Upon Closer Inspection

Ludovico Carracci (1555-1619)
"Something on Copper"


The A.I.C. blog
has finally gotten around
to mentioning
the new Carracci
that I deplored last week,
and
as usual
it discusses
something tangential
to the artwork's importance.


Or perhaps,
the copper support
really is
the only reason
this painting
is of any importance
to the art lovers
of Chicago.

99 Ways to Paint Snow

In this post
Jason F.
(who works in the A.I.C. Prints & Drawings Dept.
as well as edits the art section of New City)
takes us on a tour
of the minimalist white paintings
in the Modern Wing.


And taking a hint
once suggested by Salvador Dali,
I wonder
whether
we might just as well
be looking at the
white painted walls
behind the frames.

Jason quotes from
Boris Groys
and concludes that:
"It has everything to do with artistic intention and strategy,
and that is an agreed upon reference for people who like art."

It's just that
I'm not one of them
who agrees.

On further research,
I discover that
many of these white pieces
were introduced into the museum
in the 73rd Annual
American Exhibition in 1979
along with extensive explanatory text
that seems quite different
from Groys' notion of
"strategic dis-communication or even self-excommunication"


Many thanks to Jason
for introducing
some serious thought
into the A.I.C's
mostly frivolous blog.

A regrettable New Acquisition

Ludovico Carracci (1555-1619)
"Vision of Saint Francis"



While listing all the current shows last week,
I discovered this one
I hadn't known about,
so I had to run downtown
and see it.

Ouch!

Flaccid, insipid,
saccharine,
and completely enervated.

Like what you'd expect to find
in a parish gift shop.

(and at 14" X 11",
it's not much larger
than a big postcard)




Here's some detail views
from
the auction house
that sold it.







Why would anyone attribute this
to the same artist ....




...who painted this version
from the National Gallery, London
(dated 1583-6)




Christie's quotes
a leading scholar as follows:



Brogi, however, dates this copper to c.1602-1604, comparing it to the Genoa Annunciation and to the Birth of Saint John the Baptist, Bologna, Pinacoteca Nazionale, which displays evident parallels to the present lot in the profile of the Virgin and the treatment of the hands and draperies. 'The enameled luminosity of the color', he writes, 'notwithstanding the nocturnal ambience, the exquisite drawing and above all the totally idealised delicacy of the forms and even more of the sentiment lead one to a much later dating [than previously thought], and place this work in the middle of of the most decisively classicising phase of Ludovico's career'.


Text on the A.I.C. site picks up on that "classicising" theme as it asserts that the Carracci "transformed painting in Bologna at the end of the 16th century into the compelling blend of classical and naturalistic elements that would dominate 17th-century Italian painting"


But one should note
that everything
about the attribution
of this painting
is speculative.

The artist
did not sign
or date it.

There is no original
bill of sale,
and incredibly enough,
its provenance
only goes back
to 1973.

The primary value
of this piece
is the scholarship
that has enshrined it.
(which primarily consists of
A. Brogi's 1989 PHD dissertation)


And yet,
the A.I.C.
paid $842,500 for it.




Ludovico

The Carracci family
is best known
in America
for its sketches
which show up
in almost every exhibit
of Italian master drawings,
and the A.I.C.
owns quite a few of them.

Ludovico

Agostino

Annibale



Ludovico




All of which
are so much stronger
than the
newly acquired painting.

It's fun
to go through
the rest of
Christie's Sale #2282
and dream
about how you'd
like to spend $842,000

So many of the lots
are long on famous names
but short
on aesthetic quality.

It may be some consolation
that the A.I.C.
could have spent much more
and gotten even less.





...................




Note:
a discussion of
recent AIC accessions
can be found
here

The worst
would have to be
this one,
while I'm quite fond of
this one


Why hasn't the

A.I.C. blog
ever discussed
the new acquisitions
of historic art?

The A.I.C.
is so secretive
about everything.

No listing of acquisitions,
no listing of de-accessions,
no listing of personnel.

And even the participants
in its own blog
are mostly anonymous
except to insiders.

The Plethora of Current Exhibits

In one sense,
the art lover
and the art museum administrator
are natural enemies.

Because the one determines
what the other gets to see,
and other than traveling out of town,
the art lover has no other options.

(unlike the music or book lovers
who can order anything in the world)

Museum professionals need to be
concerned with "art" (the idea) and career,
to which personal taste
is mostly irrelevant
and may be a liability.

If they were offered a better job
at any other institution,
they'd be gone in a New York minute.

While taste
is what loving art
is all about,
and it's exercise
is distinctly local,
being limited
to what can actually
be seen on display.


****************




And after that little coup was pulled in 1878,
the administrators of the Art Institute
only report to a small, self selected board
of Chicago's wealthiest citizens.

Art lovers have neither choice nor voice,
so it's no wonder they have come to accept
a passive role in museum affairs
and mostly ignore the A.I.C.'s
new interactive blog
which serves as a self-promotional tool
for various staffers and departments.

Nor is there an outside platform
where a critical stance can be taken,
especially now when none of the
major newspapers have an art critic.

So I have volunteered
to be the fly in the ointment.

But that's not to say
that I don't really appreciate
the plethora of small exhibits
now running:


*George Fan's Chinese bronzes
*Richard Gray's collection of drawings
*Roger Weston's collection of Japanese scrolls
*photos and fragments of Louis Sullivan's designs
*monumental stone and terracottas from ancient Mexico
*June Wayne's tapestries (plus selections from the fiber arts collection)
*the brief re-installion of arms and armor - but especially some tapestries

(and those are just the ones I like.
The Modern Wing has many more
that don't happen to interest me)



It's like a spectacular buffet table
at the world's most expensive restaurant.

And credit should probably go
to James Cuno, the current director.

His predecessor, James Wood,
was focused
on fewer but bigger shows
(the blockbusters of
Monet-Degas-Van Gogh etc.)

Cuno seems to have more
of a common touch,
which is not a bad thing
in an artworld where
elite currently means minimalist,
bizarre, or atrocious.

So, I don't remember
ever enjoying the museum
as much as I do now.

(but I do wish
it would quickly
find some space
to display its
Chinese paintings!)