurich where armed guards presented the work to him.  Kemp studied the work with all his skills and knowledge and spent the next year interrogating the drawing.  Only then was he willing to stake his reputation that it was indeed by Leonardo.  He suggests that it is a portrait of Bianca Sforza, the Duke of Milan’s illegitimate daughter.  At the age of thirteen, she wed Galeazzo Sanseverino, a patron of Leonardo’s, only to die of an abdominal illness 4 months later.  Kemp named the portrait La Bella Principessa, the Beautiful Princess.  In 2008 he announced to the world that the drawing was the real thing, the first Leonardo masterpiece discovered in a century.

Since then, Kemp’s appraisal and acceptance of the work as Leonardo’s has created a virtual uproar among art historians.  Thomas Hoving told the press that La Bella Principessa was too “sweet” to be a Leonardo, since his pictures were “tough as nails.”  (Hoving was an imperious figure and eminent eye at the Met.)  Carmen Bambach, curator of drawings at the Met, was also unimpressed.  She has the most respected eye for Leonardo’s drawings.  “With Leonardo you need the niche specialist just as you would not go to a heart specialist if you had a kidney problem.”  She noted there is no other example of Leonardo having drawn on vellum.  Kemp acceded to this point, but there was evidence that Leonardo had questioned a French painter about the technique.  Nevertheless Bambach, after studying an image of the drawing — same costume, same features, same strokes that Kemp had examined — pronounced “it does not look like a Leonardo.”  At this point Kemp turned to a Canadian forensic art expert, Peter Biro, who over the past few years has pioneered a radical new approach to authenticating pictures.  He looks for and finds fingerprints impressed on the paint in the canvas which he regards as scientific evidence of the identity of the painter.  His is an effort to prove objectively what has been historically subjective.  Needless to say, this has shaken the priesthood of connoisseurship and the very legitimacy of the art world.  However, Biro’s credibility is later challenged by others and so the work returns to other authorities with “eyes.”

The latest developments have come from David Ekserdjian, a British scholar of Italian Renaissance paintings and drawings, who suspects that the drawing is not a Leonardo.  Ekserdjian reviewed Kemp’s book on the work as well as contributions by restorers, art historians and curators.  Kemp argues that the drawing shows strong stylistic parallels with Leonardo’s portrait of another young woman in the Windsor Castle collection, the proportions of the head and face reflect the rules that Leonardo articulated in his notebooks, and the drawing and hatching was executed by a left handed artist — Leonardo was left handed.  While these reasons suggest that the work could be by Leonardo, it might just as easily be accomplished in a forgery or by an artist seeking inspiration from a work of the past.  Excerdjian writes that “Kemp seems to apologize for the fact that the portrait has been examined in such detail in his book, but actually the oddest thing about his contribution is its lack of thoroughness and rigor, above all in the almost total absence of close comparisons with unimpeachable works.”  Kemp has responded that he is on to other things and not getting “involved in tit-for-tat stuff”.

So let’s look at the scorecard at this juncture.  Among those who agree with Kemp are the director of the Museo Ideale Leonardo da Vinci, a professor emeritus of Leonardo Studies at UCLA, and the professor emeritus at the University of Florence, who is the doyenne of Italian art historians.  Lining up in opposition is Ekserdjian, the Met curator of Leonardo drawings, and the director of the Albertina in Vienna.  As one scholar summed it up, “Not one point in the Kemp summary is proof of the authenticity of the drawing.  Leonardo was already a mature artist when this was said to have been done.  He’s not going to be timid the way this drawing is.  Leonardo would have built it up in light and shadow.  It could have been made in the 19th century, not to deceive anyone but just as an exercise.”

Jean Marchig, a Swiss collector who consigned the drawing to Christie’s more than a decade ago, has sued the auction house alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of warranty and negligence.  Christie’s sold the drawing as “German School early 19th century” and still not convinced it is a Leonardo, they have sought to have the suit dismissed.  Peter Silverman, who describes himself as a collector specializing in Old Masters, has intimated that he is the real owner and he is planning to exhibit the drawing in Poland, Italy and Japan.  He is also writing a book “The $100,000,000 Blunder: The Lost Princess by Leonardo.”  One thing is for sure: Leonardo would be enormously amused by the proliferating disputes.  Leonardo was never concerned with a finished product; he delighted only in working out a problem and once it was solved, he moved on to other problems.  This work has been bought and sold for under $20,000 over the past 10 years.  If it is really a Leonardo, the work is worth an estimated $150,000,000.  Surely, all of this speculation must eventually sort itself out and we will know the truth.  In the meantime, take a good long look for yourself and dare to dream.

For fifty years or more, Edith Hellerstein challenged our collective social conscience with ceaseless questions that probed our inner souls. She made us think how we could better the world. Last week, she passed away.

The Friday Study Group began in 1954 under the auspicious of The National Council of Jewish Women. A few years later, Edith, then a young bride, moved to our city and joined us.

Over the years, we shared our homes and work experiences. We learned that Edith had a master’s degree in social work and that Stanley, the love of her life, was a pediatrician whose work in nephrology improved the lives of countless kids. Together Edith and Stan raised three children in whom they took great pride.

We knew Edith’s opinions on politics, education and philosophy but, after fifty years, here’s what we didn’t know:

That as a young girl, she worked in a cottage cheese factory or that she joined the WAVES, (Women Accepted for Volunteer Services) a World War II organization formed by congress to “expedite the war effort by releasing officers and men for duty at sea.” We didn’t know that she served as an aerographer’s mate whose job, among others, was to warn ships at sea of hazardous weather and sea conditions.

She never told us that her immigrant father didn’t believe girls needed an education so she used her G.I. benefits to go to the University of Colorado at Boulder.

It was left to her children to tell us that she baked pies until she learned to do it perfectly and then never baked another one and that she had a passion for art.

Over the years, members of our study group produced more than 70 children. Now, we delight in passing around pictures of our grand children and great grandchildren. Most of us went to college, a few like Edith earning Master’s degrees. We even boast a PhD’s or two. We’ve worked in the world of business and banking, education and health. We are artists and writers and have volunteered countless hours to worthy causes.

We’ve read and discussed hundreds of books and thousands of articles. If left to our group, we would have long since solved the problems of the world.

We continue to meet for lunch twice a month at each other’s homes. We are such excellent cooks that we once published a cookbook and shared our most favorite and secret recipes.

In 1990, we answered the question “If you could make a change in the world what would it be?” Our response today remains unanimously the same. “We want solutions to the problems of drugs and AIDS, and the pollution of the environment and homelessness. We want peace and freedom, a more caring world, and the opportunity for every child to be born free of hunger and fear, to be healthy, {well educated}  and hopefully happy.”

To which Edith would heartily agree.

At her funeral Edith’s daughter Alice greeted us warmly and, with tears in her eyes, told us, “You were my mother’s people.” We understood what she meant for we are and will continue to be there for each other until, like good soldiers, the last of us fades away.

One of the great joys of life is going to the symphony but here’s a question for you. Why does no one in the audience tap their feet to the music . . . or wiggle their fingers . . . or bob their head? I noticed this phenomenon last weekend. My friends and I sat in the balcony, second to the last row center, and had a great view of the orchestra as well as the whole audience.

First up was the premiere of Starbursts, a new work by a daring young composer, Jonathon Leshnoff.  It was startling and brilliant. It took my breath away; definitely toe taping and head nodding but no one except the orchestra moved. I gazed out over the audience. Everyone sat stock still.

Next came world famous Hilary Hahn and her magical violin. I can sort of understand why no one bobbed around during her enchanting version of Sebelius Violin Concerto. We were all too mesmerized by the sweet tones of the music and Ms. Hahn’s awesome technique to do much bobbing.

But then came Igor Stravinsky’s Firebird.  It there was ever a toe tapping hand keeping-timer composition, that is surely  it. Michael Stern, our excellent conductor, did a veritable ballet, dancing on his toes and swinging his arms in sweeping arks, but the audience, all of us, sat in somber silence.

I couldn’t help it. I began to tap my feet, just a teeny bit, but a wicked glance from the lady seated next to me made me stop.  No one else moved. Even during the liveliest parts, some people napped, or so it seemed. I guess that’s called enjoying the music.

Go to any other kind of musical event and none of this is so.  In fact, at some  concerts, if you don’t jump up and down, you can’t see the artists and you risk being trampled.

Why is this? What is it about symphony music that stops us from doing what comes naturally? I’ve asked my most ardent symphony-going friends and here’s what they say.

It’s tradition.

Good manners require you to sit still.

It shows respect for the musicians and the composer.

The music reaches higher levels (I’m not sure what that means)

One is transfixed . . .

Or spellbound.

The audience is old . . .

And stogy.

but my favorite is . . . And sleepy!

My symphony-going friends and I would love to hear from you if you have a better answer. Until then, may you enjoy peaceful, motionless listening.

Michael Stern and the K.C. Philharmonic Orchestra

My grade school, William Cullen Bryant, closed this year. The hundred year old building was in disrepair, the playground crumbling and the old concrete stairs downright dangerous. Worse still, the school’s children failed to meet Adequate Yearly Progress, especially in math and communication skills. How could such a thing to happen in a lovely, wealthy neighborhood still graced by beautiful homes and parks?

There was a time when prominent families with names like Gage, Christopher and Cooke sent their children to Bryant. Most went on to tony Southwest High, a few to private Pembroke or Sunset Hill schools. Everyone understood the power of education, or rather, that education was power.

Somehow, as time went by, we forgot. Rankling among school board members and a superintendent’s office with a revolving door allowed the public schools in Kansas City to sink below average. Less that 50% of students graduated from high school and fewer still went on to college.

Many of the buildings stood half empty. Less than a third of elementary school children could read at or above grade level. Thousands of parents opted for private or charter schools for their children, willing to work two jobs or take a chance their lottery number would be drawn. Our public schools spelled failure. We wasted some of our greatest resources, our children.

Today, Kansas City finds itself on the cusp of change. Aided by a dynamic new superintendent, John Covington who presented mountains of information regarding demographics and lack of achievement, the school board voted to close twenty eight schools and fire seven hundred people including two hundred and eighty five teachers. That process alone saved 50 million dollars, money that will be spent on much needed improvements.

Many problems still exist. We need to identify quality teachers, improve teacher student ratio and lessen tensions over teacher tenure but our local teacher’s union appears to be on board.

As a nation, we have strong people driving a fresh new campaign to improve our schools and turn mediocrity into excellence. The Department of Education has set aside and is distributing 4.3 billion dollars in President’s Obama’s program, Race to the Top. Kansas City has just received 13 million of those dollars. The goal is better teachers, better facilities and better equipment, better standards and better criteria.

Compared with other world countries, United States schools rank twenty fourth behind such countries as South Korea, China, Japan, Belgium and Austria. No Child Left Behind, though not a roaring success, did one important thing. It focused our attention on test scores that lead us to recognize how many of our children can’t read or write. It should be obvious that education is the path to world leadership.

PS: 13 million United States children live below the poverty level. Until we fix education, we can’t fix poverty. Albert Einstein once said the difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limit. If we don’t take steps to revamp  and improve  the education of our children, we belong in the lesser of Einstein’s groups.

Bryant School

In this day and age Rembrandt is one of the few artists that almost everyone knows and reveres.  Four years ago huge celebrations of his 400th birthday took place around the globe, and so we are remiss in taking up his celebrity 4 years late, but then it is wise to fete him any time, any place, any year.  Did you know that some called him vulgar, ignorant and greedy during his lifetime and often afterward?  Rembrandt has often represented the bohemian, the liberal, the Romantic, and even the revolutionary.  Opinions and beliefs about him have changed with the centuries.  As late as the l950′s he was considered one of the great controversial figures.  Critics  were both attracted and repelled by his work.  He was a superb colorist who couldn’t draw, a realist who ignored the classical canon.

Rembrandt attracted notice at an early age.  He was famous during his lifetime.  He always had admirers but he also had powerful detractors.  One contemporary “authority” of Rembrandt wrote “The great painters paint nudes from which one can see that they know how to draw.  Only an uneducated person tries to clothe his figures with clumsy dark garments…we cannot make head nor tail of them.”  Rembrandt’s self portraits indicate his intentions; he painted reality.  If people were ugly or deformed he painted them that way.  There has always been a difference in the way that painters from the North and South of Europe saw life.  Italian Renaissance artists painted the ideal life and saw it through rose colored glasses, while Northern painters tended to paint a road map of the face replete with the angst and suffering the subject had endured.  This warts and all approach has largely been a point of criticism about Rembrandt.

However critics of the 17th and 18th centuries accepted him as a serious history painter and applauded his portraits, etchings and drawings.    Rembrandt’s rise to the heights he occupies today came about with changes in taste.   The authority of the Academy declined; interest in naturalism, and in human personality and psychological subtley grew.  He became recognized as the painter of real life and of the human soul.  New judgments arose about the ill visaged Jews, the beggars and bandy legged cripples, the gross slatterns.  These pictures became acceptable because Rembrandt gave these humble subjects transcendent meaning.

By the middle of the 19th century he had become the icon of a Dutch Golden Age.  He had lived for many years in the Jewish quarter of Amsterdam.  His life conflated his biography and his art.  Thus his personal bankruptcy led many people to feel empathy for him as an outsider.  The critics made more of him as a social outcast, misunderstood in his own time.  There also began the theory that here was a man of humble origin who rose through his art, and the myth of the bohemian artist emerged, together with the idea that Rembrandt was socially progressive and did not associate with royalty or the aristocracy,  showing that it was possible for artists to challenge the social order, to live outside the confines of academic or conservative values, and still be successful–in the future if not in their own time.  By the end of the 19th century Rembrandt had become a cult figure and achieved the status of the artist who was persecuted and denigrated in his own time but could now be recognized as a genius.

It was only in the period coming into the 20th century that connoisseurship came into its own.  To see with one’s own eyes, to know and recognize the master’s hand, now became the basis of the discipline of art history.   It was Rembrandt’s work that became the magnificent example of prior unappreciated genius.  As a result of this reappraisal we are now presented with the constant discoveries of newly authenticated works by the master as well as decisions denying that works were his.  A work in the Nelson Gallery has been visited by experts regularly in quest of its acceptance as a work painted by Rembrandt.  His nudes now no longer are derided as lumpy sagging females; his biblical paintings now register depths of feeling that no other artist is able to portray.  Gone are the critics who referred to his self portraits as grotesques, his scenes as vulgar misrepresentations of the truth of depiction.   The Rembrandt Research Project, formed in the l960′s, separates Rembrandt from the Rembrandt mystique, the “extravagant mythologization” that resulted from his great fame on one hand and the lack of precise information about him on the other.  The Rembrandt that has emerged is not the stubborn nonconformist or the master of a unique and mysterious technique but the head of a large workshop of students and assistants to whom he transmitted a “rational painting technique and pictorial and stylistic recipes.”  However his hand could almost always be distinguished from those of his studio.

Today scholars work much more closely with conservators  than in the past in order to know what pictures have condition problems, are overpainted, need cleaning, and there is a much greater interest in the technical means by which Rembrandt described naturalistic effects as opposed to simply judging his style.     The National Gallery of Art Rembrandts have all been cleaned and the works now seem to have very different colors and a different sense of space.  The chiaroscuro effects and the palette are very different.  This has resulted in the viewer finding new ways of thinking about the way Rembrandt thought about his images.  There are even new connections to other artists that critics are seeing in this new palette.  Forty or fifty years from now it is believed that we will have a much more nuanced and subtle idea of Rembrandt’s paintings and drawings.  We will know more about his house, his business, his family, his daily life.  But to know his character we will have to do what people have always done: we will have to look at his paintings.  That is exactly what we did in Amsterdam; we spent a lengthy time communing with one of Rembrandt’s Old Men in the Rijksmuseum and we found everything we needed to know about Rembrandt’s talent, his portrayal of old age, his understanding of the human condition.  He had reached out to us across the centuries.  For us it seemed that we had made real contact, and this was thrilling.  Happy 404th birthday Rembrandt!