Agendas for Art

Last week, a colleague, Ben Sweeney, told me of a dispute between an art journalist, Richard Dorment and a connoisseur, Peter Silverman.

It concerns the recently discovered Leonardo da Vinci drawing, 'La Bella Principessa'. Talk about art pundits having agendas! According to Silverman, Richard Dorment, the art critic of the Telegraph, has a vested interest in making the public believe that the drawing is not autograph since Dorment was previously married to Kate Ganz, the Manhattan dealer who paid a derisory amount for the work at Christie's in 1998. Top Leonardo experts like Martin Kemp are now calling it the most significant discovery in renaissance art for decades; if he is right, the drawing is worth millions. No wonder Dorment is sore. If he'd known the truth, he could have retired and we would have been spared his exhibition reviews in the Telegraph. It's hard not to feel sorry for poor Kate Ganz though, in the unhappy position of having the drawing in her gallery for 10 years, and then selling it as a 19^th c German portrait, whilst tragically unaware of its possible real provenance and value. It's the Pete Best effect- you miss out on a ticket to fame and fortune and are left to reflect bitterly for the rest of your life on what might have been. Another reason for feeling sympathetic towards Ganz is that she was advised by curators and experts in New York, amusingly called by Kemp the "New York gang", who now look to be without any credibility at all. In his indispensable From Duccio to Raphael: Connoisseurship in Crisis, an attack on the lamentable state of connoisseurship today, the late James Beck called the group of scholars who influenced the acquisition of the "Raphael" Madonna of the Pinks by the National Gallery, the magnifici. I wouldn't mind betting that a number of this curatorial elite were responsible for advising Ganz,, so now they're not looking magnificent at all- just ridiculous.

I don't mean to rubbish all connoisseurs, just those whose scholarship is motivated by other issues than getting at the truth, of having agendas in mind instead of the art itself. Silverman casts himself in the role of crusading connoisseur, intent on exposing the omissions and inconsistencies in Dorment's piece. Silverman published a point by point reply to Dorment's article of 12^th April, which is reproduced below. All the arguments are set out in Martin Kemp's new book on the painting, which I'm informed goes into everything, including the practice of "not exhibiting works in private hands unless they are proposed gifts." What?

Silverman's points.

1. The work was initially identified as a Leonardo by Professori Mina Gregori, the 84 year old doyenne of Italian art.

2. It was first published in September 2008 by Allessandro Vezzosi, Director of the Museo Ideale Da Vinci in a major monograph, prefaced by Carlo Pedretti, the world's senior Da Vinci expert.

3. Francesco Buranelli, former head of the Vatican Museums, and Claudio Strinati former Head of the Museums of Rome, and now in the Italian Ministry of Culture, have endorsed the attribution. Timothy Clifford, former Director of the National Gallery of Scotland, as well as Simon Dickinson, one of the world's leading art dealers and formerly a Sotheby's senior expert also have endorsed the attribution.

4. Of those whom Mr. Dorment cites as rejecting the attribution not one actually has been to the premises of the research laboratory or even seen the picture-including Dr. Penny, who refuses to do so. Why I know not.

5. Those who have reported on the discovery such as journalists from DER Spiegel or The London Times (Jean Follain) as well as those who ultimately endorsed the attribution, have made the effort to visit the premises of Lumiere Technology in Paris-something Mr. Dorment has not done.

6. British and American museums have refused to show La Bella because of a misguided policy of not exhibiting works in private hands unless they are proposed gifts!! This is duly noted in Martin Kemp's book.

7. Leonardo's palm and thumbprint are indeed on the parchment. This was discovered by the Lumiere Lab and confirmed by the forensic specialist, Peter Paul Biro, assisted by a former director of the Canadian equivalent of Scotland Yard. Mr.Biro has won a legal case over the Jackson Pollock issue, another egregious omission by Mr. Dorment. Interested readers can confirm this easily on the internet.

8. In denigrating by implication the 'Exhibition Hall' where the Bella Principessa is now on view, Mr. Dorment fails to mention that she is in the excellent company of Raphael, Michelangelo, Filippino Lippi and others, in a comprehensive survey of the Renaissance, with loans from many major Italian institutions, including the Ufizzi. The exhibition is entitled 'And There Was Light' and is under the sponsorship of the city of Goteborg, the patronage of the Vatican, and the President of Italy. It is curated by Francesco Buranelli and Allessando Vezzosi. I would recommend that if Richard Dorment is really interested in seeking the TRUTH he should attend the lecture by Martin Kemp and Pascale Cotte at the Courtauld institute on THE BELLA PRINCIPESSA on May 7th, 20010.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case –and I'll have to read Kemp's book to help me make up my mind- I do feel that we've lost an awful lot if art books and exhibitions, not to mention art criticism is driven by agendas rather than scholarly ambition. It's impossible not to feel overwhelmed at the way the Leonardo drawing has become sucked into a vortex of claim and counter-claim; art connoisseurship has grown more adversarial in the last few years. Worse, everybody must have an agenda in these individuated and egotistical times. It has implications beyond the intrigues of Mr Dorment, Professor Kemp and Mr Silverman, not to mention the magnifici sitting aloof on their curatorial thrones whilist dreaming up new ways of turning "Duccio into Matisse." Does this story and many like it, including the farrago of the Madonna of the Pinks, the non Raphael portrait sold as a Raphael a few years back, and now the NY branch of the magnifici attempting to morph Granacci into Michelangelo, illustrate how abject and plausible the art world has become? The world of art connoisseurship and exhibition scholarship seems to be driven by politics and the main chance. I'll rejoice if 'La Bella Principessa' turns out to be the real thing, but will nonetheless feel sad at the world she has been thrust into.

Comments

[Threepipeproblem.blogspot.com]

Fascinating! Any journalist commenting on something they have a personal connection to should make that connection known, or leave themselves open to someone else exposing it!

For those interested in hearing a bit more from Martin Kemp about 'La Bella Principessa' Oxford University channel has a free presentation by him on it which you get from iTunesU or their podcasts site directly (scroll down to Humanities Division)

http://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/openspires.html

H Niyazi

[Art History Today]

thanks for that- i'll check that out

[sapphron]

You seem to believe that the "Bella Principessa" is actually a Leonardo's masterpiece. I would be more cautious. Also you drew a line between the world of the "good" and "serious" scholars and the "evil" ones who are part of the estabilshment and want to diminish everything which is not "New Yorker" or "Londiner"....Well: you have made up your mind in this way, that is just the specular way they did. Nothing more, nothing less. Being Italian I could speak volumes about the reliability of people like Vezzosi, or Pedretti or Gregori. They ALWAYS find some new hidden piece in a attic or elsewhere....and their link to the art market are very very close.... It is a long story, but many you demonize are actually serious and responsible scientists and historians. Their only fault is that they are less glamorous than the late James Beck, or the TV star Martin Kemp and so on.

[Art History Today]

Thanks for stopping by.

To tell you the truth, I'm not so sure of the painting's authenticity anymore. I'm not getting embroiled in the attribution debate because I'm not a Leonardo expert- feel stronger with Raphael and Michelangelo problems.

I know that Italian art historians and curators are always dredging up so called masterpieces from some storeroom or other- recently we had the Modena Raphael, or whatever the magnifici are calling it now.

I wouldn't say that I'm demonizing them- that's your word, not mine, and I'm not saying they're irresponsible.

It's a good point about glamour/celebrity and connoisseurs- I know there are a lot of back-room people who do all the hard work and never get the credit.

I'm waiting to see how this is all going to play out against the forthcoming Leonardo show at the N.G.

David