Skip main navigation
The Brooklyn Museum

Community: bloggers@brooklynmuseum




October 26, 2007

Demetrios gets CT scanned

Tina March @ 4:41 pm

ctresizelbtm.jpg
Photo by Adam Husted

Sorry for the delay in this post, but it was a long process organizing the CT scans. When we unpacked Demetrios, we were happy to find that the packing supported him well, and he had survived the trip on the LIE. We had a great time at North Shore Hospital with Dr. Boxt and his colleagues.

ctresizebooth.jpg
Photo by Adam Husted

First of all, we were able to confirm that Demetrios is an adult male. Next, we were able to tell that he was in very good physical condition when he died, indicating that he was probably a lot younger than we had previously thought. Dr. Boxt could find no indication of foul play involved in his death, and remarked that his bones showed no signs of degenerative disease. So for now, how old he was when he died and what he died from continues to be a mystery.

mummy_ct.jpg

When you look at the cross section of Demetrios above, you can see some of the things we did find out. Two of his ribs were broken during the mummification process (#5). There is an unidentifiable bundle in his chest, and it is possible that the ribs were broken to place this bundle (#8). This could be anything from more linen to soft tissue of the body, to papyrus. And finally, he was buried on a wooden plank wrapped within the linens (#6). Within the next few months, we plan to work with other physicians and Egyptologists who can help us further decipher the CT scans. In the meantime, we also have to prepare Demetrios for loan. The next few blogs will discuss and track the conservation treatment of Demetrios. I’ll be on leave for several months, so my colleague Lisa will be taking over the blogs -enjoy!

Powered by Gregarious (42)

October 24, 2007

Up Close and Personal – Statues and Their Meaning

Angie Park @ 11:42 am

CONS.09.937.1_.30DT_det27_1.JPG

The first time I came across the statues that sit along the top of the building was when I digitized images of the Museum’s exterior as an intern in the Archives. It was great to see some of the early images of the building and to see how it developed and changed over the years. The statues are part of our Museum’s history and a frequently asked research topic at the Libraries and Archives. When I was thinking about this post, I was curious to see what types of questions we’ve received in the past, so I took a look at some of our old reference request forms. Yes, in typical archives fashion we keep these forms and they can be very useful, such as in this situation. The questions about the statues include inquiries about specific sculptors, the meaning of the statues, who created them, and when and how they were made. Here’s a little background information on the creation of the statues.

statues_names.jpg

McKim, Mead & White, the architects of the Museum, included the statues as part of the Museum’s original design. The statues and the unrelated names inscribed below them were meant to represent notable aspects in the history of civilization. The statues in particular were symbolic and not intended to be portraits. This is visually reinforced by the fact that the statues and the names are not aligned, but staggered (see photo above).

french.jpg
Daniel Chester French in his workshop. Photo Collection: Museum building: exteriors [02].

The noted sculptor Daniel Chester French was given the responsibility of creating thirty statues of allegorical figures representing Persian, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Hebrew, Greek and Roman subjects. He enlisted a group of highly-regarded sculptors to assist him with the project (Edmund T. Quinn, Attilio Piccirili, Edward C. Potter, Karl Bitter, Janet Scudder, Augustus Lukeman, Charles Keck, George T. Brewster, Kenyon Cox, Herbert Adams, John Gelert, and Charles A. Heber). The finished statues were installed in 1909.

hoist.jpg
Finished statues being hoisted into position. Photo Collection: Museum building: exteriors [02].

Because of the continuing interest in the statues, we thought it might be a good idea to put together some images and information on them. This was a group effort which included various departments (Information Systems, Digital Collections and Services, Conservation, Planning and Libraries and Archives). See below for additional images and resources. Hope you enjoy them. (more…)

Powered by Gregarious (42)

October 19, 2007

Schenck Re-Installation 2007

Lisa Bruno @ 11:15 am


Slideshow created with Admarket’s flickrSLiDR. Having trouble seeing the slideshow? Photos are also on Flickr.

These slides show the Jan Martense Schenck House as it is being installed in its new location on the 4th floor. In the first few slides, you see the side view of the Nicholas Schenck House, grandson of Jan Martense.

The first step was to lay out the floor boards on a new substructure The boards were originally white pine (Pinus Strobus).

The next step was to erect the posts and braces that form the structure of the walls. These were made from oak (Quercus).

The posts (vertical elements) and beams (horizontal elements) were joined with mortise and tenons that were pinned.

Rigging and scaffolding was used to lift and position the very heavy timbers.

After the wooden sub-structure was built, the interior walls and window frames were inserted.

The attic floor is held up by supports called H bends.

Because the ceiling in the new gallery is higher than its former gallery , a new roof substructure had to be built, matching the pitch of the original roof.

Because of the new height, new roof shingles needed to be added and painted to match the shingles from the 1960 installation.

After paint cross section analysis and on advise of the Curatorial Department, the house was painted red, including the trim as would have been the convention in the 17th c.

Lisa Bruno
Objects Conservator

Powered by Gregarious (42)

October 12, 2007

Video entries are rolling in…

Shelley Bernstein @ 12:50 pm

Entries for our Visitor Video Competition are starting to roll in. We’ve created a YouTube playlist which can be seen in this post and we will keep updating it as entries are submitted. If you were filming that night and plan to enter, just a quick reminder that the submission deadline is October 29, 2007. See contest rules to ensure qualification.

Powered by Gregarious (42)

Pandora’s Book

Deirdre Lawrence @ 11:38 am

If Marshall McLuhan were a gypsy and his teacup the art world, the tea leaves would be artists’ books. —Ingrid Sishey (National Arts Guide, vol. 1, no.1, Jan-Feb. 1979, p.2-3)

This quote resonates so well with me as it points to the role artists’ books have both as messengers of information and works of art in themselves. From mass produced, or open editions to limited editions to unique bookworks – artists’ books underscore McLuhan’s ideas about the medium as the message. Artists’ books constitute a highly varied contemporary art form which can be described as artworks which exist within the structure of books. Usually these are books utilizing a sequence of pages to produce a stream of imagery - textual and/or visual. They employ a full range of forms utilizing unusual paper, typographic design and bindings.

Artists’ books are a vibrant part of the Brooklyn Museum Library Special Collections. The Museum Library started to actively collect artists’ books in the 1970’s and now there are approximately 2,000 titles with a collecting emphasis on multiples. In an effort not to duplicate what other art libraries are collecting in the New York area, we have developed a collection policy that focuses on:

  • Innovative works created by Brooklyn-based artists
  • Innovative works created by artists worldwide
  • Works created by artists either exhibited by the Museum or who have works in the Museum’s art object collection
  • Works that relate to the objects or cultures represented in the Museum’s object collection

pandoras.jpg PA060128.JPG

We try to present the artists’ books collection to the public either through display in exhibitions or through on-site visits and artist’s talks. This past Saturday we featured Angela Lorenz who is an American artist living in Bologna, Italy. Ms. Lorenz talked about her very innovative work entitled Pandora’s Book (1992). She creates mixed-media limited-edition artists’ books and uses them as a tool to convey cultural observations and historical research. As whimsical and humorous as some of her books are, each one is based on fact often derived directly from experts in architecture, anthropology, art history, textiles, and economics. This thought-provoking bookwork was recently donated to the Brooklyn Museum Library by Dorothy and Jerome Preston in honor of Dorothy Cochlin McCann (1899-1997), art historian and avid sewer.

On December 1st we are going to feature the work of Booklyn – watch our website for details and visit the Library Online Catalog to see what artists’ books we have in the collection!

Portions of this text are excerpted from an essay of mine published in the Artists’ Book Yearbook 2001-2002 (Impact Press, 2001). For copies of the essay or more information about artists’ books send us an email to library@brooklynmuseum.org.

Powered by Gregarious (42)

October 9, 2007

Art:21 @ Brooklyn Museum

Eleanor Whitney @ 12:11 pm

As an educational programmer I am always on the lookout for organizations with which we can collaborate to bring innovative and diverse programs to the Museum. I am especially excited about our upcoming film programs this weekend that are a partnership with Art:21—Art in the Twenty-First Century. Art:21 offers a unique perspective on contemporary art by giving viewers an often unseen look of artists working in their studios, installing, and reflecting on their works in progress. On October 13 and 14 we are showing a special sneak-preview of the episodes “Protest” and “Paradox” from their upcoming 4th season.

The episode “Protest,” showing Saturday, October 13 at 2 p.m., features artists Jenny Holzer, Nancy Spero, Alfredo Jaar and An-My Lê. The artists in this episode employ visual art as a means to provoke personal transformations and social revolutions. This episode is particularly relevant to the exhibitions featured in our Elizabeth A. Sackler Center for Feminist Art because it speaks to the themes of The Dinner Party and Global Feminisms Remix. Following the screening, Brooklyn-based artist An-My Lê will discuss her work (see above for a clip from “Protest” featuring An-My Lê).

On Sunday, October 14 at 2 p.m, we are screening the episode “Paradox” as part of our Caribbean Film Series. “Paradox” features the artists Jennifer Allora and Guillermo Calzadilla, whose video and photographs are featured in Infinite Island. The episode explores artists responding to paradoxes between global and local realities, and engaging with uncertainty in the art they create. Following the screening Eve Moros Ortega, Art:21’s Series Producer, will discuss the episode.

As I am committed to closely linking public programs to themes and questions that are raised by the works of art in our exhibitions, I am enthusiastic about the two Art:21 episodes that we are screening and the talks that accompany them. If you join us we would love to know what you think!

Powered by Gregarious (42)

October 8, 2007

Lights, Camera…..

Shelley Bernstein @ 7:23 pm

vid1a.jpg

On another Target First Saturday note, the Visitor Video Competition was shooting and we spotted a bunch of cameras, which was pretty exciting. From what we were seeing, it looks like we may have a variety of entries from folks shooting with high-end cameras, pro-sumer models, still cams and cell phones. It should be fun to watch the results of this roll in over the next several weeks. More on this soon…

Powered by Gregarious (42)

Twitter?

Shelley Bernstein @ 7:18 pm

twitter.jpg

What’s wrong with this picture? As it turns out, a lot. At the October 6th Target First Saturday, we decided to experiment with Twitter and this post will take you through the first wave of our experience. As with all new web ventures, we like to keep things as simple as possible until we get a feel for the requirements. When starting with Twitter, we decided to simply give updates at the event and not complicate the issue with the Twitter API, so I updated our feed manually throughout the evening. (more…)

Powered by Gregarious (42)

October 5, 2007

Purchasing a Major Work of Art for the Collection – part VI

Joan Cummins @ 10:11 am

The search for an object to purchase in honor of the soon-to-be-retired Curator of Asian Art began more than eight months before I arrived at the Brooklyn Museum, so I’m a little foggy on all the details of the earliest phases, but basically, the Curator and her supporters started contacting all the most respected dealers and auction houses they knew to see if they had anything really special available that might suit our purposes. Of course, no one said no. The local dealers said, “come on over, I have some wonderful things to show you.” The dealers in other countries sent images of their best holdings. The team was shown a wonderful array of objects, but as in any shopping experience, there were lots of pieces that weren’t quite right for the collection, some wonderful things we couldn’t afford, and a fair number of things that weren’t up to par.

Had we made these inquiries only fifteen years ago, we would have been offered a much richer variety of objects. Everybody knows that the supply of Asian antiquities has largely dried up, and dealers have been very hard pressed to find good material. That is, of course, kind of a good thing: it means that not as much material is being looted and/or exported illegally from Asia. And it means that a lot of the best material has already made its way into museum collections, where it is shared with the general public. But it also means that if one wants to buy something beautiful, one has to look a lot harder, and one has to sift through more B-level objects than one used to. And the A-level things are getting more expensive.

Shopping for antiquities is always a bit of a minefield, with issues of authenticity and provenance at the forefront of everyone’s mind. Nowadays, prices for Asian art are high enough that it’s worth it for skilled craftsmen to take the time to make good facsimiles. Certain types of Asian art have been forged for centuries. There are a lot of fakes out there. Scientific testing is a relatively good way to get answers about an object’s age, and the best dealers will have things tested before they offer them to their clients. Testing is most reliable for ceramics and some bronzes. But certain materials, most notably stone, are very difficult to test for age (one can analyze the surface of stone for patterns of wear and patination, but it’s an inexact science), and even testable objects can be faked, by creating a mostly new object using old materials.

People who spend a lot of time looking at specific types of Asian art develop a laundry list of telltale signs of forgery, as well as a strong sense of what an authentic object should look like. But the visual cues can be misleading, especially since the best forgers have been looking, too. Not everyone has the same laundry list, so there can be lots of debate, especially surrounding flashy new “finds.” (Some of this debate is clearly a matter of sour grapes: people who missed out on the find saying that it can’t possibly be real.) I’ve seen objects that I strongly suspected were forgeries at some of the best museums and galleries in the world, but I am well aware that my opinion of what is “fake looking” and what isn’t is just that: an opinion. Sometimes an object that looks slightly wrong is simply the authentic product of a provincial workshop or a quirky artist.

The other concern nowadays is provenance, or where the object has been. This is an issue that has received a lot of press lately, but the truth is that the vast majority of museums stepped up their level of caution long before the news coverage began. Certainly, most American museums once participated in phases of happy-go-lucky acquisitiveness, and they once subscribed to imperialist notions that Western collectors were “rescuing” artifacts from developing countries. They didn’t realize that they were doing something that future generations would consider inappropriate; they simply thought that they were bringing great art to the masses (and of course, they were…). But those days have been over for quite a while. Today, museums know that they must serve as models of good collecting behavior: if there’s nothing clean on the market, then you don’t buy anything, even if it would be fun to tout a new acquisition.

The very best way to determine that an object has not been stolen, looted, or removed illegally from its country of origin is to examine its history of ownership. For European and American paintings, that history can often be traced back to the moment when the artist made the painting. For antiquities and non-Western art of all types, the history is never that complete. The very best way to acquire an antiquity is to excavate it scientifically in a government-authorized dig. This is how many of the older Western museums acquired great collections of Egyptian and ancient Near Eastern art. But today, governments rarely allow removal of excavated artifacts to another country, and properly excavated materials almost never enter the market.

As much as it pains me to admit it, most antiquities that have entered the market (ever!) were unscientifically removed from the ground or from ruins, with no documentation of a find site or of the other objects that may have accompanied them. The responsible collector’s role today is to discourage further looting by refusing to buy anything that appears to have left its country of origin in recent years. The longer an object has been out of the ground, the better. Most countries passed laws in the early 1970s that made it illegal to export any object that was more than 100 years old. Museums aim to acquire objects that were exported before the laws were passed.

For museums, the ideal objects on the market are those that we know have been residing in a living-room or gallery since the mid-20th century or earlier. Ideally, one can get written documentation of the object’s recent history: the original bill of sale, maybe, or an old exhibition catalog with an image of the piece. Unfortunately for museums, this sort of documentation adds enormously to an object’s monetary value, and sometimes one sees rather ugly works of art selling for high prices because they have really good provenance. But aside from offering the collector a rare opportunity to acquire an antiquity without too great a dose of guilt, good provenance also offers a degree of reassurance about the authenticity of the object, because people weren’t making as many forgeries in the early 20th century as they are today (they were making some, but often not very well).

So all of this brings up the question of the provenance of our new Shiva. We were definitely looking for an object with an unimpeachable history of ownership, and the Shiva image satisfied our requirements. I can’t tell you the precise details, because some of the people involved are still living and have asked to remain anonymous. But suffice it to say that Brooklyn’s Shiva has provenance back to the mid-1960s, when a very well known Asian art collector purchased the piece from a reputable New York dealer. The bronze was in his collection for a short time, and then he gave it to a friend and colleague, who kept it in her apartment for more than 30 years before a prominent dealer finally talked her into selling it to the Brooklyn Museum.

Powered by Gregarious (42)

October 4, 2007

Conserving Watercolors: Under the Microscope

Rachel Danzing @ 9:47 am

quarry.jpg

In my previous post, I discussed how an adhesive introduced with an ultrasonic mister can be used to stabilize paint layers. Now you can see that close up as illustrated here of another watercolor in the exhibition, Quarry by William Thon, ca. 1952 (pictured above). Much of our work is done under a microscope which magnifies the area we are working on enabling us to be more precise and to see things not visible under normal conditions. As we work on a piece we can take photographs through the microscope known as photomicrographs which are included below. In this watercolor the artist used a range of techniques to apply his paint including a brush and a sponge, and by pouring and dripping paint onto the surface, wet on top of wet layers. Unfortunately, some of these layers are not well adhered to each other.

before.jpg

In the photomicrograph above you can see the top layer of brittle black paint which is lifting away from the underlying powdery yellow paint. We used the ultrasonic mister to treat this watercolor which worked very well for consolidation of the powdery yellow paint, where it would have been otherwise difficult and time-consuming to introduce an adhesive with a brush. For some of the larger paint flakes it was necessary to use the more traditional technique of inserting the gelatin adhesive to specific areas with a minute brush under magnification. See the after treatment photomicrograph below where the black paint has been set down and is no longer lifting away from the yellow layer below.

after.jpg

Powered by Gregarious (42)