Discovery of 'Degas' sculpture hoard

[Philidor]

74 plaster sculptures were discovered in a French foundry

They are either one of the most extraordinary art finds of the past 100 years or one of the most exquisite frauds to be attempted.

Times

The story of their discovery begins in 2001 when Walter Maibaum, a leading authority on 19th and 20th century European art, heard that a new set of bronzes of The Little Dancer were being cast in France. This seemed impossible as the only two known plasters were in American museums and neither would lend their plaster out for that purpose....

One leading world expert on Degas said yesterday: “It is not implausible. But there isn’t a paper trail and the way they are hawking it round it really does seem like someone trying to make a big profit.”

Degas's dancers get on my nerves a bit. But L’absinthe is a good painting...

[eves]

They are either one of the most extraordinary art finds of the past 100 years or one of the most exquisite frauds to be attempted.

Times

So they are only art if they were made by someone famous? How silly.

[Florestan]

Originally Posted by eves

So they are only art if they were made by someone famous? How silly.

Quite.

I'm with Phili in wishing there had been more work like L'Absinthe and fewer little ballet girls, which are a bit Evening Standard for my taste.

[Stlukesguild]

I am sorry... but as an artist I have no problem in recognizing
Degas... and especially his ballerinas and his late nudes... as
among the greatest works of art of the 19th century. Degas
was undoubtedly one of the greatest draftsmen ever. Any artist
with a love of drawing the figure will admit that Degas was
an absolute master. He was able to capture the figure in
motion rapidly and economically. His idols was Ingres... but
his drawings often suggest far more so the calligraphic drawings
of Rembrandt or some Asian Zen ink paintings:



Where his Impressionist counterpart Monet almost let the
paintings compose themselves... eventually arriving at an "all
over" composition that would serve as the basis of
Abstract Expressionism, Degas, on the other hand, was the
absolute master of the controlled and highly structured
composition. He is perhaps the single most influential figure
upon subsequent composition in figurative painting, and his
daring compositions were built upon an intimate understanding of
the old masters... as well as Japanese painting and woodblocks
and photography. No Western artist would so blatantly tilt and
skew the space (ala Japanese art) until the example of Degas.
No artist would so shockingly crop the images (ala
photography) until the examples of Degas:



In Degas' late works he zoomed in closer and closer upon
the figure... until they conveyed something monumental. His
color grew more and more brilliant and artificial... pointing the
way toward Post-Impressionism and Modernism. The
drawing retained just the perfect essential elements... while he
slowly eliminated unnecessary details until he is left with the
absolute essence of the image. His surfaces took on the
heavy texture of battered and weathered fresco paintings:



His nudes stand alongside those of Michelangelo, Rubens,
and Bonnard as among the greatest use of the human figure as
a means of expression. Continually working with the live
model, Degas was able to unearth the magic in the most
unexpected points of view and the most seemingly
unpromising poses and angles:



As the artist aged and his hand grew unsteady and his eyesight
dim, the resulting works grew ever more profound. His use of
pastel allowed the artist to merge the linear elements of line
and drawing with the color of painting. The late pastels are
seemingly the most animated and spontaneous of drawing with
the artist's agitated touch dancing across the surface in a
manner not seen since the final paintings of Titian. In spite of
the surface fluidity and dancing lines, the actual works are
as methodically and carefully composed as a portrait by Ingres.
The artist masterfully leads the eye through his paintings. The
various shapes and colors are perfectly interwoven... like the
pieces of a jigsaw puzzle:

[Florestan]

A touching tribute to Degas, though you don't need to qualify your opinions, as an artist or anything else.

If we all did that, all discussion would just become a contest in one-upmanship (rather like some other classical musuic boards). Would my art history degree trump your claimed status as an artist? What sort of artist? What if someone came along who sold more work, or got better reviews, or went to a better college, or was in 'better' collections? Would their opinions then become more valid than everyone else's? If someone comes along who studied art history at a better establishment than I did (ie they went to the Courtauld Institute), am I then out of the game? If someone isn't an artist and doesn't have a degree in art history, are they still allowed to have an opinion?

Yes, Degas was a great draughtsman. L'Absinthe notwithstanding, I prefer more substance and less style. That doesn't mean I'm either ignorant or not entitled to an opinion. When I studied art before I took my art history degree, we studied and emulated Degas' techniques endlessly. Lovely techniques; lovely draughtsmanship; but for the most part, nothing much to say.

[Stlukesguild]

We are all probably aware of the saying: opinions are like a
certain part of our anatomy... everyone has one... etc... And
indeed everyone has an opinion... yet admittedly some opinions
are better than others. Surely few of us would give much
credence to the exclamation by the pimply teenager grooving
on 50-cent to the effect that "Mozart sucks!" My guess is that
we probably don't begin to seriously weigh the opinions of anyone
who posts here until he or she has posted enough that we can
draw a picture of their experience in the field of classical music.
There are those who I imagine have far more to offer in terms of
knowledge of medieval music, while others have specialized in
Modernism or the Baroque. It certainly lends a degree of weight to
their opinions... but doesn't eliminate or void alternate opinions...
or most importantly... our own perceptions. No matter how many
times I am told about the brilliance of Schoenberg or Boulez there
is no way that it will change my opinion if the work still sounds like
crap to me.

The reputations of artists survive not upon the opinions of
the masses... most of whom have little interest in art or
music outside its use as entertainment... but rather upon
the opinions of the "experts". I would qualify this term by stating
that by "experts" I would include the academics, art historians,
critics, curators, collectors, and most importantly the passionate
art lovers who take the time and put forth the effort into
learning about and appreciating art (those whom Virginia ]
Woolf referred to as the not so-common "common readers"
in literature) and the subsequent generations of artists. It is the
last two, after all, who are most influential in deciding what
art remains relevant.

Art historians and artists share certain common interests...
the primary being a love for art and artists. On the other hand...
there are some major differences in thinking as well... especially
with regard to how they look at a work of art. I can say this with
a degree of certainty having almost gone the art historian (and
later, the restoration artist) route myself, and worked with several
art historians. I believe it was Robert Rosenblum who declared to
Philip Pearstein (who was taking graduate courses in art history
while working upon his art career), "Philip, don't you know that the
art historian is the enemy of the artist?! You must choose one or
the other." Perhaps an exaggeration... but like most exaggerations
there is a degree of truth to it.

Art historians, like art critics, certainly do look differently at art...
if only as a result of the fact that the artist is far more aware of the
mechanics involved in creating a work, while the art historian is
generally more aware of a work of art's place in the narrative of
historical development. "Narrative", indeed, may be the key word
as art historians and art critics are far more focused upon the
notion of "big ideas"... things that can be easily put into words. It
is for this reason that there is so much written about an artist
such as Duchamp. It also explains, in part, the growth of conceptual
art as a result of the shift in art education away from the traditional
art school toward the art departments in college and universities
where theories and concepts... verbal constructs... are more
important than formal issues of sensitivity in touch, balance, and
other concerns that are often dismissed as being "mere craft"..
and where students rarely even have the experience of seeing actual
art works in person to appreciate these elements. (And yes... I did
attend one of those art schools rather than a university...
even though I agree with your argument that such is irrelevant... it
is what the individual does with the education that counts and there
are no end to brilliant achievers from some small mid-western
college).

While "big ideas" can serve artists well if handled well... one must
question their centrality to art. It would sound absurd to declare
that Mozart's music, for example, sounds beautiful, is brilliantly
constructed, but has nothing to say. What does it have to say that
is more or less than what Haydn or Beethoven has to say? What,
for example, does Vermeer have to say that is so profound? Or
even Rembrandt? The problem we face with art is that like
music... although perhaps to a lesser degree when one considers
the absolute abstraction of music... the form and the content are
so intertwined as to be almost inseparable.

Rubens' and Velasquez' and Titian's nudes are really no different than
those of Fragonard and Boucher in terms of theme... but the form
leads us to perceive them in a vastly different manner. It isn't that
Boucher has nothing to say... he has just as much to say about the
women he portrays as Titian. It is rather how he paints... the form...
that leads us to vastly different interpretations. In other words... I'm
not certain I follow your statement that you prefer "more
substance and less style." Who exactly do you imagine as having
such substance yet less style"?

Degas, himself, has a great quote upon art:

I have spoken to the most intelligent people about art, and they
have not understood; but among those who understand,
words are not necessary; you say 'Humpf, he, ha' and
everything has been said.

Most artists would understand this experience. In discussing a work
of art with another artist what is commonly focused upon are those
aspects that are difficult to put into words: an appreciation for the
most subtle nuance of line, the perfect choice of color harmony,
the manner in which a given artist (I think here especially of Picasso)
walks the narrow line between genius... and absolute crap... and
somehow pulls it off.

Again... I would be interested in your interpretation as to what
artists are of so much more substance as opposed to style. Not
that I would think to change your opinions anymore than you mine.

[Florestan]

Originally Posted by Stlukesguild

The reputations of artists survive not upon the opinions of
the masses... most of whom have little interest in art or
music outside its use as entertainment... but rather upon
the opinions of the "experts".

But that is just your opinion. As a soi-disant expert.

The traditional/empirical view of the (male, upper class) artist or expert who shapes opinion for posterity was badly wounded by postmodernism and its demise is being further hastened by the dizzying series of paradigm shifts in human communication that new technologies are bringing. Who knows how we will interpret and interact with the world, and with art, in the years and decades to come? What will art be? We don't know.

Regarding Degas, form, in art, isn't everything. Sometimes it isn't anything! I am not even denigrating Degas. That is just your interpretation. I am perfectly entitled to value other aspects of art than form, draughtsmanship or the presence of pretty young girls.

[Stlukesguild]

The traditional/empirical view of the (male,
upper class) artist or expert who shapes opinion for posterity
was badly wounded by postmodernism

Post-Modernism itself is equally dead... if it ever was even alive.

...and its demise is being further hastened
by the dizzying series of paradigm shifts in human communication
that new technologies are bringing.

I think you overestimate technology... at least in its role in
impacting what art survives and what doesn't. The printing press
was undoubtedly the impetus for an equal... if not greater
paradigm shift... but it in no way led to the masses deciding what
art will or will not last. This is largely because the masses
couldn't give a rat's ass about anything but the latest
novelty. Britney Speares outsells any classical composer... but
she will be largely forgotten when her fan base grows up
and completely forgotten once they die off. I can't say the same
for the Beatles or Elvis or Frank Sinatra... and undoubtedly the
ability to record music... the mechanical reproduction about
which Walter Benjamin was so prescient... has broke down a
great many of the barriers between "high" and "low" art in
music... but one gets the feeling that what is recognized as
the "best" in any genre will still be decided upon by those
interested parties. With regard to art... that will continue to
mean future generations of art experts (whatever form they
may take), art lovers, and artists.

Who knows how we will interpret and
interact with the world, and with art, in the years and decades
to come? What will art be? We don't know.

That has always been the situation. Yet somehow I doubt we
will suddenly discover that we are living in an egalitarian state
in which the whole of humanity is passionate about art and
music and literature and as such the "experts" (as I defined in
the previous post) will become irrelevant. If anything... with the
influx of new technologies we will undoubtedly come upon new
art forms and older art forms will become even further the left as
the domain of specialists.

Regarding Degas, form, in art, isn't
everything. Sometimes it isn't anything!

That is where almost any artist would disagree. The form is
central. The substance is interwoven with the form. Of course
you may be taking a conceptual view of art ala the
post-Duchampians and their apologist, Arthur C. Danto
and embracing the notion that form is irrelevant to art... but I
would argue that Danto (and his ilk) may be a brilliant
philosopher (although most real philosophers wouldn't grant
him that) and a descent writer... but he was an idiot when it came
to art... which involves looking. I like the term used by
Kuspit, "post-art" for that certainly defines the idea of art in
which the visual form is irrelevant. It is "post art" in that it
has nothing to do with art. If anything it is simply a poor excuse
for philosophy, literature, social-science, etc... masking itself as art.

I am not even denigrating Degas. That is
just your interpretation. I am perfectly entitled to value other
aspects of art than form, draughtsmanship or the presence
of pretty young girls.

And yet you are denigrating his work with the typical
Feminist critique... much as you used the same in challenging
my ideas ("The traditional/empirical view of the (male, upper
class) artist or expert"). The reality is that this is a poor
interpretation of what Degas' paintings were about. There is
an intriguing article published during Degas life in the publication,
La Nouvelle Peinture in which Degas is quoted by the author
in discussing art:

These men (salon painters) each have a wife or mistress
whose appearance delights them. She has a pug nose and tiny
eyes, and she is slender and delicate and lively. What they
love about her are precisely these 'defects.' She is the
'ideal' of their hearts, of their minds who has awakened
and incarnated the truth of their taste, of their sensibility, and of
their invention, since they have found her and chosen her. But
when these gentlemen go to their studios they paint Greek
types, dark, severe, with strait noses and thick necks. The pug
nose they delight in every evening they betray every morning in
the studio."

This is part of what I admire in Degas. As an artist his initial goal
was to make himself into the next generation's "history
painter"... and yet he recognized rapidly that history painting... as
he knew it... was dead. The academic approach of William
Bouguereau, or Cabanel, etc... had nothing to do with what art
was about to him. As such, Degas set out to salvage what he
could from a dying or dead tradition. Rather than invent
perfumed neoclassical fantasies, he sought to discover where
the essential formal elements of the old masters were still to
be found in the world around him. As such, he discovered the
nobility and expression (and certainly beauty) of the human form
in motion... as might earlier have been found in a dance of
nymphs ala Rubens or Mantegna still existed in the ballet... and
not the ballet as illusion... but the reality of back stage... of
the repeated and painful exercises... of the short and
muscular French girls... (not the lithe and waif like neo-classical
fantasies of the academics...) struggling to master their roles.
As opposed to the rococo dreams of the women in their boudoirs...
he presented the reality of the Parisian girls shopping, laundresses
at labour, prostitutes in the brothels... and bathers. Certainly, a
good amount of the work embraces the notion of "beauty"...
although it clearly was not the accepted, traditional notion
of beauty... which becomes clear if you read the harsh
critical responses to much of his work. It also embraces a
male notion of eroticism... but do we imagine eroticism is not a
valid subject for art... that we have somehow outgrown
it? Personally I hold with Yeats who argued that sex and death
were the only subjects worthy of serious contemplation (albeit...
one might expand quite a bit from each theme).

[marquis66]

Originally Posted by Florestan

dizzying series of paradigm shifts in human communication that new technologies are bringing.

I think that this point is not only important now, but is ever more important to the ongoing success of our craft. I interface with more musicians on a daily basis through Twitter than ever would have been possible before. In fact, somewhat seriously, we are trying to gather a Twitter Philharmonic. Who knows what will come of that, but the numbers are there.

I also interface with artists who I would have never discovered were it not for the internet. I have art hanging in my house by an artist from Texas, and another piece by an artist from Minnesota. Thank you LiveJournal and Twitter.

Technology is leveling the playing field, and I think what you will see happen is that more artists will be able to make a more respectable living just through exposure. There will still be superstars, but the pool will be a little bigger to draw from. The "viral" quality of some pieces can not be understated, but the best, best art will rise to the surface. The larger pool means that quality, or at least the *quantity* of great art is bound to go up in time.

[marquis66]

Originally Posted by Stlukesguild

Post-Modernism itself is equally dead... if it ever was even alive.

Eh... Not so fast, man. Deconstructionism, in particular, is alive and well, practically taught as dogma at the University level.

(That's a good thing, IMO)

OK, ok, I will stop hijacking the lovely conversation that you and Flo are having.