The kind of thing Mike Mallory turned up is what I had in mind. 'Accuracy' is what newspapers look for in such cases, not art. They know the reader wants to know what it 'looked like' - since cameras weren't allowed. So you get this lifeless, semi-photographic stuff. Art not wanted on voyage.
Daumier was a different case. And I think the attitude of 19th century newspapers to illustrations was rather different anyway. It's possible that the question of cameras in courtrooms was not even an issue then. I don't know. Probably worth studying that. DA -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 24 March 2008 3:23 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Dumping a bad painting >I imagine most of it (courtroom art) would be sketches done for newspapers because cameras were not allowed. So most of it would be of a rather deadpan,documentary nature. Newspapers would not have been looking for art Don't newspapers (or television news programs)mostly want to entertain people (like Cheerskep, the playwright)? -- so a "deadpan, documentary nature" would not especially apply? And didn't the great master of the genre, Daumier, get published in newspapers ? Would you call his work "art" ? Googling "courtroom art" only pulls up about 3,000 hits -- so I guess it's not a very big deal -- even if we see a lot of it on television here in Chicago (and I know some of the artists) So far -- the best that I could find was: http://www.freewebs.com/courtroomart/defendants.htm ... but I've seen better (though none of them come close to Daumier, who had the advantage of a real education in visual art.) Is it really that much worse than the sketchy line drawings from Lasciaux? (which you would consider "art" -- wouldn't you?) ...................................................... Public art museums are not especially forthcoming when it comes to the stuff they de-accession -- and I don't think the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act)can be applied to them. So it was just by coincidence, today, that I discovered that the Art Institute put the following work to auction (on the internet) in 2005, where it brought the spectacular sum of $31,070 : "Sentenced for life" by Jean Louis Forain http://fineart.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=621&Lot_No=30074&src=pr That doesn't sound like a lot of money, does it ? I.e. -- despite the artist's reputation (his works are in about 30 museums around the world -- and despite its spotless provenance -- it probably cost the A.I.C. more back when they used the Winterbotham fund (for modern art) to purchase it back in 1921. So it must be an unimportant/bad/mediocre painting - however such things are determined by curators and collectors today. But what qualities do you think were identified in making that determination? Why doesn't anyone seem to want it much any more ? Is it really that bad -- or does it just not fit into the triumphal narrative of modern art ? My own feeling -- is that I'd love to see it in some kind of temporary exhibit (like of courtroom illustration. There is a certain grim pathos about the convict kissing the hand of the attorney who has failed him.) It's just not beautiful enough to draw mu more sustained interest -- though I'd say the same about 90% of what's in every museum. So it's only a minor tragedy that now, I will probably never get to see that painting for the rest of my life -- though at least someone will get to see it -- instead of keeping it forever in the museum's dark basement. And ironically, now that it's been put on auction -- a good reproduction of it has been placed on the internet -- this is much, much bigger than any museum would be willing to show for the works in their collection. So though the painting has been condemned -- it hasn't quite suffered the same fate as the poor devil it portrays. _____________________________________________________________ Click here to save cash and find low rates on auto loans. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2211/fc/REAK6ZqXcKzzc3dYqX3DBA1UvsFOq 4 ztU54SGFoWBoel7ctcWB5EJe/ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.8/1340 - Release Date: 23/03/2008 6:50 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.8/1340 - Release Date: 23/03/2008 6:50 PM
