Stuart Burch
www.stuartburch.com
  • 01 Home
  • 02 Articles
  • 03 Blog
  • 04 Big Ben
  • 05 Reviews
  • 06 Talks
  • 07 Contact
  • 08 Search
  • 09 Twitter
  • 10 Etisarap

Value added painting

1/8/2011

 
Off Margate
The Western Mail reports that a painting owned by the National Museum of Wales previously thought to be "a fake" is, in fact, "almost certainly genuine".

See: Evans, Gareth (2011) "Doubts held over Turner painting vanish in the mist; after 50 years art work at museum is declared genuine", The Western Mail, 01/08, p.15, accessed 01/08/2011 at, http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2011/08/01/doubts-held-over-turner-painting-vanish-in-the-mist-91466-29154179/  (text available here)

The reporting of this story is worth considering in detail.

We are told at the outset that the painting entitled Off Margate was purchased by the museum in 1908. However, later on, Beth McIntyre (a curator at the museum) is cited as saying that the "painting was part of a large bequest to the museum in 1951 and shortly after it arrived, an expert questioned its authenticity. In those days, working out authorship wasn't a question of science as it can be today, it was a question of 'this doesn't quite feel right'."

However, unnamed "experts" working at Tate in London have now declared that Off Margate is "entirely characteristic" of the work of J.M.W. Turner (1775-1851). Yet we are not told how they reached this decision: was it "a question of science" or just their "expert" eyes that determined if it was authentic or not? It seems that artistic style played a key role in questioning the painting's authenticity in the first place. McIntyre remarks that, "while it was identified as a Turner, the 'late' style was questioned at the time.” This was despite the fact that the "painting had good historic provenance" meaning that McIntyre and her colleagues "could trace its ownership back a long way". To what extent did this supporting evidence influence those unnamed "experts" at Tate?

Interestingly, the Western Mail journalist who wrote this newspaper article chose to add the following statement:

    "Turner remains one of Britain’s most celebrated artists. His work is instantly recognisable
    and remains, some 160 years after his death, among the most sought-after in the world."

If his work is "instantly recognisable", why was it so difficult to decide if Turner painted Off Margate?

We are told that it was McIntyre who thought of asking "Tate experts" to examine the work. This, adds the journalist, was a "decision [that] paid off." But in the article this "payment" is expressed solely in terms of financial rather than artistic value:

    "The precise value of Off Margate is unclear, but a painting by Turner depicting a
    Welsh castle drenched in the orange glow of a sunrise last year fetched more
    than £500,000 at auction. The watercolour sketch over pencil of Flint Castle,
    which dates from the early 1830s, sold to a private collector at Sotheby's for £541,250.
    A piece by another English artist depicting what some regard as a quintessentially
    English view of Wales – William Dyce's Welsh Landscape with Two
    Women Knitting  – sold for more than £500,000 in 2009."

Whilst we are informed about the potential auction price for Off Margate, we are not told how much the museum paid for it (assuming that it did indeed purchase the painting in 1908).

The Western Mail's framing of the story, with its inclusions, exclusions and points of emphasis really matters given that recent changes to the UK's Code of Ethics "now allows financially motivated disposal... in exceptional circumstances" (section 6.14).

The story of Off Margate touches on important museological issues regarding the use and interpretation of objects; the role of "experts" and of how decisions are reached when it comes to authenticity. This leads to additional questions: Were doubts about the painting conveyed to the public from the 1950s until today or did it hang in the gallery without comment? Or was it locked away in the museum store? What additional "fakes" might be similarly forgotten about in the "worthless" reserve collection? Does the museum own other artworks of debatable authenticity? Are there examples of works that the museum considered to be genuine but have later been labelled "fake"? Do experts always agree and, if not, how do we decide who to believe? What impact do technological developments have on opinion-making? And what role do personal contacts play in getting the support of "experts"?

Instead, by focusing just on money, the Western Mail newspaper encourages this sort of comment:

    Who cares: it's either art or not.
    Oh! sorry it's either money or not.
        siarad 9:27 AM on August 1, 2011

This was the only reader's comment that followed the article at the time I accessed it. But "siarad" shouldn't be blamed for reducing the Museum of Wales's art to a question of money. The fault lies with the way the Western Mail newspaper has framed the story. It encourages its readers to look upon the National Museum of Wales as primarily a place of financial rather than cultural capital.


Comments are closed.
    Author
    an extinct parasite
    of several hosts
    Why parasite?

    Try the best you can

    Para, jämsides med.
    En annan sort.
    Dénis Lindbohm,
    Bevingaren, 1980: 90

    Picture
    Even a parasite like me should be permitted to feed at the banquet of knowledge

    I once posted comments as Bevingaren at guardian.co.uk

    Guggenheim New York, parasitized

    Archives

    July 2019
    July 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    July 2017
    June 2017
    March 2017
    January 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    August 2015
    September 2014
    August 2014
    November 2013
    August 2013
    June 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011

    Categories

    All
    Architecture
    Archive
    Art
    Commemoration
    Dénis Lindbohm
    Dennis Potter
    Design
    Dylan Thomas
    Ethics
    Framing
    Freedom Of Speech
    Heritage
    Heroes And Villains
    History
    Illicit Trade
    Landscape
    Media
    Memorial
    Museum
    Music
    Nordic
    Para
    Politics
    Rupert Murdoch
    Science
    Science Fiction
    Shockmolt
    Statue
    Tourism
    Words

    Stuart Burch
    View my profile on LinkedIn
    _
    Note    All parasitoids are parasites, but not all parasites are parasitoids
    Parasitoid    "A parasite that always ultimately destroys its host" (Oxford English Dictionary)


        I live off you
        And you live off me
        And the whole world
        Lives off everybody

        See we gotta be exploited
        By somebody, by somebody,             by somebody
       
        X-Ray Spex
            <I live off you>
        Germ Free Adolescents
            1978  

    From symbiosis
    to parasitism
    is a short step.
    The word is
    now a virus.
    William Burroughs, The word is now a virus
    William Burroughs
    <operation rewrite>

    Do nothing
    that can
    harm
    your host!

    Hal Clement
    <
    Needle>
    1950
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.