Yesterday's post found me asking myself why so few of the paintings Charpentier is known to have made are still with us. Where did they go? Well, today, we have one answer, and tomorrow, another. It concerns this painting:
It is owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and when they acquired it, they attributed it to David. In 1951, their then-director, Charles Sterling, attributed it to Constance-Marie Charpentier. Evidence against Charpentier started to pile up, and finally it was decided that the painting was instead by Marie Denise Villers.
I'm sure no one will be surprised to hear that the painting lost considerable value when it no longer could be attributed to David. David, after all, was a master even in his own time. Is it then any wonder that collectors and dealers, eager to sell a painting with obvious technical merit and stylistic similarity would claim that it was his? It certainly is easier to sell (and for greater returns) with a famous name attached.
For a brief biography of Marie Denise Villers, click here.
4 comments:
That's the sad thing about collecting - so often it doesn't have much to do with the actual item but only with the name attached.
Van Gough - He couldn't sell a painting while alive but now...
Is it not a common practice to sign a painting when finished? Is that a modern convention and when did it start if it was not always done?
Yes, it was a common practice to sign paintings, but over the years signatures can be cropped out (reframing the canvas) removed, painted over. It happens.
Wow, I love this picture!
Post a Comment