spirit copy van cleef alhambra ring do you want it? from loersertydass's blog
Missing From a MET Painting
After enduring the Great Recession, the public has shown a backlash against the $25 admission fee for the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art, which charges it as a "donation."
On Sunday July 7, the New York Post wrote about a former Met supervisor, who claimed the museum has an "entry fee bounty system" to wring money out of visitors. That has led to a class action lawsuit asserting the Met violated its 1878 lease with the City of New York. The Met denies the allegations.
What if visitors are paying the Met entry fee, but they're not getting what's advertised? Such could be the case with a questionable work attributed to Vincent van Gogh. If it's a forgery, maybe people should think twice about making the donation to the Met for seeing only part of the master's true body of work.
The painting in question is a Wheat Field with Cypresses. There are three of them. That wasn't unusual for Vincent, who painted more than a dozen versions of Sunflowers.
A Wheatfield, with Cypresses hangs in the National Gallery of Art in London; while the claimed pendant, in New York in the Met's Annenberg Collection. Both paintings claim provenance a chain of custody from the original artist to heirs down to collectors, art dealers, and museums showing a clear audit trail of who owned the art when.
Both landscapes are dated to 1889, have identical cloud formations, and were painted from the same position in the field. Just one problem: The two paintings were "painted" three months apart. How can that be?
Vincent might have been institutionalized the last year of his life, but his stay at the Saint Rmy asylum was one of the most productive periods as an artist. Thus, he never would have painted the same painting twice with the same sky a season apart. The color of the wheat should have been seasonally adjusted, but they are too close, while the brushwork on the Met painting borders on muddy.
As a part of the $1 billion "extended" gift from the Annenberg Foundation in 1993 to the Met, Wheat Field with Cypresses was mentioned in Vincent's Letter 784 (7 2 1889) to his brother Theo, an art dealer in Paris, reading:
"I have a canvas of cypresses with a few ears of wheat, poppies, a blue sky, which is like a multicolored Scottish plaid. This one, which is impasted like Monticelli's, and the wheatfield with the sun that represents extreme heat, also thickly impasted."
Except the painting in the passage refers to a Green Wheat Field with Cypress. The emerald green field with "poppies" and the blue "Scottish plaid sky" are easily on display at the Nrodni Gallery, Prague. They're not evident in the Met painting.
How can those two wheat field paintings one green, the other harvest brown of autumn occupy the same letter of July 2, 1889?
In the view of Susan Alyson Stein, the Curator of European Paintings at the Met, she said, "Call it artistic license. One field painted as is, the other in a color of his choosing."
Doubtful and amusing. Vincent painted nature directly. He did not cheerfully anticipate a change of seasons while locked up in an asylum. Neither had he experienced full summer or autumn in Saint Rmy. Indeed, Vincent wrote of his sincere doubts about any future in Lfetter 801.
That generic answer defies logic. The passage refers to one painting, not two. In the Met version the sky is white and grey from a flotilla of clouds not "blue" as the letter attests.
Van Gogh at the Saint Rmy Asylum
Today, a car can drive from Paris in north France to Saint Rmy in the south in six hours. Confined to the asylum, when Vincent finished van cleef arpels alhambra necklace copy his oil paintings, and after they dried, he took the canvases off the stretchers, rolled them up, and sent them to his brother in a crate on a much slower train to Paris. Theo stored them under Vincent's bed in the same rolled up manner.
In the September Letter 800 (9 6 1889), Vincent wrote to Theo: ". The reaper, the bedroom, the olive trees, wheatfield and cypress, that will make four even."
Nowhere in the letter did Vincent write A Wheatfield, with Cypresses was a copy of an earlier version. "Four even" states four new paintings; nothing else can be interpreted from that straightforward line.
It's the condition of the art, not only provenance, that becomes a factor in determining whether a painting is authentic or not.
"An artist's fingerprint includes colors and pigments, brushstrokes, style, all related to the research from the era concerning provenance that draws a conclusion, either left or right. It's the total sum. the sum of the parts that makeup the artist's fingerprint," van Tilborgh explained.
For van Gogh, he had many elements that formed his fingerprint or DNA, including pointillism, which gave the feeling of movement of wheat by a breeze on the ground in one direction and a jet stream blowing clouds in the other direction. National Gallery painting, but is absent from the Met version. Why?
Ronald Pickvance, a former Met curator held an exhibit at the Met on: "Van Gogh in Saint Rmy and Auvers" (1986 87). In a New York Times article (1 4 87), Art View; the Faces that Haunt van Gogh's Landscapes, Pickvance discussed the secondary images that van Gogh embedded in his landscape paintings, some in fake van cleef arpels alhambra necklace cypresses, others in the sky. Wheatfield, in which the haunted face is shown clear at the top of a cloud in the upper left corner, while the same image in the Met painting is smudged. Neither at all subtle, nor done with a confident brushstroke of a master whose "powers of discernment and organization are unmistakable."
The organization refers to van Gogh's composition choreographed with rhythmic brushwork flirting with pointillism to imply movement of air. In Ms. Stein's view, van Gogh's use of pointillism is not shown in either Wheat Field painting.
Moving in After an Artist Exits
Art forgers start their dark craft after an artist dies. Vincent died at 37, while his peer Claude Monet died at 86 years old in 1926. That's why few have heard of a forged Monet, while rumors abound about fake van Goghs over the years. Add the death of Theo knock off van cleef and arpels alhambra necklace his gatekeeper seven months later, and the Saint Rmy paintings languished for a decade stored at his sister in law's apartment in Paris.
Ms. Stein agreed that the van Gogh paintings were rolled up for storage. But oddly enough for a curator at a major museum, she asked, "What does 'impacted impasto' mean?"
After enduring the Great Recession, the public has shown a backlash against the $25 admission fee for the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art, which charges it as a "donation."
On Sunday July 7, the New York Post wrote about a former Met supervisor, who claimed the museum has an "entry fee bounty system" to wring money out of visitors. That has led to a class action lawsuit asserting the Met violated its 1878 lease with the City of New York. The Met denies the allegations.
What if visitors are paying the Met entry fee, but they're not getting what's advertised? Such could be the case with a questionable work attributed to Vincent van Gogh. If it's a forgery, maybe people should think twice about making the donation to the Met for seeing only part of the master's true body of work.
The painting in question is a Wheat Field with Cypresses. There are three of them. That wasn't unusual for Vincent, who painted more than a dozen versions of Sunflowers.
A Wheatfield, with Cypresses hangs in the National Gallery of Art in London; while the claimed pendant, in New York in the Met's Annenberg Collection. Both paintings claim provenance a chain of custody from the original artist to heirs down to collectors, art dealers, and museums showing a clear audit trail of who owned the art when.
Both landscapes are dated to 1889, have identical cloud formations, and were painted from the same position in the field. Just one problem: The two paintings were "painted" three months apart. How can that be?
Vincent might have been institutionalized the last year of his life, but his stay at the Saint Rmy asylum was one of the most productive periods as an artist. Thus, he never would have painted the same painting twice with the same sky a season apart. The color of the wheat should have been seasonally adjusted, but they are too close, while the brushwork on the Met painting borders on muddy.
As a part of the $1 billion "extended" gift from the Annenberg Foundation in 1993 to the Met, Wheat Field with Cypresses was mentioned in Vincent's Letter 784 (7 2 1889) to his brother Theo, an art dealer in Paris, reading:
"I have a canvas of cypresses with a few ears of wheat, poppies, a blue sky, which is like a multicolored Scottish plaid. This one, which is impasted like Monticelli's, and the wheatfield with the sun that represents extreme heat, also thickly impasted."
Except the painting in the passage refers to a Green Wheat Field with Cypress. The emerald green field with "poppies" and the blue "Scottish plaid sky" are easily on display at the Nrodni Gallery, Prague. They're not evident in the Met painting.
How can those two wheat field paintings one green, the other harvest brown of autumn occupy the same letter of July 2, 1889?
In the view of Susan Alyson Stein, the Curator of European Paintings at the Met, she said, "Call it artistic license. One field painted as is, the other in a color of his choosing."
Doubtful and amusing. Vincent painted nature directly. He did not cheerfully anticipate a change of seasons while locked up in an asylum. Neither had he experienced full summer or autumn in Saint Rmy. Indeed, Vincent wrote of his sincere doubts about any future in Lfetter 801.
That generic answer defies logic. The passage refers to one painting, not two. In the Met version the sky is white and grey from a flotilla of clouds not "blue" as the letter attests.
Van Gogh at the Saint Rmy Asylum
Today, a car can drive from Paris in north France to Saint Rmy in the south in six hours. Confined to the asylum, when Vincent finished van cleef arpels alhambra necklace copy his oil paintings, and after they dried, he took the canvases off the stretchers, rolled them up, and sent them to his brother in a crate on a much slower train to Paris. Theo stored them under Vincent's bed in the same rolled up manner.
In the September Letter 800 (9 6 1889), Vincent wrote to Theo: ". The reaper, the bedroom, the olive trees, wheatfield and cypress, that will make four even."
Nowhere in the letter did Vincent write A Wheatfield, with Cypresses was a copy of an earlier version. "Four even" states four new paintings; nothing else can be interpreted from that straightforward line.
It's the condition of the art, not only provenance, that becomes a factor in determining whether a painting is authentic or not.
"An artist's fingerprint includes colors and pigments, brushstrokes, style, all related to the research from the era concerning provenance that draws a conclusion, either left or right. It's the total sum. the sum of the parts that makeup the artist's fingerprint," van Tilborgh explained.
For van Gogh, he had many elements that formed his fingerprint or DNA, including pointillism, which gave the feeling of movement of wheat by a breeze on the ground in one direction and a jet stream blowing clouds in the other direction. National Gallery painting, but is absent from the Met version. Why?
Ronald Pickvance, a former Met curator held an exhibit at the Met on: "Van Gogh in Saint Rmy and Auvers" (1986 87). In a New York Times article (1 4 87), Art View; the Faces that Haunt van Gogh's Landscapes, Pickvance discussed the secondary images that van Gogh embedded in his landscape paintings, some in fake van cleef arpels alhambra necklace cypresses, others in the sky. Wheatfield, in which the haunted face is shown clear at the top of a cloud in the upper left corner, while the same image in the Met painting is smudged. Neither at all subtle, nor done with a confident brushstroke of a master whose "powers of discernment and organization are unmistakable."
The organization refers to van Gogh's composition choreographed with rhythmic brushwork flirting with pointillism to imply movement of air. In Ms. Stein's view, van Gogh's use of pointillism is not shown in either Wheat Field painting.
Moving in After an Artist Exits
Art forgers start their dark craft after an artist dies. Vincent died at 37, while his peer Claude Monet died at 86 years old in 1926. That's why few have heard of a forged Monet, while rumors abound about fake van Goghs over the years. Add the death of Theo knock off van cleef and arpels alhambra necklace his gatekeeper seven months later, and the Saint Rmy paintings languished for a decade stored at his sister in law's apartment in Paris.
Ms. Stein agreed that the van Gogh paintings were rolled up for storage. But oddly enough for a curator at a major museum, she asked, "What does 'impacted impasto' mean?"
The Wall