DOI Heft:
Nr. 222 (August, 1915)
DOI Artikel:Wyer, Raymond: Permanent collections for small museums
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.43459#0187
Permanent Collections for Small Museums
Permanent Collection of the Hackley Gallery of Fine Arts, Muskegon, Michigan
LANDSCAPE, SEVENTEENTH CENTURY FLEMISH BY CORNELIS HUYSMANS
by Corot dismissed as a bad example only because
it did not have in its composition certain features
which are present in some of his best-known
works. Again, I have seen a painting pronounced
bad because it dealt with the green of spring rather
than with the richer colour of autumn which the
artist may have more frequently used; or because
a man instead of a cow was put into the landscape.
Relative to the authenticity of a painting, if
only a small sum is being paid and the painting
actually belongs to and is a good example of the
work of a definite period, the identity of its author
is not of great importance.
It must always be remembered that a painting
does not become a work of art because it is old.
A painting which was not good when it was pro-
duced is no better five hundred years afterward.
A painting of quality, however, is improved by
age. The older it is the more beautiful it be-
comes, providing the artist was careful to use only
colours of a permanent quality. Of course, when
a big price is being paid for a work of art by a
specified master, it is important that we should
have good reason to believe in its authenticity.
How are we to discover this? We can learn its
history but it is often difficult to obtain an un-
interrupted and reliable history. This is only
part evidence, however, and not more conclusive
of genuineness than is its signature. Apropos of
signatures, I would be more suspicious of a doubt-
ful picture with a signature than without one; for
this evidence is easily forged.
What, then, is the best evidence we can have?
The best evidence—and this is not always infalli-
ble—is the opinion of those who have studied the
technique, the individual point of view, the little
peculiarities which are to be found in the works of
all the masters. Those who have given much
time to this and possess a sensitiveness to quality,
whose judgment is not the result of prejudice in
favour of a certain type of subject matter or com-
position, but is based rather on the manner of
XXXVII
Permanent Collection of the Hackley Gallery of Fine Arts, Muskegon, Michigan
LANDSCAPE, SEVENTEENTH CENTURY FLEMISH BY CORNELIS HUYSMANS
by Corot dismissed as a bad example only because
it did not have in its composition certain features
which are present in some of his best-known
works. Again, I have seen a painting pronounced
bad because it dealt with the green of spring rather
than with the richer colour of autumn which the
artist may have more frequently used; or because
a man instead of a cow was put into the landscape.
Relative to the authenticity of a painting, if
only a small sum is being paid and the painting
actually belongs to and is a good example of the
work of a definite period, the identity of its author
is not of great importance.
It must always be remembered that a painting
does not become a work of art because it is old.
A painting which was not good when it was pro-
duced is no better five hundred years afterward.
A painting of quality, however, is improved by
age. The older it is the more beautiful it be-
comes, providing the artist was careful to use only
colours of a permanent quality. Of course, when
a big price is being paid for a work of art by a
specified master, it is important that we should
have good reason to believe in its authenticity.
How are we to discover this? We can learn its
history but it is often difficult to obtain an un-
interrupted and reliable history. This is only
part evidence, however, and not more conclusive
of genuineness than is its signature. Apropos of
signatures, I would be more suspicious of a doubt-
ful picture with a signature than without one; for
this evidence is easily forged.
What, then, is the best evidence we can have?
The best evidence—and this is not always infalli-
ble—is the opinion of those who have studied the
technique, the individual point of view, the little
peculiarities which are to be found in the works of
all the masters. Those who have given much
time to this and possess a sensitiveness to quality,
whose judgment is not the result of prejudice in
favour of a certain type of subject matter or com-
position, but is based rather on the manner of
XXXVII