Refining the Russian Collection
Brooklyn’s Russian collection is first and foremost avant-garde. In evaluating and reconfirming this collection strength, it was determined that Vereshchagin’s Crucifixion was not appropriate for the focus of our holdings. However, only our Board of Trustees can make the decision to deaccession a work from the collection. The Board does this on the recommendation of our Collections Committee, who in turn is presented with a recommendation from the curators and Director. The curator’s recommendation is informed by a careful study of the object in question and its relationship to the collection as a whole. Discussions with scholars, curators, and collectors, in this case of 19th-century Russian painting, further inform the curatorial recommendation. By complying with this rigorous process of checks and balances, we avoid exposing ourselves to unnecessary risk and mismanagement of the collection.
All three Brooklyn paintings by Vereshchagin were included in the artist’s landmark 1891 sale in New York, and all three entered the Museum’s collection in 1906 as gifts—without restrictions—from Mrs. Lilla Brown, who donated them in memory of her husband John W. Brown. In keeping with standard US museum guidelines for deaccessioning, Mr. and Mrs. Brown will be acknowledged on the credit line of any artwork purchased with the proceeds from its sale. At this time the Brooklyn Museum has not identified a specific work of art for acquisition. The decision to sell Crucifixion by the Romans is based principally on the painting’s incongruity with the Museum’s avant-garde Russian holdings.
I welcome your questions about the Museum’s decision to sell this painting.
Page 2 of 2 | Previous page
Brooklyn Museum: Community: bloggers@brooklynmuseum » From Russia—To Brooklyn—With Love:
October 3rd, 2011 at 1:21 pm
[...] bloggers@brooklynmuseum How has your culture shaped your life and accomplishments? Refining the Russian Collection [...]
Margaret Samu:
October 20th, 2011 at 10:14 am
The Brooklyn Museum’s decision to deaccession the Vereshchagin Crucifixion is both surprising and disappointing. As a specialist in Russian art who is particularly interested in Russians’ U.S. exhibitions, I consider the three Vereshchagins in the Brooklyn Museum to be an inseparable group. As Richard Aste notes, they were all acquired at the artist’s 1891 exhibition in New York and were donated to the Museum together. For that reason alone, it does not make sense to split them up.
The curator’s description of the painting in the artist’s oeuvre is extremely puzzling, and calls into question the reliability of his sources of information. For example, Aste’s statement “Crucifixion by the Romans is a wonderful example of Vereshchagin’s passion for late 19th-century European academic painting” is questionable at best. Vereshchagin was a highly individualistic painter. Although he did study briefly with Jean-Leon Gerome, he was a recalcitrant student and ultimately rejected basic aspects of academic training such as copying antique sculpture. He was a totally independent painter who never belonged to any national school or style, let alone an exhibiting organization; his exhibitions were all solo shows. Upon being offered the title of professor at the Imperial Academy of Arts in St. Petersburg in 1874, he publicly refused the honor. Vereshchagin’s naturalistic style speaks of his reportorial approach to painting, not an affinity to academic art.
Aste goes on to note, “Crucifixion is not, however, an example of Russian avant-garde painting—the focus of Brooklyn’s collection— which in Vereshchagin’s own lifetime meant critical depictions of modern Russian society or Critical Realism.” Indeed, Vereshchagin’s Crucifixion is not an avant-garde painting, but neither are any of his other works. There are two flaws in Aste’s assertion. First, Vereshchagin was not part of the critical realist movement that began in Russia in the 1860s; he did not belong to any movement. His anti-war paintings certainly criticized war, but they were motivated by the artist’s strong opposition to war at all times and in all nations, not a criticism of modern Russian society. Second, the Russian realist movement was not an avant-garde movement by any definition of the term. The Russian realists had been trained within the state academic system; they simply believed in depicting subjects from contemporary life and exposing problems of modern society instead of taking on conventional academic themes. The fact that a number of the realists began teaching in the Imperial Academy of Arts in the 1890s shows that Russian realism was not far from academic art. Avant-garde movements in Russia did not appear until the 20th century. To suggest that Vereshchagin had a “passion for late 19th-century European academic painting” and also participated in the avant-garde creates a contradiction that is simply impossible to support. If the Brooklyn Museum maintains that “[t]he decision to sell Crucifixion by the Romans is based principally on the painting’s incongruity with the Museum’s avant-garde Russian holdings,” then they should deaccession all of Vereshchagin’s paintings, not just this one. At least then they would have a chance of staying together as a group.
The argument that “Crucifixion by the Romans is a powerful expression of Vereshchagin’s foray into Orientalism, and as such it merits greater study and exposure than it could get here” does not explain why the painting will be sold at Christie’s in London. It will almost certainly disappear into the collection of a private individual–possibly in Russia, which has not yet established a strong tradition of collectors lending and exhibiting works in museums. If the goal was to give the work exposure and make it available for study, the Brooklyn Museum should have offered it to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which already holds Vereshchagins and does exhibit its 19th-century Russian paintings in the permanent collection.
The Brooklyn Museum’s regrettable decision to deaccession the Vereshchagin painting is evidently already past the point of being reversed. It is a shame that the curators did not consult experts who were able to advise them accurately on the artist’s important role in Russian art and, indeed, in American collecting.
Bob Atchison:
October 20th, 2011 at 2:59 pm
This is a horrible mistake. Something should be done to stop it. The painting belongs to the people.
Natasha Kurchanova:
October 20th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
I agree with two previous responses. To the informed reply by Margaret Samu, I can only add that the curators’ decision betrayed their surface knowledge of the Russian avant-garde. Vereshchagin’s painting marked for deaccession is about faith, beinnings of Christianity, and, therefore identity of the Russian nation, which called itself “the third Rome.” The avant-garde artists — including Natalia Goncharova, Vladimir Tatlin, Mikhail Le Dantu, and numerous others — were interested in the same questions of national identity, faith, and variations on the idea of a god-believing nation as Vereshchagin, but expressed it in a different way a few decades later. The Russian avant-garde was influenced by Vereshchagin as much as it was by Picasso. And in today’s Russia artists are returning to the same eternal questions of the incongruence between their “Eastern” and “Western” identities. The museum is making a mistake by deaccessioning this important work.
Janet Kennedy:
October 21st, 2011 at 9:11 am
The comments by Margaret Samu and Natasha Kurchanova are right on the mark. I would add that the Vereshchagin paintings are of interest not simply as examples of Russian art but also as part of the Brooklyn Museum’s collection of nineteenth-century painting which contains other examples of 19th century religious painting. Without Vereshchagin’s Crucifixion by the Romans the museum’s collection will be poorer.
Daniil:
October 21st, 2011 at 1:00 pm
The truth is the crucifixion is in terrible condition, and couldn’t be shown without heavy work, which the museum couldn’t afford on the spot (let’s remember the museum is, like all NYC area public museums, in deep trouble from the recession).
It is not part of the rest of the series owned by the Museum (Balkan War), it was just bought along with the other two paintings–it is part of the “execution series”. Whereas the other execution paintings describe current events (anarchists, sepoys), the crucifixion is a crucifixion. It is not really about Christianity or the Third Rome per se, it is about corporeal punishment, or rather remembering the brutal reality of the crucifixion as corporeal punishment. This makes it very hard to display without a proper context. Putting up the crucifixion “as is” would essentially put up just another crucifixion, with neither context nor correct implications: it would hardly be a service to Vereschagin.
People need to calm down: its not a loss, “decomissioning” is not a euphemism for the incinerator, or a farm upstate where the painting will “run free”. The painting degraded into terrible condition while spending decades forgotten in storage. Correction: three Vereschagin paintings fell into terrible condition while spending decades forgotten in storage. Thanks to Rich Aste all three are seeing the light of day and two have been restored–a cost assisted by the decomission of the third. No one seemed to particularly care about this painting when it was in storage since the turn of the century now other museums might actually acquire, restore and exhibit it.
Rich Aste:
October 21st, 2011 at 4:37 pm
Thank you all for your comments. We respect your opinions, which are clearly informed by years of research on the material. The Brooklyn Museum, in deaccessioning Vereshchagin’s Crucifixion by the Romans, is in no way questioning the painting’s place within the canon of Russian art. Our decision, which was reached after much discussion between the curators, director, and board members who together hold the collections in trust, was based on a careful analysis of the painting’s place at the Museum. As museum professionals we are responsible for reassessing the shape and direction of our collections, in keeping with their changing and evolving nature. But our objective remains the same: to best serve our audience, an audience that last benefited from seeing Crucifixion by the Romans in the flesh in 1932.
I hear your concerns, and I assure you that the process of deaccessioning any object from the permanent collection is a long and rigorous one. In the end, the thought of keeping an important work like Crucifixion by the Romans off view and in storage for another eighty years was, in our professional opinion, a disservice to our visitors. The Brooklyn Museum is neither physically nor curatorially positioned to properly celebrate this painting; it hasn’t been since 1932 and it will not be in the foreseeable future.
Rosalind P. Blakesley:
October 28th, 2011 at 9:44 am
Margaret Samu and her fellow commentators above are right to decry the Brooklyn Museum’s move to deaccession Vereshchagin’s painting. Scholars the other side of the Atlantic are dismayed by this decision, too. Good examples of nineteenth-century Russian painting are rare in public collections outside Russia, and the Brooklyn Museum should be celebrating, rather than fragmenting, this impressive triad of Vereshchagin’s work.
Rosalind P. Blakesley
University of Cambridge, UK
Brooklyn Museum: Community: bloggers@brooklynmuseum » Paris and Puerto Rico Unite in Brooklyn’s Newest Acquisition:
May 30th, 2012 at 5:55 pm
[...] Oller, as well as a colonial Mexican folding screen inlaid with mother-of-pearl, with funds from last year’s sale of Vasily Vereshchagin’s Crucifixion by the Romans. I am currently pursuing additional key [...]