Art Market Monitor

Global Coverage ~ Unique Analysis

  • AMMpro
  • AMM Fantasy Collecting Game
  • Podcast
  • Contact Us

Is the Price of Connoisseurship Capriciousness?

January 19, 2015 by Marion Maneker

Sir-Denis-Mahon

The great Bendor Grosvenor has an excellent post on the Sotheby’s Caravaggio case. Besides detailing the cost to the unsuccessful plaintiff, Grosvenor quotes from the judge’s opinion revealing the nature of authentication and its reliance upon the hermetic opinions of experts.

If that were not enough, Grosvenor gives us this story of how the auction house’s own insistence upon the primacy of connoisseurship can backfire. Here’s Sotheby’s Alex Bell explaining why Sir Denis Mahon—the final owner of the Caravaggio in question and the one whose opinion of its authenticity sparked the lawsuit—was not to be relied upon in his advanced age. Bell is describing a painting called St. John at the Well that was brought to Mahon for his opinion.

The painting came to  Sotheby’s  with the potential to be a late Caravaggio. The question was whether it was a hitherto ‘lost’ full-length picture of which there were copies around but also a possible autograph smaller painting just of the head and shoulders of the figure.  Sotheby’s  sent transparencies of the painting to Professor Gregori because she had published an article stating that the smaller head and shoulders painting was an autograph work. Photographs were also shown to Sir Denis. Both Professor Gregori and Sir Denis were emphatic in their view that the painting was not by Caravaggio. Other scholars also expressed the same view. The painting was then cleaned and sold to a third party as ‘circle of Caravaggio’. Subsequently Professor Gregori and Sir Denis saw the painting in its cleaned state and changed their minds. They both stated emphatically that they now did believe that the painting was the lost work by Caravaggio. There is a contemporary file note for  Sotheby’s  prepared by Mr Bell recording this incident, from which his irritation at the turn of events is clear. He notes that Sir Denis did not seem to recall that he had previously given a negative opinion or to know that Professor Gregori had also previously given a detailed negative assessment of the painting. As I understand it, the painting of St John at the Well has not been sold since so it is not known whether anyone would be prepared to pay for it the price that a Caravaggio would command on the strength of Sir Denis’ and Professor Gregori’s changed view.

Caravaggio’s lost ‘Card Sharps’? (ctd.) (Art History News)

More from Art Market Monitor

  • Zao Wou-ki’s 29.09.64 Sets Record in Hong Kong with $19.7m SaleZao Wou-ki’s 29.09.64 Sets Record in Hong Kong with $19.7m Sale
  • How US Courts Authenticate Art WorksHow US Courts Authenticate Art Works
  • Maybe the Chinese ARE Propping Up the Contemporary Art MarketMaybe the Chinese ARE Propping Up the Contemporary Art Market
  • Can Art Go Retail? Hirst Says, YesCan Art Go Retail? Hirst Says, Yes
  • Christie's Day Sale–$43.8mChristie's Day Sale–$43.8m
  • Art as Shopping SpectacleArt as Shopping Spectacle

Filed Under: General

About Marion Maneker

LiveArt

Want to get Art Market Monitor‘s posts sent to you in our email? Sign up below by clicking on the Subscribe button.

  • About Us/ Contact
  • Podcast
  • AMMpro
  • Newsletter
  • FAQ

twitterfacebooksoundcloud
Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
California Privacy Rights
Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Advertise on Art Market Monitor
 

Loading Comments...