For the second time in a century, a high-profile case in the New York courts is set to turn on the question, “How can you tell an authentic Leonardo da Vinci?”
It’s a more delicate matter than you might imagine. Jeanne Marchig, the previous owner of a drawing that went under the hammer at Christie’s International, New York, in January 1998, is suing the auction house for “negligent misattribution.”
“Christie’s strongly disagrees with these claims and believes they are without merit,” a spokesman for the London-based company said last month. “The continuing debate surrounding this work has seen a significant number of the world’s leading academics and critics continue to cast doubt on the alleged attribution to Leonardo.” Cataloged as “German, 19th century,” the work sold for US$21,850 and was resold in 2007 for about US$20,000, according to the suit.
Since 1998, a number of leading authorities — notably Martin Kemp, emeritus professor of art history at Oxford University — have identified it as a hitherto unknown masterpiece by Leonardo. It has been estimated that, as a Leonardo, the work is worth US$150 million.
That estimate, given by Otto Naumann, a New York dealer in Old Masters, to Milton Esterow in the January issue of the magazine Art News, was “contingent upon uncontested attribution.” That’s hard to achieve in cases like this. Look out for fireworks when expert witnesses take the stand.
In the eye of the Beholder
For example, counts of authentic Michelangelo drawings by renowned scholars vary from a conservative 30 to 40 to more than 700. What makes the difference? Evidence, of course, comes into it — type of pen stroke, methods of shading — but it also comes down in the end to opinion: the “eye” of the expert.
It’s the same in the case of the disputed Leonardo, dubbed La Bella Principessa by Kemp. There are scientific findings. The vellum — or treated animal skin — on which it’s drawn is from 1440 to 1650 according to carbon dating. The drawing is by a left-handed artist, which Leonardo was. A partial fingerprint on it is a match for another on a more definite Leonardo.
In the end, though, it comes down to judgment of quality and style. That is, whether the work — which has been restored in the past more than once — is drawn in the way that Leonardo drew. And secondly, whether it’s good enough to be by him.
Those are both subjective calls. Kemp answers a firm yes to both. He has, he writes in a book on the subject (La Bella Principessa: The Story of the New Masterpiece by Leonardo da Vinci, Hodder & Stoughton), “not the slightest doubt” that this is “a masterpiece by Leonardo da Vinci.” Others are not so sure. Off the record, many in the art world express doubt about the Principessa.
Hung jury
The last big Leonardo case in New York was in 1929. Then the plaintiffs were Mr and Mrs Harry Hahn, Franco-American owners, they claimed, of the authentic version of Leonardo’s portrait known as La Belle Ferronniere. Questioned by a New York journalist, the Old Master dealer Joseph Duveen flatly stated that the authentic painting was the one in the Louvre and that this was a copy. The owners sued for US$500,000.
Duveen marshaled batteries of experts, who fared badly when cross-examined in the witness box. Statements such as “the impression produced on my mind is that it is not by Leonardo” did not impress the court, the jury was hung, and Duveen eventually agreed to pay US$60,000.
More than 80 years later, there’s still no complete agreement about La Belle Ferronniere. Most scholars believe the Louvre work is a genuine Leonardo, with perhaps a little help from assistants. Some still have doubts even about that (the Louvre picture will be included in an exhibition of Leonardo paintings at the National Gallery, London, next year).
Meanwhile, the other version, once disdained by Duveen, sold at a Sotheby’s New York auction in January for US$1.5 million — not much for a genuine Leonardo, quite a lot for something that isn’t. The case of La Bella Principessa could run and run.
In late October of 1873 the government of Japan decided against sending a military expedition to Korea to force that nation to open trade relations. Across the government supporters of the expedition resigned immediately. The spectacle of revolt by disaffected samurai began to loom over Japanese politics. In January of 1874 disaffected samurai attacked a senior minister in Tokyo. A month later, a group of pro-Korea expedition and anti-foreign elements from Saga prefecture in Kyushu revolted, driven in part by high food prices stemming from poor harvests. Their leader, according to Edward Drea’s classic Japan’s Imperial Army, was a samurai
Located down a sideroad in old Wanhua District (萬華區), Waley Art (水谷藝術) has an established reputation for curating some of the more provocative indie art exhibitions in Taipei. And this month is no exception. Beyond the innocuous facade of a shophouse, the full three stories of the gallery space (including the basement) have been taken over by photographs, installation videos and abstract images courtesy of two creatives who hail from the opposite ends of the earth, Taiwan’s Hsu Yi-ting (許懿婷) and Germany’s Benjamin Janzen. “In 2019, I had an art residency in Europe,” Hsu says. “I met Benjamin in the lobby
April 22 to April 28 The true identity of the mastermind behind the Demon Gang (魔鬼黨) was undoubtedly on the minds of countless schoolchildren in late 1958. In the days leading up to the big reveal, more than 10,000 guesses were sent to Ta Hwa Publishing Co (大華文化社) for a chance to win prizes. The smash success of the comic series Great Battle Against the Demon Gang (大戰魔鬼黨) came as a surprise to author Yeh Hung-chia (葉宏甲), who had long given up on his dream after being jailed for 10 months in 1947 over political cartoons. Protagonist
Peter Brighton was amazed when he found the giant jackfruit. He had been watching it grow on his farm in far north Queensland, and when it came time to pick it from the tree, it was so heavy it needed two people to do the job. “I was surprised when we cut it off and felt how heavy it was,” he says. “I grabbed it and my wife cut it — couldn’t do it by myself, it took two of us.” Weighing in at 45 kilograms, it is the heaviest jackfruit that Brighton has ever grown on his tropical fruit farm, located