Connoisseurship Today

There's no doubt that a debate is developing about the role, and indeed nature, of connoisseurship in the 21^st century. That's hardly surprising with the current Close Examination: Fakes, Mistakes and Discoveries show at the National Gallery, not to mention pleas for a return to "good old-fashioned connoisseurship" from some quarters. I'm told that the head of Artwatch, Michael Daly, used the phrase when introducing the recent James Beck memorial lecture; see also Tom Flynn's comments about forensic art history on his blog.

Mention of 'forensic art history' brings me to an interesting phenomenon in popular culture, namely different kinds of police procedurals in which varying methodologies are used. I think I'm justified in referring to these since recent cases in art history like the cold case of Caravaggio's remains and Leonardo's thumbprint, are being spoken of in the language of the T.V. police procedural. The American T.V. series C.S.I. is the obvious reference point here with its painstaking accumulation of concrete evidence and scientific accuracy when measuring skulls or reassembling bodily remains. Though intriguing, the parallel with art history doesn't entirely work because we don't have the complete physical data of renaissance and early modern subjects like Leonardo and Caravaggio to draw on. Martin Kemp makes this point in his book on the Bella Principessa: it's not really a forensic investigation since we can't actually take Leonardo's fingerprints. Detecting the artist's fingerprints on vellum at a remove of 500 years or more doesn't make it a forensic exercise.

Still, it's instructive to pursue the analogy between connoisseurship and crime detection. I suppose the art history equivalent of the C.S.I. laboratory is something like the Science Department at the National Gallery, headed by Ashok Roy, a chemist by training rather than an art historian. In an illuminating article by Paul Levy, Roy makes it clear that arguing that the infamous Madonna of the Pinks is by Raphael, depends on scientific know-how, not "good old-fashioned connoisseurship." This is rapidly becoming a rallying call to those who are fearful of the supplanting of traditional connoisseurship by the instrumentality of science. My own view is that science plays its part in attribution issues, conservation of paintings and curatorial practices in general; but it doesn't follow that it cannot coexist with traditional approaches, or that it should take their place, which seems to be a prevailing view of the U.K. magnifici.

Edgar Wind suspected as much in his essay on connoisseurship in Art and Anarchy, the book based on the Reith lectures he gave in 1963. Wind's essay is actually a critique of connoisseurship, which he saw as too reliant on the spontaneous, the sketchy and the unlaboured parts of a painting. At the same time, Wind urged art historians not to completely junk traditional methods, by which he meant Giovanni Morelli's seminal approach to connoisseurship. For the uninformed, Morelli is the father of traditional connoisseurship; it all starts with his innovative combination of medicine, psychology and aesthetics.

As Morelli said:

"As most men who speak or write have verbal habits and use their favourite words and phrases involuntarily and sometimes even most inappropriately, so almost any painter has his own peculiarities which escape from him without him being aware of them…Anyone, therefore, who wants to study a painter closely must know how to discover these material trifles and attend to them with care: a student of calligraphy would call them flourishes."

Morelli (quoted in Wind)

This is the key point. Morelli believes that telltale signs betray an artist in their spontaneous phase; and a good connoisseur should attune him or herself to spot these. Writing in the century of Freud, Wind had no hesitation in pointing out that it wasn't odd that personality could be found where personal effort was the weakest: the little off-hand gestures or signs betray more about our character than any formulated and carefully prepared process. It's not surprising, as Wind points out, that the great connoisseur of renaissance art, Bernard Berenson –above- took Morelli's method into the sphere of "psychological aesthetics", his idea that it is possible to empathize with tactile values in a painting.  

In the language of the police procedural these 'flourishes' would be called 'signatures', and the process by which the artist is identified, a kind of profiling. Like a criminal leaving clues, the painter wants to us to identify him, a kind of Freudian slip, manifest in the individualized physiognomic details like ears, toes, fingers, particularly conspicuous in the "spontaneous" part of the artistic process. This has to be subconscious, not pre-meditated; in criminology, the signature could be a pattern of words, a stammer, or even a lack of one, something that ultimately gives the perpetrator away. This is taking us further away from C.S.I art history and closer to another top police show, Criminal Minds. Unlike the C.S.I. franchise, Criminal Minds does not concentrate on physical evidence but detects sociopaths through an elaborate method of psychological and sociological profiling. The team compiles and manages an archive of perpetrators who are identifiable by specific signatures. One of the team, Dr Spencer Reid, has an IQ of 187, an eidetic memory and can read 20,000 words a minute; he is a walking computer databank whose contents are often tapped in order to establish whether the criminal pattern is entirely new or derivative. There are parallels with connoisseurs who must consult their art history memory in order to match a real or recorded artwork to the work they see before their eyes. The same problem arises: is it authentic or a fake; is it a new serial killer or a copycat? Unlike Dr Reid, I'm no genius, nor do I have an eidetic memory, but I have memorized a lot of images which I call on when considering attribution. If the target image doesn't match or approximate to what my art history software is telling me is a Leonardo or a Raphael, then I'm inclined to reject it. Is that counter-intuitive? Well yes, and that's the point. Tom Flynn also underlines this when he says that for him 'La Bella Principessa' doesn't have the 'look' of a Leonardo, despite the fact that hard science has been used to prove attribution. I felt the same way when I saw the NG's Pinks Madonna; it didn't have the look of a Raphael, and guess what- it still doesn't! Not that it makes any difference, but I think the NG got the wrong profile here.

I sense that signature based connoisseurship is in retreat on the evidence of recent exhibition catalogues and articles, not to mention the fact that the rationale for the Close Examinations show is to celebrate the work of scientific detection in the museum, not connoisseurship per se. Perhaps curators are being dissuaded from using the morphological, the detection of a signature because it is deemed too unscientific or intuitive. This dwindling of the intuitive in authentication owes much to the establishment of scientific testing in curatorial departments, now a sine qua non of museum practice and policy. Today, you couldn't imagine the art historical detection process without it. Using my TV crime analogy again, we seem to be in the realm of CSI not Criminal Minds: meticulous examination of material evidence, microscopic data and forensics rather than profiling by the use of the signature aided by the art history archive. Wind seems to have anticipated the widening gulf between science-based art history and the more traditional Morelli – pictured below-inspired type of connoisseurship.  

"It is a curious and memorable fact that the Romantic cult of the spasm, while driving the arts into a state of crisis, has yielded for the historical study of painting a valid method of analysis. The technique of whittling down a picture almost to its vanishing point for the purpose of obtaining a pure physiognomic cipher has given a firm basis to the connoisseurship of painting, and it would be foolish to think we could do without it. No laboratory test, however helpful, can entirely replace the morphological tests of Morelli: in the end the 'hand' must be recognized by its graphic character, in whatever stratum of pigment it may appear. Hence, the opinion usually voiced by art historians that Morellian analysis may be going out of fashion is as chimerical a fault as to suppose that paleography might become outmoded in the study of manuscripts."  

I wonder if the kind of rapprochement between science and traditional connoisseurship that Wind supports has disappeared completely. Reading Martin Kemp's and Pascal Cotte's book on Leonardo's controversial "La Bella Principessa", I find the deployment of stylistic analysis, e.g. comparisons between the drawing and others in Da Vinci's circle next to full-on multi-spectral analysis, digital tabulation, and fingerprint analysis. Not that Kemp is using the Morellian method; that was a swept away by the realization that old masters had workshops or schools who tried to imitate their 'signatures.' It's the Criminal Minds dilemma again: it's one thing to find a signature, but what if it's the imitation of it, a superimposition of a fake signature over a real one. I can't help thinking of underdrawings in this regard. How will this aspect of the artistic process evolve in connoisseurship debates in the 21^st century?

Like Tom, I don't have any agenda on the Leonardo drawing, but it does make me wonder about the state of connoisseurship today, and more importantly, its place in an authentication process that is becoming increasingly dependent on scientific testing. The history of connoisseurship in the U.K. and its gradual displacement by science needs to be explored further. For example, I learnt from Levy's article that the Oxford scientist Teddy Hall who "exposed the Piltdown Man fraud in 1953, and in 1988 dated the Turin Shroud," was partly responsible for the setting up of the NG science department. Kenneth Clark- above- who became director of the NG in 1934, may have brought this pro-science view from Oxford, though it didn't stop him from using his eye in the traditional way, sometimes with mortifying results. This set of panels, now attributed to the minor Veneto master Andrea Previtali, were acquired by the NG as Giorgiones in 1937 Read Nicholas Penny's fascinating description of the back story of these paintings, labeled 'Giorgione' by Clark in a "moment of unforgiveable weakness." In this case, neither traditional connoisseurship nor scientific examination played any part in the attribution. Clark "fell in love with the paintings and began to dream about them." We don't do connoisseurship like this anymore, (do we?), but I still think that the subjective and intuitive has a role in evaluation, so long as it is tempered by science. Conversely, I think scientific examination needs to be curbed too; otherwise we end up with a 'Madonna of the Fakes' situation, and the serious implications of that affair. Ideally, what we need is a hybrid of CSI and Criminal Minds, a blueprint for a new kind of connoisseurship where scientific method and traditional connoisseurship interact rather than push each other out. Kemp and Cotte's project just might provide that model; we shall have to see if others follow suit.

Sources

Martin Kemp and Pascal Cotte, La Bella Principessa: The Story of the New Masterpiece by Leonardo da Vinci, London, 2010.

Paul Levy, 'Discovering Art's Authenticity' Wall Street Journal, 25/6/10.

Nicholas Penny, The Sixteenth-Century Italian Paintings, Vol. 1, NG catalogue, London, 2004, 291-9.

Edgar Wind, 'Critique of Connoisseurship' in Art and Anarchy, London, 1963, 32-51.

 

 

 

Comments

[H Niyazi]

Fascinating article David! I think my background as a scientist perhaps makes me biased towards the scientific approach when it comes to identifying and verifying art. A scientist will look at data gaps with consternation, whereas this does not phase those who spend more of their energies looking for meaning and allegorical relevances.

Maurizio Seracini in particular has done alot to advance this field, particularly with regards to Italian Art. His work on the search for Leonardo's 'Battle of Anghiari' was truly groundbreaking.

I myself recently experienced the divide between the connoisseur vs scientific community in navigating the frosty terrain between Sotheby's and Kew Gardens. I understood the reasons why it was happenning, but also could clearly see that the lack of communication between the institutions hindered the free flow and sharing of knowledge.

Like with anything, an all or nothing approach is not the answer. Future generations of Art Historians can only benefit from having an appropriate grasp of the scientific principles used in these 'forensic' identifications. It would be interesting to know whether the science of being an art historian is now officially being incorporated into the syllabus?

H Niyazi
threepipeproblem.blogspot.com

[Art History Today]

Thanks H.

There's room for both scientific method and hunches in art history, though I can see how a scientist would abhor the latter.

Auction houses can be really sensitive about these issues, especially when money and reputations, not to mention egos are at stake.

I can't see the 'science of art history' coming on the university some time soon, not unless it's presented in the context of museum studies or something like conservation. I'm hoping to teach a course on art crime next year, so I'd be bringing forensic issues to bear on traditional art history areas. THe growing subject of art crime might provide a point of intersection.

BTW, I think I owe you those Raphael lectures. I'll sort them out.

Best- David

[David Byron]

I'm glad to see your discussion of the detection analogy and the Morellian (and later) methods of attribution.

I recall that Benedict Nicolson also used the 'detection of clues' analogy to frame his discussion of the Candlelight Master problem.

I agree with your sense that connoisseurship and empirical practices are complementary. Examples vindicating traditional methods on the one hand (e.g., the Getty Kouros) or scientific analysis on the other seem to support the importance of both and their mutual relevance.

From time to time, apart from the question of scientific assessments, we find connoisseurship vindicated by previously unconsidered documentation or inscriptions. (La Tour's Fortune Teller comes to mind.)

The issues you raise are also current with regard to the supposed Velazquez recently hauled from the basement at Yale. It's now undergoing both connoisseurial and chemical assessments.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-velazquez-discovery-20100707,0,6147941.story

Thanks for your interesting overview of some of the issues raised by the NGA show.

[Art History Today]

David- Thanks for your comments.

I recall the La Tour 'Fortune-Teller' teller which went in to the Wrightsman collection, if memory serves. You've probably read Chris Wright's book on 'The Art of the Forger'. I think he got into hot water with Anthony Blunt who supported the attribution.

THanks for the Velásquez piece. It does raise the same issues. I'll keep an eye on this.

Best- DAvid

[David Byron]

Yes, I was alluding to Wright's treatment of La Tour in that book. IIRC, the painting was later vindicated by the discover of an incontestably authentic document that pushed the painting's provenance back into the 1800s, at a time when nobody on the planet would've been forging a La Tour.

Blunt-- terrible spy but not a bad art historian. ;)

[Art History Today]

Yes, I seem to remember now.

As a Poussin scholar, I have a lot to thank Blunt for, though it can be a mixed blessing at times. There were problems with his connoisseurship of Poussin's paintings, but that's another story.

[David Byron]

Another story? Another post!

[Peter Paul Fuchs]

That was a very fascinating article for sure. You got into some details which are really out of my field of knowledge, but still I want to raise a question dear to my heart. Isn't the basic criterion of authorship for a great artist simply a certain aesthetic greatness per se. I know this sounds a bit fuddy-duddy at this point. But when I stand in front of an enthralling work of art, I am also conscious that talent is not distributed terribly democratically in life. We live in a such a leveling age, which seems to want to make everything the same. I know from your blog that you have the very opposite view. I am appreciative of that fact. It runs against the societal grain. But isn't the emphasis on forensic matters really a sort of grudging sop in that leveling direction?

I don't know why I am thinking of this, but recently I saw that dubious gadfly Deepak Chopra on TV talking about Michael Jackson. He said, as an aside, that he thought that Michael Jackson was as great as Mozart or Michelangelo. In a society where statements like that can be made without producing horrified guffaws, don't we tend to reduce even a great artist's identity to quirks by way of reaction? I am not saying you are doing that. I guess I am asking a question which fascinates me based on my own aesthetic joys in life. Is there a rigorous and/or technical way of assessing great art QUA great art. That is, that the ultimate recognizable sign or signal of great art is that simply really strong artists generally tended to produce works which hang together very well. I know I am stepping into a scholarly quicksand here. I think of this every time I see a work at the National Gallery (Washington) demoted to "Workshop of" or "Follower of". Of course one admires their honesty for doing so. But I will say this. And I am really not trying to give myself a back-handed compliment. I have spent a lot of time going to the National Gallery to enjoy pictures. And so far they have not "demoted" one picture that I thought really great. The day they demote Luctretia of Rembrandt I will pack it in.

[Art History Today]

Thoughtful post Peter Paul.

I agree with your points about the leveling process; if it's great art, then it will always transcend this attempt to relativise- relativism is just a symptom of postmodernism anyway.

The aesthetic approach, though valid, was rooted in 19th century notions of pure art, but obviously in the modern age that doesn't sit well with a lot of people, especially those who think art should "work" for a living- hence the unfortunate spectacle of Titians on tour in the U.S.A.

I think what you're saying about great art shining through no matter how much it is bombarded with X-rays, micro-scopic analysis etc holds true. That's what MOrelli's connoisseurship was based on- identifying distinction rather than seeing a work as the product of a cooperative or a studio. But it's difficult to return to that position as initiatives like the Rembrandt Research Project have institutionalized the idea of the workshop in connoisseurship.Obviously when they visited Washington- and they went everywhere- they were satisfied with the autograph status of the Lucretia.

In answer to the question of is there a rigorous/technical way of assessing great art, I don't think so. No matter how CSI you get about it, there's always the subjective point of view, which science can't entirely obliterate.

I'll be returning to this science v art debate in another post in the near future.

Best- David

[peter silverman]

As a principal involved in the current Leonardo debate I think I might add my comment here.
I totally agree with those who wish to find a judicious blending of connoisseurship and science.I think that Martin Kemp has done this admirably in his book. I myself was sceptical of the attribution-but never of the period,15th c. when I first brought the drawing to the Lumiere-technology lab.I was careful to say nothing of what I thought it was, wishing for them to find out on their own. After 2 hours, THEY came forward with the Da Vinci attribution based on their database, having previously digitalized the Mona Lisa and the Lady with an Ermine.This obviously was a pleasant surprise.
Now, just two years on, I am surprised again, more astounded really, at the amount of drivel that has been circulated about the Bella Principessa-often by people who have never even seen her in the flesh.
I have now had to ask myself: does this all imply that many of our top museum directors and curators are in fact unable to distinguish a Leonardo da Vinci from a forgery or 'screaming fake'??I am afraid it would indeed seem so. I would sincerely ask anyone seriously interested in this debate to check the lumiere-technolgy site and view Pascal Cotte' s lecture at the Courtauld insttitute last May for the Da Vinci society.
Also, they might want to read prof. Mina Gregori's article in the latest edition of 'Paragone'(Longhi Foundation) as well as the article by Dr Cristina Geddo, a noted scholar on the Da Vinci followers, in Artes, published by the university of Pavia. They both fully endorse the attribution-independently and before Martin Kemp.I will be delighted to forward the english translation now being prepared by Dr Nicholas Turner.The Polish national museums as well as a major Italian State museum have requested the Bella Principessa on loan for next year.
By the way, you will be amused to note that we originaly planned to call her -more accurately, 'La Bella Milanese' until italian friends pointed out that this means a juicy veal steak!! best, peter silverman [email protected]

[Art History Today]

Thanks Mr Silverman for that.

Martin Kemp's book has gone a long way to convince me- but I'm not a Leonardo scholar.

Good point about curators, museum professionals, and just with L. This debate will run and run.

David

[electronic signature]

Thanks for sharing the information.You outlined it so well.Digitizing the documents is really good way.Even digitizing some old books is also done.which is really appreciable

[birkenstock online shop]

So fun article is! I agree the idea!

[camera accessories]

Thanks for sharing it and please keep doing this good job .

[Mike]

It's interesting that you compare police work to art. In a way solving crimes is artistic. You have to put all the pieces together. Maybe you could argue solving crimes is more logical then artistic but I think understanding how people think and following their thought patterns is a form of art.

[NastAnneDJ]

How come rain and sun make rainbow? I would be extremely useful if anyone can answer to that question. I'm stuck with this difficulty for final week and I'm not able to find houses reply for that situation. Any response will be extremely appreciated. Thank you quite considerably and have a great day. Apologies for my weak english language. Cheers !
_________________
dieta przy refluksie refluks żołądka refluks żołądkowy dieta

[KerOracedomer]

プラダ 公式傘 折りたたみ 軽量メンズ 靴 ブランドバッグ 財布靴 メンズキタムラ 財布赤ちゃん バスローブhttp://lo78f71te5c.wordpress.com/財布 安い水着 梅田ブーツ おしゃれランキング 腕時計ネックレス リング海 水着水着 通販 ビキニhttp://dx86z4ta73f2.wordpress.com/キッズ ブーツ人気化粧品トリンプバッグ バーバリー婚約指輪 tiffanyシューズ 販売水着 子供http://dx85r4tk56e6.wordpress.com/

[ugg bailey button triplet]

I am 70 yrs . old. My hubby, Phil ugg bailey button triplet http://www.anton-kerler.co.uk/, is certainly Sixty six ugg bailey button triplet http://www.anton-kerler.co.uk/. On many your life, everyone survived not to mention did wonders throughout Georgia. Presently, our home is certainly where ever ugg bailey button triplet http://www.anton-kerler.co.uk/ most people not to mention this 30-inch travel suitcases usually are.

[lose weight]

Connoisseurship Today - Art History Today

[Emily]

Thanks for just about any different enlightening site. The place else could I get that type of info written in this sort of perfect style? I've challenging that I am only now focusing on, and that I have visited the look out for such advice. %KW%
Emily https://twitter.com/puntoGT