Art Lovers discussion

Old Master fakery

Comments Showing 1-17 of 17 (17 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Ruth (new)

Ruth | 1945 comments Interesting article on an old painting that's no longer a fake.

message 2: by Jonathan (last edited Jul 14, 2010 07:10PM) (new)

Jonathan Lopez | 257 comments I've heard a lot of good things about this show at the National Gallery, London.

I haven't seen it personally, but from what people are saying, the basic premise is that sophisticated museum professionals are looking at the history of their institution--and a very august one at that--to find tricky, troubling cases of connoisseurship that they or their predecessors got wrong and to attempt, then, to explain why the errors were made.

That kind of candor and lack of condescension is actually quite rare in forgery exhibitions, whose organizing principle is usually just Schadenfreude.

message 3: by Monica (new)

Monica | 909 comments I've said it before and I'll say it again. I love Michael Kimmelman. Some people like Maureen Dowd, I do mostly, but I'll take Kimmelman. Then of course there's Paul Krugman and Nicholas Kristoff...

Can anyone figure out if there is an on line way to view the exhibition?

message 4: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan Lopez | 257 comments I sorely miss the days when Michael Kimmelman was reviewing shows in the USA on a regular basis for the Times. The travel essays that he writes from Europe are fine (especially when he is writing on art), but he was a fantastic art critic. I hope he goes back to it full time at some point.

message 5: by Monica (new)

Monica | 909 comments I wondered why there were so few articles from him. Has he moved to Europe?

message 6: by Jonathan (last edited Jul 28, 2010 08:13AM) (new)

Jonathan Lopez | 257 comments Yes. For at least a year now. Don't know if it's permanent or not.

He's actually written some pretty painful travel pieces from Spain, although above I described his travel writing as "fine." The truth is he's just not that kind of writer. Either he's on his game, talking about things that really interest him and engage his brain, or else he turns in very perfunctory copy. There are actually some writers who can do completely frivolous articles in a way that makes for good, entertaining reading, but he's really not one of them.

The thing that made him such a great art critic was that he could write clearly about complex ideas without hiding behind jargon or simply repeating the received wisdom on a given subject. And he never turned art criticism into ego journalism, which happens all too often when someone has an established platform from which to speak. There are very, very few newspaper or magazine critics who have ever been as good as Kimmelman was when he worked at it full time.

message 7: by Monica (new)

Monica | 909 comments He's got some heavy shoes to fill if he doesn't come back, that is, unless you're up for it!

message 8: by Monica (new)

Monica | 909 comments MK wrote about tennis for the magazine section this sunday and I couldn't bring myself to read a word!

message 9: by Jonathan (last edited Aug 31, 2010 07:50PM) (new)

Jonathan Lopez | 257 comments Me neither.

message 10: by Monica (new)

Monica | 909 comments What in heaven's name are they thinking?

message 11: by Jonathan (new)

Jonathan Lopez | 257 comments It's not them. It's him. I'm pretty sure he's choosing to write these stories.

My understanding is that he got burned out by the grind of writing about art 365 days a year. Also, I've heard from various people that the state of the contemporary art world left him feeling somewhat alienated. In any event, he doesn't want to be "just an art writer" anymore.

message 12: by Monica (new)

Monica | 909 comments Fair enough. They gave him the cover of the Magazine Section and I should give him more respect but I don't care about tennis!

message 13: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl I was impressed with his commentary on the documentary My Kid Could Paint That.

I haven't read any of his non-art articles, as far as I'm aware.

message 14: by Monica (new)

Monica | 909 comments Please confirm, Michael Kimmelman did the commentary on MY KID COULD PAINT THAT.

message 15: by Lobstergirl (last edited Oct 11, 2010 07:40PM) (new)

Lobstergirl Roger, confirming. He was one of the DVD extras (I can't remember if he was actually in the documentary itself) - his segment went on for about 15 minutes.

Updating: I think he was in the documentary itself, briefly, because he had written a Week in Review article on the girl after an upstate paper had covered her first. The WIR editors came to him and asked him to do a story on her.

message 16: by Monica (new)

Monica | 909 comments Oh, yes, I remember reading his piece. I added it to my queue, thanks!

message 17: by Lobstergirl (new)

Lobstergirl Definitely worth watching. It asks all sorts of interesting questions...

back to top