Auctioning Three “Minor” Works to Acquire a “Major” One
Charles Giuliano
This past week,
it was widely reported that the Museum of Fine Arts intends to auction three
works from its permanent collection at Sotheby’s in New York. The intended
sale of an exquisite pastel, “Dancer,” (1885 1890) by Edgar Degas,
another unfinished pastel by the same artist, “Danseuses pres d’un
portant,” (“Two Dancers in the Wings”) and a small Pierre Auguste
Renoir portrait, “Gabrielle et Coco jouant aux dominos,” a 1905 painting
that depicts the artist’s son with a maid. The works scheduled for auction
on May 6 are estimated (and perhaps guaranteed) to fetch the museum between 12
and 17 million dollars.
It is anticipated
that this money will be used to acquire a major French Impressionist work for
an already renowned collection. This is an appropriate attempt to upgrade the
quality of the collection by pursuing an alleged, “masterpiece.”
The reporting in
the Boston Globe, by Geoff Edgers, was vague, “Somewhere there is a 19th-century
masterpiece worth millions for sale and the Museum of Fine Arts wants it.”
The rest of the report was lacking in detail. Reporting in the New York Times,
Carol Vogel, speculates that the museum is pursuing, “The Duchess of Montejasi
and Her Daughters,” an important 1876 painting by Degas, “considered
the last important early oil by the artist left in private hands; it belongs
to the Cirtoen family in Paris, who acquired it in 1923.” She further reported
that Sotheby’s had tried to sell it privately for some $40 million.
There are elements
that assure the reputations of great museum directors: Brick and mortar, blockbuster
exhibitions, and acquiring masterpieces. The current MFA director, Malcolm Rogers,
appears to be on track to establish his legacy. But it is difficult to succeed
in all areas simultaneously. There is a $425 million project to build an expanded
museum designed by British architect, Lord Norman Foster, as well as, to provide
funding to purchase a great French Impressionist painting. While raising money
for expansion, potential donors are already too tapped out to also dig deep to
buy pictures. This results in the reluctant decision to sacrifice “minor”
works, a dubious description of an important pastel by Degas, “Danseuse,”
that is estimated to be worth some $12 million. But the museum defends itself
by proclaiming that, even after this sale at Sotheby’s, it will own a remainder
of 38 works by Renoir and 71 works by Degas. Or, more correctly, perhaps 72 works
by Degas if the reporting in the Times is correct and this high profile sale
is actually consummated.
While Rogers, and MFA curator, George T. M. Shackelford, are aiming high there
is always an element or risk and controversy, particularly, it appears, when
the Museum of Fine Arts is involved.
In 1971, for example, former director, Perry T. Rathbone, hoped to cap off his
career and simultaneously celebrate the Centennial of the museum with the acquisition
of a small, but exquisite, portrait, allegedly a female of the Gonzaga family,
by the Italian Renaissance master, Raphael. The apparent bagman in this deal
was MFA curator, Hans Swarzenski. The painting was later disputed as illegally
acquired and returned to Italy. In correspondence with a renowned Renaissance
scholar, I was later informed that the attribution was overly ambitious and that
the work in question was extensively restored. Rathbone resigned under a cloud
when the scandal became widely reported.
In 1985, under former director, Jan Fontein, there was controversy when the MFA
acquired, “Troubled Queen,” a pre-drip painting by Jackson Pollock
from the 1940s. At the time, I was astonished to find the painting on the walls
of the MFA during a routine visit. The wall label of the unannounced acquisition
simply read, “Juliana Cheney Edwards collection and by exchange.” That
led me to an intensive investigation reporting for the Patriot Ledger a suburban
Boston daily. As we were about to go to press with the story, I was called by
Clementine Brown, the director of publicity, who asked what I was up to? With
the approval of my editor, Jon Lehman, we asked for confirmation of the facts
of our story. That the painting in question was acquired from the private collection
of Mr. And Mrs. Stephen Hahn, through a trade with a dealer for two works by
Renoir, a small painting, “Girl Reading,” (one of the best selling
post cards in the museum gift shop at the time), a pastel, “Woman with Black
Hair,” and a Monet landscape, “Autumn at Jeufosse.”
Brown never returned the call. Instead, I read the “press release”
of the acquisition in the morning Globe. Our more complete, second day piece,
ran on Tuesday, January 28, 1985. She later apologized for this unprofessional
and vindictive action stating that she had been forced into it under orders by
Fontein. But there was some vindication when, in the Sunday Globe, February 3,
under the headline, ‘Troubled Queen’ Troubles, the paper of record
reported that, “The (Quincy) Patriot Ledger reported that questions have
been raised about the museum’s decision to ‘deaccession’ three
important impressionist works to get the Pollock.”
In the Globe, this week, Edgers refers to this earlier event. “Even if the
sale brings in Sotheby’s low estimate, it will be by far the most money
raised through a sale in the MFA’s history. It will also mark the museum’s
highest profile deaccession- an industry term for removing a piece from the collection-since
1984. That’s when the MFA traded two Renoir pastels (actually one pastel
and one painting, C.G.) and a Monet painting- plus $600,000- to a New York dealer
for a Jackson Pollock painting. It was a controversial move, and an assistant
curator resigned in protest.”
Looking back that was indeed a difficult time for the MFA. The post of curator
of European Painting had been vacant for a year and a half with the departure
of John Walsh to take over as director of the Getty Museum in Malibu. This was
just before the hiring of Peter Sutton. And the position of curator of contemporary
art had gone unfilled for a year following the departure of the founder of that
department, Kenworth Moffett. There was nobody in authority minding the store,
(European Painting) when the decision was made to swap French Impressionist works
to acquire a 20th century American painting. It was a matter of trading apples
for oranges which violates the guidelines for such deals. Hence the MFA’s
secrecy prior to my reporting.
Moffett, however, even though no longer with the museum defended the acquisition
as a major early work by Pollock and stated that, “I favor deaccessioning
but I believe in full disclosure when you sell works. If you have done it intelligently
you should be able to justify your decisions. The purchase of the Pollock was
the right thing to do. It’s a major picture. He was trying to do something
big.”
In the then understaffed department of European paintings, assistant curator,
Alexandra Murphy, who resigned over this incident, told me that, “After
a while, the only way left to act in conscience about matters of principle is
to vote with your feet.I couldn’t do the things I wanted to do-that were
meaningful to me.”
It was a time of Byzantine internal politics at the museum. Fontein, a brilliant
curator of Far Eastern art, had been elevated internally following the chaos
of the brief and chaotic directorship of Merrill Reuppel. By rising from the
ranks of MFA curators to be become first acting, and then permanent director,
there was constant infighting and a general lack of confidence in Fontein’s
leadership. In the power vacuum caused by the vacancies of two important departments,
Theodore E. Stebbins, Jr. the curator of American art, was in a position to negotiate
with impunity the controversial acquisition of, “Troubled Queen.” An
authority on 19th century American painting, he was de facto contemporary curator
and senior curator of all matters pertaining to paintings.
As a former assistant curator, Cynthia Schneider, who had left the museum a year
earlier told me, “The felling was,’Poor old Ted (Stebbins) he has so
many responsibilities on his head, what can you expect.’ When he was first
hired he wasn’t given all those responsibilities.”
Several years ago, during a reorganization of the museum, reported widely as
a, “massacre,” to create what Rogers likes to tout as, “One Museum,”
Stebbins was offered the opportunity to become the director of the consolidated,
Arts of the Americas (and Africa?) department. He resigned and is now a curator
at the Fogg Art Museum.
But Stebbins, in 1981, had done another bit of controversial housekeeping. Works
by Robert Salmon, Asher B. Durand, Jasper Cropsey, James Clonney, Martin J. Heade,
and Albert Bierstadt were auctioned at Sotheby’s. These “minor”
works were sacrificed to ransom the Gilbert Stuart portraits of George and Martha
Washington.
When the MFA was founded, in 1871, works from the Boston Athenaeum were donated,
Washington Allston’s, “Elijah in the Wilderness,” and loaned,
the Washington portraits, to the museum. More than a century later, the Athenaeum,
attempting to raise money for much needed maintenance and repair, put a handsome
price on their heads. So much so, that the MFA entered into a complex joint ownership
with the National Portrait Gallery of the Smithsonian in which the pictures are
shuttled back and forth between Boston and Washington, DC under terms of joint
custody.
It is ironic that the controversy over “Troubled Queen” occurred one
year after Moffett had left the museum. In the first year of his position at
the MFA, 1971, Moffett, in a great coup, had convinced collector/artist, Alfonso
Ossorio, a neighbor and friend of Jackson Pollock, in East Hampton, Long Island,
to sell his masterpiece, “Lavender Mist.” Arguably, it is one of Pollock’s
greatest works, for a price, reported at the time, of about $750,000.
Moffett later recounted to me that the painting was in the Board Room of the
MFA and was being considered by the acquisitions committee. The decision was
made to involve then new MFA director, Reuppell, in the process. When he viewed
the painting he apparently raised questions as to the long-term preservation
of the painting’s difficult and complex surface. William Young, the head
of the conservation lab, was called in for a consultation.
Having no prior experience with abstract expressionist paintings he was not able
to give appropriate assurances to the committee regarding the long range condition
of the work in question. The painting was rejected and acquired for the collection
of the National Gallery a short time later.
Moffett subsequently managed to acquire a 1949, drip Pollock, “Number 10,”
for the MFA. He has always maintained that it is a major example of the artist’s
oeuvre, but it is certainly not on a level with “Lavender Mist.” One
may only imagine what the 20th century and contemporary collection might look
like today with that great masterpiece as its crown jewel. Then there is a story
of how Peggy Guggenheim, “almost” gave her collection to the MFA. But,
we will save that for another time.
Maverick Arts
Boston’s Visual Artsletter
By Charles Giuliano
Charles.Giuliano@verizon.net
Issue Number 98
March 29, 2003
Copyright C 2003, Charles Giuliano
Charles Giuliano is a Boston based artist, curator and critic. He is an editor
of Art New England, contributor to Nyartsmagazine, and the director of exhibitions
for The New England School of Art & Design at Suffolk University. He is represented
by FLATFILESphotography GALLERY in Chicago.
