The annual
meeting of the College Art Association was held this year in New York City from
February 13 to 16. It was a huge conference with panels galore and an
incredible array of exhibitors. I
took the train down from Connecticut on Friday to have lunch with some other
Art history bloggers, and then to attend the panel entitled, “The New
Connoisseurship: A Conversation among Scholars, Curators, and Conservators.”
Bloggers at lunch in NYC |
It turned out
to be a large panel featuring two chairpersons as well as six prestigious
presenters from high-powered institutions. Each presenter was slated to give a
ten-minute talk, and when all were done there would be a round table
discussion. The topic must be important since there were at least 200 people in
attendance in the huge West Ballroom of the Hilton hotel.
Chairperson Gail Feigenbaum opened
the proceedings with a mini overview of the concept of connoisseurship that
included a review of the reasons for its apparent decline despite her belief
that it was still “fundamentally indispensable.” She argued that the basic
concept was sound enough in that connoisseurship involves both expert knowledge
and an informed and discerning taste. However, the decline can be traced to a
number of factors.
Noted practitioners of the past
often were ignorant of or ignored scientific tools, and today scholars accuse
them of being unscientific, and question the value of mere “close
looking”. Moreover, there is still
a taint of corruption associated with connoisseurs like Bernhard Berenson who
worked very closely with art dealers and collectors. A favorable Berenson
opinion could substantially increase the market value of any work of art.
Finally, there was a kind of aristocratic aura surrounding the old
connoisseurship that offends modern sensibilities. Only the wealthy could
afford to dabble in Old Masters, or even think of traveling to Italy to view
them.
Bernhard Berenson |
The first panelist was Maryan
Ainsworth, a distinguished scholar and curator of Renaissance painting at New
York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art. She outlined some of the scientific
techniques that modern scholars are using to acquire expert knowledge. They
study fingerprints in books of Hours in order to assess popularity and usage.
Humidity stains are being examined in order to reconstruct old manuscripts.
Some are examining the canvas supports of paintings in order to verify the
proper placement of panels. Virtual restoration is now enabling scholars to
decipher illegible texts in old paintings, and therefore relate the texts more
closely to the subject of a painting. Students of Jan van Eyck are even using
painted pearls as a kind of digital signature. It would appear that they are
almost as good as a signature.
VanEyck: Ghent Altarpiece detail |
David Bomfort,
a conservator at the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston, discussed the importance
of technical analysis of underpainting and paint samples in the new
connoisseurship. These scientific studies can produce what he called
“unambiguous information” that can
be helpful in questions of authentication and attribution. As an example, he
discussed Altdorfer’s, “Christ Taking Leave of His Mother,” as an example of
how technical analysis of pentimenti can help to construct the narrative. In a
similar vein E. Melanie Gifford of Washington’s National Gallery followed
Bomfort with a discussion of the use of pigment analysis in assessing the still
life’s of William van Aelst.
Altdorfer: Christ Taking Leave of His Mother |
Carmen C.
Bombach of New York’s Metropolitan Museum argued that the “new connoisseurship”
placed a much greater emphasis on drawings and preparatory sketches. In her
opinion the old connoisseurship tended to ignore or undervalue drawings and
concentrate almost exclusively on the finished product. Anyone aware of the
value placed on Renaissance drawings in the current art market would have to
agree with her.
According to
Michelle Marincola of New York University’s Institute of Fine Arts,
reproductions of famous images are now seen by modern scholars as important
objects of study in themselves. In the old connoisseurship these reproductions
were largely ignored since they seemed to lose the power of the original cult
image. Marincola argued that now these reproductions, usually depicting the
Madonna and Child, can actually be seen as enhancing the prime image especially
if one takes into consideration the departures from the original in order to
satisfy varying devotional needs.
Elizabeth
Honig, an Art historian at the University of California at Berkeley, gave the
final presentation, “Oeuvre and the Internet, What Happens when People Stop
Using Our Books”. I believe that she was the first to raise the issue of the
Internet during the session. In the past her students would have to wade
through piles of catalogs and texts but now most of them merely turn to the
Web. For example, she pointed to sites devoted to Breughel and Vermeer that
were incredibly comprehensive. She acknowledged the problems associated with
Web scholarship but still believed that Art history would have to co-opt the
Internet.
It is true
that many scholars are reluctant to deal with the Internet. One noted Titian
scholar told me that he refused to read anything on the Web. Even young
scholars at the conference admitted that even if they blogged and used social
media, they would still not consider publishing their work on the Web. I
believe that it was Dr. Honig who ending her presentation by quoting another scholar, “the Internet is
an eight-lane highway but no one’s on it.”
Unfortunately,
I had to leave to catch the train before the round table discussion. On the
ride home I could not help but think that the “new connoisseurship” was not so
much different from the old. There is still a need for expert knowledge and
close looking and study are still valuable. Today’s scholars have more arrows
in their quiver, and the Internet has opened up the Art world to a much wider audience.
Nevertheless, the distinguished panelists at this session still were
representative of a kind of aristocracy of the Art world.
###
These are such fascinating details Frank! Studying the fingerprints in the Book of Hours to assess popularity and usage, painted pearls s digital signature... We are so lucky you were there to listen to these interesting papers and share them with us.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, there seems to be an correlation between wealth and art collecting as well as access. We are very lucky, today that we can surpass these boundaries and at least have access and become connoisseurs no matter how much " the aristocrats" of the art world may try to deny or ignore it.
There is a refreshing and vibrant conversation going on in the web and those scholars who refuse to get on that "eight-lane highway" will be left behind I am afraid. I wish those scholars would actually take part in this discussion and use digital media as a learning tool.
Thank you so much for this interesting post.
Great post! I'm glad that you put up the photo of us at the lunch.
ReplyDeleteThere are several "big name" art historians who were involved with this panel. I'm particularly familiar with the work of Gail Feigenbaum and Elizabeth Honig. I had to read a lot of Honig's publications on Northern Renaissance and Baroque art when I was in graduate school. I really appreciate her remarks in this panel about how art historians need to get on the Internet highway. By any chance, did you jot down the URLs or the titles of the websites for Bruegel and Vermeer?
Sedef and Monica:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comments. Although older than the other bloggers in the photo, I agree that the Internet is the way of the future.
Monica: I believe that Dr. Honig's site is janbreughel.org but I have difficulty finding it.
Frank
It is http://janbrueghel.org/ but you need to contact them and request access. I will email her address to you both.
Delete