Spanish nineteenth-century exhibition at the Prado Museum
Mariano Fortuny (1838-1873), Viejo desnudo al sol (1871), from the Prado Museum.
The Prado Museum in Madrid is showing selections from its collection of nineteenth-century Spanish paintings and sculpture. The exhibition, titled El Siglo XIX en el Prado (The 19th Century in the Prado), will be on view until April 2008.
According to the Museum, works from theperiod make up its largest and most unexamined collection. (Paintings in the exhibition have not been on display since 1993, when only a selection was on view.)
Spain had a vibrant painting culture in the nineteenth century. Unfortunately, it has been largely forgotten by Spain and ignored by the rest of Europe. Most art historians, Spanish or otherwise, can’t name a Spanish artist working between the death of Francisco de Goya (1828) and the career of Pablo Picasso in the last quarter of the century.
In my opinion, the artists and their work are anything but forgettable.
Manuel Domínguez (1840-1906), Seneca after cutting his viens . . . (1871), from the Prado Museum.
Javier Barón, the Head of the Nineteenth Century Painting at the Prado, has largely the force behind the exhibition. Together with José Luis Díez, also of the Prado, he has written an excellent book introducing the collection. (Unfortunately, so far, it has only been published in Spanish.) At 518 pages (an nearly 10 lbs.), it is a major contribution to a under-published field.
Carlos de Haes (1826-1898), La Canal de Mancorbo en los Picos de Europa (1874), from the Prado Museum.
Ecole des Beaux-Arts: Faded Glory
I just came back from Paris, where I was doing research on nineteenth nentury painters who studied at the highly admired Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Paris.
The Ecole was the most important and influential school for painting in the nineteenth century. Arguably, it is the most influential institution in the history of painting, having lead trends during the majority of the nineteenth century, when there were more than 300,000. Founded in 1648, it trained artists for more than 350 years. Some of the artists include David, Ingres, Gerome, Delacroix, and Bouguereau to name very, very few. (For a longer history of the Ecole online visit the Wikipedia entry or for more, in-depth reading see Albert Biome’s book The Academy and French Painting in the Nineteenth Century.)
While in Paris, I decided to stop by the Ecole. I wanted to see the great institution that produced great works that hang in great museums around the world. I was surprised at what I found.
(Main bathroom through the front hall of the Ecole)
(View of the Mulberry Tree Courtyard at the Ecole, with students eating lunch)
(Another shot of the courtyard with a statue and graffiti)
(A hall along the courtyard. Pay attention to the pealing paint on the ceiling.)
(Another statue with graffiti in the main courtyard)
The building is in decay at best and a victim of blatant neglect at worst. While Ingres paintings have rooms dedicate to their viewing in the Louvre, the institution Ingres dedicated his life to is rotting.
It is now a school that specializes in modern architecture. I asked several of the students and two people who worked in the main office if they could tell me where I could find the former studios of Gerome, Bouguereau, and Ingres. No one recognized the first two names, and they had no idea where I could find Ingres well-respected workshop.
It was a sad experience.
Can anything be done about it?
Should anything be done?
Prix de Rome: One of the world’s most prestigious awards remembered
(The Sabine Women Enforcing Peace by Running Between the Combatants
detail by Jacques Louis David-Winner of the 1774 Prix de Rome)
In 1663, the French government, under the direction of the King, instituted the Prix de Rome. Its purpose was to send the nation’s most promising artists, architects, and composers to Rome to learn to work classical styles of the masters. A list of the winners, originally compiled on wikipedia, is found below.
Winners of the Prix de Rome became key figures in shaping art and culture when they returned home. They were instructors in the Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Paris and judges of the Paris Salon and composers for European opera houses.
They were seen as guardians of classical ideals and virtue in the arts by one generation. By another generation, beginning with the French Impressionists, they were sometime seen as too restrictive in their classical views.
After 320 years, the Prix de Rome was ended during the 1968 student revolts in France. There have been attempts to reignite the Prix de Rome. The most recent is in the Netherlands.
(You can read more about the Prix de Rome and its history at the official website half-heartedly maintained by the French government.)
Prix de Rome Winners:
The Architecture Category
- 1786 – Charles Percier
- 1823 – Félix Duban
- 1824 – Henri Labrouste
- 1833 – Victor Baltard
- 1840 – Théodore Ballu
- 1848 – Charles Garnier
- 1864 – Julien Guadet
- 1870 – Albert-Félix-Théophile Thomas
- 1878 – Victor Laloux
- 1880 – Louis Girault
- 1881 – Henri Deglane
- 1886 – Albert Louvet – “First Grand Prize” and “Second Prize”
- 1892 – Guillaume Tronchet
- 1899 – Tony Garnier
- 1923 – Jean-Baptiste Mathon
- 1955 – Ngo Viet Thu
The Painting Category
- 1682 – Hyacinthe Rigaud
- 1720 – François Boucher
- 1734 – Jean-Baptiste Pierre
- 1738 – Charles-Amédée-Philippe van Loo
- 1752 – Jean-Honoré Fragonard
- 1768 – François-André Vincent
- 1771 – Joseph-Benoît Suvée
- 1772 – Pierre-Charles Jombert, Anicet Charles Gabriel Lemonnier – “Second Grand Prize”
- 1773 – Pierre Peyron
- 1774 – Jacques-Louis David
- 1775 – Jean-Baptiste Regnault
- 1784 – Jean-Germain Drouais
- 1787 – François-Xavier Fabre
- 1789 – Girodet-Trioson
- 1790 – Jacques Réattu
- 1801 – Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres
- 1807 – François Joseph Heim
- 1808 – Alexandre-Charles Guillemot
- 1811 – Alexandre-Denis-Joseph Abel
- 1812 – L.V.L. Pallière
- 1813 – François-Edouard Picot[1]
- 1832 – Antoine Wiertz
- 1837 – Thomas Couture
- 1844 – Félix-Joseph Barrias
- 1849 – Gustave Boulanger
- 1850 – William-Adolphe Bouguereau, Paul Baudry
- 1858 – Jean-Jacques Henner
- 1861 – Léon Perrault
- 1865 – André Hennebicq
- 1868 – Édouard-Théophile Blanchard[2]
- 1880 – Henri Lucien Doucet
- 1884 – Edouard Cabane – “Second Prize”
- 1891 – Hubert-Denis Etcheverry – “Second Prize”
- 1906 – Albert Henry Krehbiel
- 1910 – Jean Dupas
- 1924 – René-Marie Castaing
- 1925 – Odette Pauvert – First “First Grand Prize” obtained by a woman
- 1930 – Salvatore DeMaio
- 1948 – John Heliker
- 1950 – Paul Collomb – “First Grand Prize” and “Second Prize”
- 1960 – Pierre Carron
The Sculpture Category
- 1748 – Augustin Pajou
- 1812 – François Rude
- 1813 – James Pradier
- 1832 – François Jouffroy
- 1855 – Henri-Michel-Antoine Chapu
- 1864 – Louis-Ernest Barrias
- 1901 – Henri Bouchard
- 1919 – César Schroevens – “Third Prize”
The Engraving Category
- The engravery prize was created in 1804 and suppressed in 1968 by André Malraux, the minister of the Culture.
- 1906 – Henry Cheffer
- 1910 – Jules Piel
- 1911 – Albert Decaris
- 1921 – Pierre Gandon
- 1952 – Claude Durrens
The Musical Composition Category
- 1803 – Albert Androt
- 1804 – no Grand Prize awarded
- 1805 – Ferdinand Gasse (“first” First Grand Prize) and Victor Dourlen (“second” First Grand Prize)
- 1806 – Victor Bouteiller
- 1807 – no Grand Prize awarded
- 1808 – Pierre-Auguste-Louis Blondeau
- 1809 – Louis Joseph Daussoigne-Méhul
- 1810 – Désiré Beaulieu
- 1811 – Hippolyte André Jean Baptiste Chélard
- 1812 – Louis Joseph Ferdinand Herold (“first” First Grand Prize) and Félix Cazot (“second” First Grand Prize)
- 1813 – Auguste Panseron
- 1814 – P.-G. Roll
- 1815 – François Benoist
- 1816 – no Grand Prize awarded
- 1817 – Désiré-Alexandre Batton
- 1818 – no Grand Prize awarded
- 1819 – Fromental Halévy (“first” First Grand Prize) and P.-J.-P.-C. Massin-Turina (“second” First Grand Prize)
- 1820 – Aimé Ambroise Simon Leborne
- 1821 – L.-V.-E. Rifaut
- 1822 – J.-A. Lebourgeois
- 1823 – E. Boilly and L.-C. Ermel
- 1824 – A.-M.-B. Barbereau
- 1825 – A. Guillion
- 1826 – C.-J. Paris
- 1827 – J.-B.-L. Guiraud
- 1828 – G. Ross-Despréaux
- 1829 – no Grand Prize awarded
- 1830 – Hector Berlioz (“first” First Grand Prize) and Alexandre Montfort (“second” First Grand Prize)
- 1831 – Eugène-Prosper Prévost
- 1832 – Ambroise Thomas
- 1833 – A. Thys
- 1834 – A. Elwart
- 1835 – Ernest Boulanger
- 1836 – X. Boisselot
- 1837 – L.-D. Besozzi
- 1838 – A.-G.-J. Bousquet
- 1839 – Charles Gounod
- 1840 – F.E.V. Bazin
- 1841 – L. Maillard
- 1842 – A.-A. Roger
- 1843 – no Grand Prize awarded
- 1844 – V. Massé
- 1845 – no Grand Prize awarded
- 1846 – L.-G.-C. Gastinel
- 1847 – P.-L. Deffès
- 1848 – J.-L.-A. Duprato
- 1849 – no Grand Prize awarded
- 1850 – J.-A. Charlot
- 1851 – J.-C.-A. Delehelle
- 1852 – L. Cohen
- 1853 – P.-C.-C. Galibert
- 1854 – G.-N. Barthe
- 1855 – J. Conte
- 1856 – no Grand Prize awarded
- 1857 – Georges Bizet
- 1858 – S. David
- 1859 – Ernest Guiraud
- 1860 – Emile Paladilhe
- 1861 – Théodore Dubois
- 1862 – L. Bourgault-Ducoudray
- 1863 – Jules Massenet
- 1864 – Victor Sieg
- 1865 – Charles Ferdinand Lenepveu
- 1866 – Émile Louis Fortuné Pessard – “1st Harmony Prize”
- 1867 – no prize awarded
- 1868 – V.-A. Pelletier-Rabuteau and E. Wintzweiller
- 1869 – Antoine Taudou
- 1870 – Charles Edouard Lefebvre and Henri Maréchal
- 1871 – Gaston Serpette
- 1872 – Gaston Salvayre
- 1873 – Paul Puget
- 1874 – Léon Erhart
- 1875 – André Wormser
- 1876 – Paul Joseph Guillaume Hillemacher
- 1877 – no Grand Prize awarded
- 1878 – Clément Broutin
- 1879 – Georges Hüe
- 1880 – Lucien Joseph Edouard Hillemacher
- 1881 – no Grand Prize awarded
- 1882 – Georges Marty
- 1883 – Paul Vidal
- 1884 – Claude Debussy
- 1885 – Xavier Leroux
- 1886 – André Gedalge – “Second Prize”
- 1887 – Gustave Charpentier
- 1894 – Henri Rabaud
- 1908 – Nadia Boulanger – “Second Prize”
- 1913 – Lili Boulanger
- 1914 – Marcel Dupré
- 1919 – Jacques Ibert – “First Grand Prize”
- 1923 – Jeanne Leleu – “First Grand Prize”
- 1923 – Robert Bréard – “Second Prize”
- 1934 – Eugène Bozza
- 1935 – Samuel Barber
- 1938 – Henri Dutilleux
- 1953 – Jacques Castérède
- 1955 – Pierre Max Dubois
“Neo-classicist” Graydon Parrish
NPR recently did a story on the artist Graydon Parrish. (Click here to listen to the story.) The story centers around his painting memorializing the fall of the Trade Center Towers.
The painting relies heavily on symbolism and comes with a four-page pamphlet describing the contents of the painting (e.g. a burning US Constitution, a faded Statue of Liberty). It begs the question: In a world where symbolism is not readily understood, can we return to the style of painting of the Old Masters?
Deaccessioning: When Museums Trade Old for New
Artemis and Stag
de-ac-ces-sion (v. t.)
To remove and sell (a work of art) from a museum’s collection, especially in order to purchase other works of art.
Webster’s Dictionary
Recently, the Albright-Knox Art Gallery, the principal museum of Buffalo, New York, decided to sell a number of important art works in its permanent collection with the intent of “acquiring and exhibiting art of the present.”
Among the works that will be “traded up” are:
1. Artemis and Stage, a greco-roman statue
2. An ancient Chinese Bronze (there are only a handful in the world)
3 A life-size, Tenth-century statue of the god Shiva, that a Sotheby’s specialist told the Associated Press is “the most important Indian sculpture ever to appear on the market.”
In addition, many paintings by old masters will be auctioned off.
Tom L. Freudenheim, a former Museum Director and a current member of the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD), grew up in Buffalo. He wrote an article published in the Wall Street Journal condemning the move by the Art Gallery to sell its collection:
Museums are devoting more and more resources to acquiring large amounts of contemporary art, work about which the judgment of history — supposedly what museums are all about — is far from settled. Such acquisition policies may be acceptable, but not when done by getting rid of masterpieces whose importance has been validated by time and critical opinion and that provide a context for the work of the present. Ironically, this plan is driven by perceptions about the notably erratic and currently inflated contemporary art market, rather than by any dire financial crisis.
He continues:
The message is, once again, that those entrusted with the sacred task of safeguarding our public patrimony have become as irresponsible as the money-grubbing executives who have given corporate America such a bad name. The works of art in the Albright-Knox Art Gallery don’t belong to the directors or curators, who move in and out of communities as job opportunities present themselves. Nor are they the property of the trustees, who are meant to hold them in trust for the people of Buffalo, but who now show that they cannot be trusted.
It’s hard not to agree with Mr. Freudenheim; however, I took a few minutes to visit the Albright-Knox website for their side of the story, and, while they did not offer any information on the upcoming deaccessioning auction, they did have a mission statement that seemed to support their actions:
The Albright-Knox Art Gallery, one of the nation’s oldest public arts organizations, has a clear and compelling mission to acquire, exhibit, and preserve both modern and contemporary art. It focuses especially on contemporary art, with an active commitment to taking a global and multidisciplinary approach to the presentation, interpretation, and collection of the artistic expressions of our times. In an enriching, dynamic, and vibrant environment that embraces diverse cultures and traditions, the Gallery seeks to serve a broad and far-reaching audience.
To validate that this has always been their policy, I used Archive.org’s Way Back Maching to find out whether or not this is a recent mission statement or long-stated goal. Sure enough, this has always been their statement.
The question then becomes, not “why are they selling these priceless items?” but, with an emphasis on contemporary art, “why did they ever acquire these old, priceless pieces in the first place?”
“Combat Art” in Iraq: US Marine Michael Fay
from his blog, http://mdfay.blogspot.com/
In today’s Wall Street Journal, Daniel Grant talk about US Marine “combat artists” currently working in Iraq. From the article:
“The military uses artists in a variety of roles. Most create recruiting posters, maps and diagrams, and animation for interactive military-training software, but some also produce combat art. Those soldiers will go into the field with a platoon, drawing and painting scenes of military life.”
From “This Military Basic Training Is in Art” by Daniel Grant (Wall Stret Journal | October 18, 2006)
A quick search on the Google took me to the blog of Michael Fay, who describes himself as “one of three combat artists for the United States Marine Corps.” His blog (http://mdfay.blogspot.com/) features work, in various stages, that he has done in the field.
from his blog, http://mdfay.blogspot.com/
from his blog, http://mdfay.blogspot.com/
His paintings evoke for me the kind of 19-century painting done by the French artists accompanying Napoleon on the Nile. (There is currently an exhibition on this French art at the Dahesh Museum in New York.) It’s a wonderful surprise to know that the Military is supporting this kind of reflection on their work.