4 ms·

It's kind of depressing that art can be owned privately and stored away. If this was never donated to NGS then I doubt any private owners would have had it x-ra

It's kind of depressing that art can be owned privately and stored away. If this was never donated to NGS then I doubt any private owners would have had it x-rayed and the self portrait would never have been discovered.

justinator 4y ago
Most art is owned privately and stored away (as an investment). Most art that's owned in a museum is stored (and is "donated" to the museum by the private collector). Also part of the problem is that art is fragile and showing say: a painting can degrade it, as light breaks up pigment. Even in storage, certainly paints/mediums change their physical characteristics. Many "hidden" paintings reveal themselves underneath the oils that make up the final painting as the medium becomes more transparent. Maybe it should be more clear to the public if the idea that art isn't so much given to museums, rather that artwork is used as a speculative investment by a private party until such a time it makes financial sense to transfer it to a museum. There is also the fact that if one is powerful/influential, you can influence the value of the artwork just by owning it and keeping it out of circulation. The whole private buying and selling of the artwork from gallery owners to auction houses works to raise the value of the artwork through hype, really. It can be a hell of a grift. van Gogh wasn't very good at playing that game, even when his brother was an art dealer - that's such a leg up and he blew that advantage. van Gogh isn't known to be all that easy to work with. Attempted murder doesn't help with this. We know him know since we celebrate his mental illness.
- jrapdx3 4y ago
  You make a number interesting points. FWIW I've been a printmaker for many years and know many artists "successful" and not. Museums acquire work through purchase and donation, the ratio varies among museums and divisions within a museum. Several years ago a collector donated several thousand pieces to the major museum in my region. Fortunately a few of my pieces were included and are now part of the museum's "permanent collection". Obviously museums prefer donations but only if the museum gets the kind of work they're seeking. It's a lot like academia, very competitive among curators to have the "right" high-valued work in the museum's possession. And it's true that an artist's success is largely a marketing game. Artists who are good self-promoters will do the best. Those who aren't typically remain obscure. Of course success doesn't necessarily indicate artistic merit. That's often not decided until much later, like 50 or 100 years down the road. Conservation of work is a complex subject. Oil-based paint was the only real option from the 1400's until ~1960. Oil paint dries by polymerization of fatty acids, problem is it doesn't know when to quit.[0] A paint film continues to harden, eventually the film integrity fails and the paint flakes off the substrate (canvas, etc.). Oil paintings are very likely to require restoration after 100 years if not sooner. Worth noting: unlike works on paper, oil paintings are less affected by light exposure. That's why museums often display paintings in brighter areas (200 lux) vs. drawings, prints, photos being exhibited in dimly lit galleries (50 lux). Interestingly many great artists were lousy technicians. Da Vinci is said to have experimented with various additives to paint which affected stability. Fascinating subjects indeed, and certainly contribute to keeping conservators employed. [0] https://justpaint.org/aspects-of-longevity-of-oil-and-acrylic-artist-paints/ https://justpaint.org/aspects-of-longevity-of-oil-and-acryli...
nomel 4y ago
How would you suggest that artists get paid? Someone bought this painting from an artists, just as artists want you to do right now, so they can pay their bills. At what point would the painting be seized, from the buyer?
- User007b 4y ago
  Isn't Art produced for money just another product? What is the difference between art and products when money becomes the sole focus of creating art? Should an artist just be creating art for the buyers?
  - yupper32 4y ago
    You're asking a lot of deep sounding questions, but at the end of the day they don't matter much. Michelangelo was commissioned to paint the Sistine Chapel. The School of Athens was commissioned by Pope Julius II. You'll find that a massive number of famous art pieces were commissioned, and I don't think you'll find any serious people who think less of them because of it.
    - User007b 4y ago
      But isn't the - at least partially - purpose of art to be a critical mirror of society? Art and the freedom of art have often been used to critise society. Now if art becomes a product, where is the critical function of art? Critical art is part of healthy and diverse society, without we're one step closer to an orwellian utopia.
      - yupper32 4y ago
        Again, you're getting too deep where you don't need to be. You say "if art becomes a product" while I'm showing you examples from 500 years ago where people were paid to create some of the most famous pieces of art in history. You're tapping into a single category of art -- art that is critical of society -- as if that's the only purpose of art. The purpose of and the person who commissioned the piece of art is just part of the context and history of the piece. It says nothing of its impact and importance.
tobylane 4y ago
Research is done for some private sales, or for loans from private collections to public exhibitions. I can’t think of any specific examples that went as far as xraying though.

justinator 4y ago

Most art is owned privately and stored away (as an investment). Most art that's owned in a museum is stored (and is "donated" to the museum by the private collector). Also part of the problem is that art is fragile and showing say: a painting can degrade it, as light breaks up pigment. Even in storage, certainly paints/mediums change their physical characteristics. Many "hidden" paintings reveal themselves underneath the oils that make up the final painting as the medium becomes more transparent. Maybe it should be more clear to the public if the idea that art isn't so much given to museums, rather that artwork is used as a speculative investment by a private party until such a time it makes financial sense to transfer it to a museum. There is also the fact that if one is powerful/influential, you can influence the value of the artwork just by owning it and keeping it out of circulation. The whole private buying and selling of the artwork from gallery owners to auction houses works to raise the value of the artwork through hype, really. It can be a hell of a grift. van Gogh wasn't very good at playing that game, even when his brother was an art dealer - that's such a leg up and he blew that advantage. van Gogh isn't known to be all that easy to work with. Attempted murder doesn't help with this. We know him know since we celebrate his mental illness.

jrapdx3 4y ago
You make a number interesting points. FWIW I've been a printmaker for many years and know many artists "successful" and not. Museums acquire work through purchase and donation, the ratio varies among museums and divisions within a museum. Several years ago a collector donated several thousand pieces to the major museum in my region. Fortunately a few of my pieces were included and are now part of the museum's "permanent collection". Obviously museums prefer donations but only if the museum gets the kind of work they're seeking. It's a lot like academia, very competitive among curators to have the "right" high-valued work in the museum's possession. And it's true that an artist's success is largely a marketing game. Artists who are good self-promoters will do the best. Those who aren't typically remain obscure. Of course success doesn't necessarily indicate artistic merit. That's often not decided until much later, like 50 or 100 years down the road. Conservation of work is a complex subject. Oil-based paint was the only real option from the 1400's until ~1960. Oil paint dries by polymerization of fatty acids, problem is it doesn't know when to quit.[0] A paint film continues to harden, eventually the film integrity fails and the paint flakes off the substrate (canvas, etc.). Oil paintings are very likely to require restoration after 100 years if not sooner. Worth noting: unlike works on paper, oil paintings are less affected by light exposure. That's why museums often display paintings in brighter areas (200 lux) vs. drawings, prints, photos being exhibited in dimly lit galleries (50 lux). Interestingly many great artists were lousy technicians. Da Vinci is said to have experimented with various additives to paint which affected stability. Fascinating subjects indeed, and certainly contribute to keeping conservators employed. [0] https://justpaint.org/aspects-of-longevity-of-oil-and-acrylic-artist-paints/ https://justpaint.org/aspects-of-longevity-of-oil-and-acryli...

nomel 4y ago

How would you suggest that artists get paid? Someone bought this painting from an artists, just as artists want you to do right now, so they can pay their bills. At what point would the painting be seized, from the buyer?

User007b 4y ago
Isn't Art produced for money just another product? What is the difference between art and products when money becomes the sole focus of creating art? Should an artist just be creating art for the buyers?
- yupper32 4y ago
  You're asking a lot of deep sounding questions, but at the end of the day they don't matter much. Michelangelo was commissioned to paint the Sistine Chapel. The School of Athens was commissioned by Pope Julius II. You'll find that a massive number of famous art pieces were commissioned, and I don't think you'll find any serious people who think less of them because of it.
  - User007b 4y ago
    But isn't the - at least partially - purpose of art to be a critical mirror of society? Art and the freedom of art have often been used to critise society. Now if art becomes a product, where is the critical function of art? Critical art is part of healthy and diverse society, without we're one step closer to an orwellian utopia.
    - yupper32 4y ago
      Again, you're getting too deep where you don't need to be. You say "if art becomes a product" while I'm showing you examples from 500 years ago where people were paid to create some of the most famous pieces of art in history. You're tapping into a single category of art -- art that is critical of society -- as if that's the only purpose of art. The purpose of and the person who commissioned the piece of art is just part of the context and history of the piece. It says nothing of its impact and importance.

tobylane 4y ago

Research is done for some private sales, or for loans from private collections to public exhibitions. I can’t think of any specific examples that went as far as xraying though.