tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454459186129750328.post7970305811828622686..comments2024-03-28T03:48:25.254-07:00Comments on Grumpy Art Historian: Barber Institute Exhibition - price tags at the National GalleryMichael Savagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11557727287816852329noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454459186129750328.post-7263049133335935222013-06-06T23:32:02.418-07:002013-06-06T23:32:02.418-07:00Interesting - I'll look out for that book. I ...Interesting - I'll look out for that book. I recently read that Tiepolo described as the greatest painting in the southern hemisphere, which seems a reasonable judgment. I think Hendy made some good acquisitions at the NG, despite presiding over possibly the most damaging cleaning campaign ever undertaken at a major museum. I read a description of his myopia somewhere, saying that he simply couldn't appreciate paintings as anything more than blocks of colour and didn't realise the difference Ruhrmann's cleaning was making. I thought I'd read it in Kenneth Clark's autobiography, but I can't now find it there. Michael Savagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11557727287816852329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454459186129750328.post-30167811567629460872013-06-06T16:54:41.758-07:002013-06-06T16:54:41.758-07:00I've just come across another fascinating noti...I've just come across another fascinating notice on Waterhouse's connoisseurship in Jaynie Anderson's large 2003 book on the National Gallery of Australia's acquisition through the Felton Bequest of Tiepolo's Cleopatra. Though of impeccable provenance, indeed acquired by Tsar Paul I for the Hermitage, and well-published with full correct provenance in Germany in the early-20th century, Waterhouse's damning 1933 verdict on the desirability of the painting for the London National Gallery - largely studio work' - is almost as shocking as that of Martin Davies, of whom Anderson remarks it 'is such that one wonders whether he really looked at the painting at all.' One does wonder sometimes if any of these famous art historians ever really liked paintings..... Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454459186129750328.post-60014841367533980382013-06-05T14:16:24.815-07:002013-06-05T14:16:24.815-07:00Thanks - nice term! Hard for Waterhouse to compete...Thanks - nice term! Hard for Waterhouse to compete with Bodkin giving increased prices and decreased supply. Seems such a wasted opportunity in retrospect. Michael Savagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11557727287816852329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454459186129750328.post-77155132523826753952013-05-30T13:55:33.365-07:002013-05-30T13:55:33.365-07:00I seem to recall that the late Sir Ellis Waterhous...I seem to recall that the late Sir Ellis Waterhouse, who was also sometime a Director of the Barber Institute, called Thomas Bodkin's weaker acquisitions 'ACTS OF BOD'. Waterhouse's acquisitions were much better, but Waterhouse's unblemished reputation as an art historian and picture lover was not always noted, as James Lees-Milne recorded watching him go up and down ladders, I think it was at Charlecote - where he was to report on the pictures for the acquisition of the house by the National Trust - and afterwards said to the future Sir Ellis, 'You clearly don't like pictures, Mr Waterhouse. You haven't LOOKED at a single one'. When we look at Waterhouse's acquisitions, in my opinion, at the Barber, we should bear this in mind.... Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com