Here's an interesting thingy from the recent Sotheby's ancient marbles auction (lot 51):
So is this rather odd visage properly grounded? Well, what they say is:
PROVENANCEIt'd be interesting to know why they thought this arresting image should not be in their Roman art collection and why a Los Angeles dealer had problems shifting it. An art historian may not spot it, but the archaeologist in me is really (and I mean really and utterly) intrigued by the behaviour of those soil acids which attacked the marble of the ear, hair and beard, but respected (almost deliberately) the face and breast. This seems not to be a restorer's recarving, as it seems to me you can perhaps see this in the right eye and lips.
Rome art market, 1960 or earlier
Adolph Loewi, Inc., Los Angeles, acquired in Rome prior to 1961
acquired from the above by the [Denver Art] Museum in 1965 (inv. no. 1965.22)
Statement of laziness: I cannot recall for the moment my Sotheby's login, so have not checked what the 'condition report' says about the chemical composition of that encrustation or its disposition (because for some reason that escapes me, you need to log in to see that highly sensitive part of the object's description). From past experience the answer would probably be 'not a lot' as the so-called condition reports rarely actually describe the condition in any significant detail that anyone who has prepared one would recognize.
7 comments:
Ha! You'd be surprised how eagle-eyed some art historians can be. :)
"I ... have not checked what the 'condition report' says ... because for some reason that escapes me, you need to log in to see that highly sensitive part of the object's description"
I imagine it's all part of Sotheby's tactical sales ploy. The need to read a condition report suggests a potentially serious customer - and a person who bothers to register is a person who is that one step closer to actually bidding.
"Condition Report:
Carved from a single block of marble. Tip of nose including left nostril restored in marble, tip of beard restored in painted plaster. Repaired across neck. Water-based pigment concealing neck join. Central curl above above forehead chipped. Proper left earlobe chipped. Other minor nicks and abrasions elsewhere. Burial incrustation heaviest on plinth and mantle, root-marks on chest. Much of original ancient polish preserved."
Unsurprisingly, the raised portions of the bust appear to have suffered more from burial than other parts. It is also to be expected that, apart from typically being more carefully finished in the first place, smooth-surfaced focal points such as the face and breast would have received more attention (and light abrasion) from a maid's duster during its time before museum accession. I'm sure an expert in marble sculpture such as Dorothy King could answer your queries far better than I could but I see no reason to doubt its authenticity.
As to why the Denver Art Museum decided to deaccession it, I imagine it's just the latest casualty in an ongoing purge to save cash-strapped American museums.
> how eagle-eyed some art historians can be<
yeah?
>"Burial incrustation heaviest on plinth and mantle, root-marks on chest. Much of original ancient polish preserved."
First of all, I imagine they mean encrustation as there is no inlay that I can see, "burial encrustation" is not exactly very specific, what kind of salts are involved, and in which direction was the object lying in the ground that on the top the heaviest encrustation is on the hair on the proper right, while lower down on the mantle it is heavier on the proper left, and on the plinth - how convenient. It says this is the "original ancient polish" which begs the question why the 'condition report" says nothing about past cleaning - but merely which bits are inauthentic. Root marks mean nothing apart from the fact that this was buried shallowly enough to be reachable by roots of surface vegetation, but again I ask which way this was facing in the ground.
>Unsurprisingly, the raised portions of the bust appear to have suffered more from burial than other parts.<
Well, to my eye, far more interesting is its lack in precisely the sunken parts of the relief which is more difficult to understand as somebody who has studied soil chemistry and its effects on buried artefacts. Like the acid attack which affects the more easily drained and aerated highlights, but not areas where soil water would accumulate when buried...
As I say, the present condition of this object is difficult to understand, especially in the light of a lack of a proper collecting history, knowledge of the context of deposition (grounding) and a proper detailed condition report stating unequivocally what has happened to this object after entering the market - which all seem to be a sine qua non to accepting things like this at face value (pun intended).
"First of all, I imagine they mean encrustation as there is no inlay that I can see ..."
Sotheby's condition report may be woefully concise but their terminology is correct. 'Encrustation' and 'incrustation' are merely spelling variants of the same word and either option is equally acceptable in the UK. Both variants can refer to burial accretions as well as inlay or other surface decoration.
As you know, corrosion and encrustation can vary enormously even on a small object according to what position it lay in during burial and what specific soil or conditions specific parts of it were or were not in contact with. This object is 76.5 cm long and the chemistry of the soil (or other objects/surfaces it may have been in contact with) could vary considerably. The root-marks on the chest suggest this bust was roughly lying face upwards but that doesn't tell us a great deal.
The raised portions of the bust (such as the nose, tip of beard and earlobe) appear to have suffered from breakage during deposition but it is difficult to gauge what effect any acidity has had in crevices from the images alone.
I imagine Sotheby's concluded that the glossy polish on the face and breast was original (though more unusual for a Roman sculpture; they are typically matt) due to the presence of root-marks and so on. My mention of "a maid's duster" was somewhat facetious; I was really referring to the possibility that if there had been any encrustation or deposits overlying those areas, the disfigurement is more likely to have been carefully removed from such focal points than other parts of the bust.
Marble sculpture is way out of my areas of specialisation and I can only hazard speculation in the case of this bust. I am thus in no position to be definitive but I doubt that either the Denver Art Museum or Sotheby's simply accepted it at "face value", images of it (at least) have been examined by the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut and, as I said, I see no obvious reason to doubt its authenticity.
Elizabeth Marlowe and others are perfectly right to highlight the dangers of relying on “ungrounded” objects with only hearsay findspots and little or no context to form a sensible and balanced view of Roman art. And they are perfectly right to warn that some such objects may even be fake. But let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.
There is a trend to seize on the warnings in an effort to disrupt the trade in antiquities by attempting to undermine confidence in the expertise of those who engage in it. It is true that experts occasionally make mistakes and it is true that, even from a purely art market perspective, knowing the origin of any antique object is desirable (and a necessity in the case of antiquities that may have been looted) but a complete 'collecting history' of an object is by no means always a prerequisite in determining its authenticity. It should be borne in mind that it is perfectly possible to be as confident in authenticating a great many unprovenanced 2,000-year-old artefacts as it is in authenticating an unprovenanced 200-year-old Eli Terry shelf clock or an unprovenanced 300-year-old George I walnut chair. A mere increase in age doesn't necessarily equate to a decrease in the ability to tell if the object is real or not.
While that situation may be inconvenient for those of us who would dearly like to see the antiquities trade exercise more diligence in ascertaining provenance, it remains true.
Terminology: Sotheby's presumably then use the same word in these 'reports' to mean two completely different things. Not all of their buyers are UK-English speakers.
>the chemistry of the soil ...<
I know how to suck eggs. Those post-deposition effects look odd to my eye - the condition report should have explained away the many things that look wrong here.
>it is difficult to gauge what effect any acidity has had in crevices from the images alone.<
Firstly if the images do not show the characteristics of the objects they handle well enough to judge that, then they need to change their photographer. Secondly, that is why (we imagine) they have a condition report - accurately reporting on the present condition of the object they are offering for several hundred quid - often to a distant buyer.
> the disfigurement is more likely to have been carefully removed from such focal points than other parts of the bust.<
Ah. So again something that should be in a condition report which is not. Except the roots would not be touching the polished stone under a post-deposition deposit, would they?
Why 'disfigurement'? This has been left there by past restorers to impart an air of authenticity - like the carefully preserved and prominently displayed root marks. How does somebody go about convincing a buyer that an 'old' commode is really old? Or an African mask in the tourist trade was 'ritually used'? What is there to distinguish 'distressing' from real usage wear and tear if not precisely where it is and what character it has (and what we can infer are common distressing methods)? AS I say, what is missing here is a condition report answering the many questions that appear when you interrogate the photos from the point of view of the post-deposition effects (after all, what happened through the bulk of this object's history if it really is ancient).
I doubt that either the Denver Art Museum or Sotheby's simply accepted it at "face value"<
the only 'grounding' they appear to have had was 'comes from Symes'. This was a 'looks like' labelling.
>But let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.<
Well, either one adopts a principle or one does not. Oscar Muscarella's 'and the Lie Became Great' and Gill and Chippendale preceded Marlowe, and raise a number of points about the epistemology of the art-history of allegedly-dug-up objects. I do not think this is just an 'effort to disrupt the trade in antiquities by attempting to undermine confidence in the expertise of those who engage in it' (though many dealers and collectors daily are caught out by improperly-grounded fakes [in ancient lamps and antique furniture too], are they not?). It is a question of hermeneutical hygiene.
Fakers of historical objects are getting better and better as they learn from their mistakes.
Collectors pretend they are 'studying' the artefacts they collect, to 'create knowledge about the past' (it's one of the stock justifications) but they cannot do that in isolation from ensuring the true origins and nature of the material objects they use as 'evidence' in their quest.
>a complete 'collecting history' of an object is by no means always a prerequisite in determining its authenticity<
But what if the ancient object has a very appealing almost twentieth century style to it and odd features of the elements which have been deliberately left on it to suggest ancient burial? I personally think both these apply to what we can see in the Sotheby's catalogue. You may disagree, but this is my blog about my feelings looking at the subjects I write about, inevitably subjective.
[part two]
I wonder though why 'authenticity' is what you as a collector are bothered about. It's a nice lump of carved stone, nice shape (though a little unstable), would look good in any rich guy's study/bedroom/hallway, and furthermore one can sit for ages gazing at it from different sides trying to guess why those deposits, acid erosion and root marks look as they do. If anyone has a spare 700k and likes it, why all the anguish about how 'authentically old' it is? I think perhaps that only becomes an issue when the art-investor wants to make a profit on selling it.
>it is perfectly possible to be as confident in authenticating a great many unprovenanced 2,000-year-old artefacts <
As somebody who watches the antiquities market very closely, and who in his time on this earth has handled and worked with large numbers of properly-grounded artefacts with documented origins, my feeling is that this 'confidence' is too often merely commercial bravado.
>While that situation may be inconvenient for those of us who would dearly like to see the antiquities trade exercise more diligence in ascertaining provenance, it remains true<
You are of course entitled to your opinion, as am I. I don't believe it is.
Many thanks for your detailed reply and an interesting discussion.
> "I know how to suck eggs."
Ha, no offence intended. I was simply explaining my own thought process.
> "Except the roots would not be touching the polished stone under a post-deposition deposit, would they?"
I did say "if". But it should be noted that root-marks can survive together with other (uglier) deposits or under later deposits.
> "Why 'disfigurement'? This has been left there by past restorers to impart an air of authenticity ..."
Some restorers tend to leave encrustations on some parts of an object as evidence of age but clean them from focal points.
Since I used to work for Sotheby's, I may be in a better position to explain the brevity of the condition report. The condition report is woefully brief but it is only meant as a summary. First, Sotheby's is an auction house, not a dealer. It also has to be borne in mind that although Sotheby's is online, it is primarily a traditional 'bricks and mortar' auction house. Any lot should be physically viewed before the auction. If a potential bidder cannot view in person, they typically send a friend, representative or expert intermediary who can view on their behalf. Note too that potential bidders are encouraged to contact the staff in that department with any queries (a 'Contact Info' link with emails and phone numbers is prominently displayed). More precise details (and sometimes photos) of a lot are normally revealed on request. I've had to deal with such requests myself and investigations are usually very thorough.
> "This was a 'looks like' labelling."
Comparative analysis can be extremely accurate if conducted meticulously by a team of specialists with the relevant experience. And, crucially, if there are enough real comparisons; most mistakes typically occur when there are not.
> "Well, either one adopts a principle or one does not."
As I understand it, the point is that an artefact lacking a documented 'grounding' must be treated with extra caution, not that it should be automatically and indiscriminately rejected.
> "though many dealers and collectors daily are caught out by improperly-grounded fakes [in ancient lamps and antique furniture too], are they not?"
I was referring to real expertise.
> "I wonder though why 'authenticity' is what you as a collector are bothered about."
Although it may suit the narrative of your blog, I'm very sure that you don't really believe that 'collectors' are some sort of bizarre uniform species of human being churned out on identical conveyor belts in identical factories. Sadly for my bank balance, my personal interest in owning artefacts was never influenced by how aesthetically attractive it was or by investment considerations.
> "I personally think both these apply to what we can see in the Sotheby's catalogue. You may disagree, but this is my blog about my feelings looking at the subjects I write about, inevitably subjective."
As I said, marble sculpture is way out of my areas of specialisation. Thus, my own feelings about it are no more than speculation and your opinion is certainly no less valid than mine. For all I know, your reservations may turn out to be correct!
I'll leave our discussion on that high note. :)
Thanks for that interesting reply. I must admit I did not know you'd worked for Sotheby's... thanks for explaining away my doubts about the condition report. I'll bear that in mind in the future.
Post a Comment