Trumpets of the Last Judgment?

×

Expand

Marc Chagall, "The Eiffel Tower," 1929

oil on canvas, 39" x 32" (collection of the National Gallery of Canada, purchased 1956, accession number 6434)

Somewhere in the White House, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders may be shaking her head in disbelief and expressing some considerable relief. In emulation of Alice in Wonderland, perhaps she exclaims: “Curiouser and curiouser.” At least she is not the one required to publicly explain away the recent revelations swirling around the National Gallery of Canada.

Earlier this month, the gallery confirmed it is putting up for auction a painting from its collection: Marc Chagall’s The Eiffel Tower (1929). The news sparked a full-on national front-page controversy. Chagall patriots were aghast. Battle lines were quickly drawn. All the customary arguments were rehearsed, weighing the pros and cons of the wisdom and ethics of de-accessioning art acquired for public collections. We discovered little new territory was being explored. For all intents and purposes, this appeared to be a firestorm starved of oxygen; it certainly appeared that it would blow over. All indicators suggested the decisions were a fait accompli. The gallery had every administrative authority, right and mechanism necessary to proceed as it pleased. Whether we liked it or not, the decision was theirs to make. Being a Monday morning quarterback is a mugs game; trying to critique insider information from the experts, a losing proposition. We would soon enough learn the outcome.

Thereby, many of us who cared judged that to enter this fray would be futile and perhaps unwise. It’s not an ideal career move for an artist with works in the National Gallery collection to be seen as a vocal thorn in the side of the gallery’s publicly stated aspirations. Not commendable or brave, it is, perhaps, prudent. We left others to slug this one out.

Then a series of unexpected media stories broke. The gallery was not obligated to comment; it could have simply toughed it out. It seems, though, the gallery didn’t think the fire was sputtering out. It made itself available, even if the message was ambivalent, convoluted and guarded.

It could be argued that the gallery wilfully acted through the media to reassure Canadians that it has an excellent and defensible plan. It was offered that monies from the Chagall sale would be used to buy solely one outstanding work. The party line appeared to be that this Chagall, one of two the gallery owns, had languished in storage in the past and likely would for the foreseeable future. It was cold comfort to Chagall fans, who lamented the departure of this rather charming example of a modern master’s work. The gallery argued that, though regrettable, it was the lesser of two evils to sell an under-utilized work in order to save for the country a work of superior value to “the national heritage.”

Just because current staff members at the National Gallery do not value this work does not mean this would always be its fate.

It’s useful to remember that, in 1956, someone was insightful enough to buy the Chagall for the national collection, spending just $16,000, equivalent, according to a CBC report, to roughly $146,000 today. That’s considerably less than the $8 million to $11 million the painting is expected to fetch at auction. Just because current staff members at the National Gallery do not value this work does not mean this would always be its fate. Curators and directors come and go. However, while you may not agree with the gallery’s assessment about relative merit, it’s unquestionably within its prerogative to take these positions. So far, so good for the National Gallery’s stance.

Nonetheless, confusion and concern seemed to be mounting. Leah Sandals, of Canadian Art magazine, contacted gallery officials and reported their case for the proposed double transaction. Repeatedly, she emphasized her understanding that the new acquisition would be one outstanding work of Canadian art. Other media stories mirrored this thought.

This raised eyebrows everywhere: What one work of Canadian art would likely necessitate at least $8 million to $11 million? No one could fathom which artist could possibly be at that price level without already being well represented in the gallery’s holdings. Still, the gallery did not move to correct Sandals' surmises about the intentions, reasoning and plans detailed in her exhaustive, question-by-question 2,000-word inquiry.

When asked for comment about the decision to sell The Eiffel Tower, the gallery’s statement included this sentence: “Proceeds from the sale will be used to purchase an important work that is a part of our national heritage.” Not several works – not works in general – but “an” important work. It is a non-denial denial. It did not explicitly say the new work would be Canadian. It just left the inference out there, dangling. Most everyone took the bait.

Now, opposition to the transaction could be quashed in the name of national pride. It was perfectly clear in every media account that the public understood that the logic was to trade a work of French subject matter by an artist of Russian-Jewish heritage in favour of strengthening Canadian art holdings. As Sandals again observes, “de-accessioning a work of European art to acquire something Canadian or Indigenous meets collections criteria easily.” The gallery chose not to disabuse her, or other media, about the expectation that the target acquisition was a Canadian work.

The grumblings began to grudgingly dissipate. Despite the gallery’s annual acquisition appropriation of $8 million, it was argued that the Chagall sale was integral to making this new, still-undisclosed acquisition possible; no other scenario would work. Therefore, the Chagall goes on sale May 15. The matter is resolved. It is a done deal. The gallery gets to pocket the proceeds from the sale and go shopping.

What concerns many of us is the disingenuous way the gallery has allowed this transaction to be framed in public discussions.

However, a second shoe dropped on April 11. An online article for the National Post and other Postmedia newspapers postulated that the object of the gallery’s affection is not, after all, a Canadian work. It reported the desired work to be Saint Jerome Heard the Trumpets of the Last Judgment, an 18th-century painting by the French painter Jacques-Louis David, owned since 1922 by the Notre-Dame de Québec parish in Quebec City. That interest seems confirmed in a subsequent story in the Globe and Mail that quotes Nathalie Bondil, the director of the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts, itself interested in buying the David, as saying: “We know that there is an offer from the National Gallery, but I was never contacted by Ottawa, neither me nor Quebec.”

Meanwhile, the story had also taken another twist. Maybe the emergency was not to save the David, after all. Instead, the target was speculated to be a work by American minimalist Agnes Martin, who was born in Saskatchewan. Let’s leave aside the debate of which work is more desirable: the David, the Chagall, or a work by Martin. The National Gallery’s director, Marc Mayer, has said the target work is far more important to save for the nation than the Chagall. We’ll see.

What concerns many of us is the disingenuous way the gallery has allowed this transaction to be framed in public discussions. True enough, no military commander or sports coach telegraphs their every next move to the opposition. For this, the National Gallery is to be commended and supported; it is a wise institutional posture. When it was convenient for the gallery to hold to this strategy, it was happy to do so. As the discussion heated up, however, some slippage in the posture seems to have occurred.

With the Chagall prepared to go on the block at Christie’s in New York, we were told this unfortunate option was a last resort to stave off an even greater imminent danger of the target work leaving the country.

The National Gallery has signalled what price range it is willing to contemplate. Maybe it still wants the David. Or is it a Martin, or something else? Are staff members out on the lot kicking tires? Most importantly: Is there a convincing case for the necessity of a quick sale of the Chagall to save something else?

But I still believe there are other options without giving up the Chagall.

We have been told the gallery’s only viable option was to trade one for the other; we can’t have both. Therefore, bye-bye Chagall. On the superficial level, this establishes a causal link, money in; money out. While I want to believe this is the logic, my nagging suspicion is that we will find it to be a case of institutional professional preference: some like peanut butter, others jam. This is precisely what has made the practice of de-accessioning an explosive and divisive issue for art museums worldwide. It is why it is so rarely used as an acquisition device. You cannot possibly please everyone when you sacrifice a valuable 20th-century secular work from the department of modern art to buy an 18th-century Neo-classical religious picture. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

What is the role of the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board in both parts of such a transaction?

The decisions and complications facing decision-makers at the National Gallery are far more complex than most of us will ever understand. But I still believe there are other options without giving up the Chagall. For example, Britain’s Tate Gallery has held public subscription drives to raise funds to ‘save this work for the nation.’ The Kimball Art Museum in Texas has been known to bank its monies, spreading payments over multiple years. The National Gallery’s annual acquisition appropriation is $8 million. Perhaps I am naïve, but if the target is indeed the David, I wonder whether the gallery could not structure a deal with the church, finance the payments, say $2 million per year from its annual appropriation until it’s paid off, or else head to a bank. Who could be the other possible Canadian buyers for the David? None of the major museums in Quebec seem ready or able. This brings up the apparent threat that the target piece will leave Canada if the National Gallery doesn’t step up.

What is the role of the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board in both parts of such a transaction? It’s my understanding that before an export permit is issued to allow an important work to leave Canada for sale abroad, an application must be made and ruled upon by the board. If arguments have been successfully made to the board that a 1929 Chagall painting purchased for the National Gallery in 1956 – and a David painting long resident in Quebec – are not important to the national heritage, then I wonder what work could possibly qualify?

Was there ever any discussion whether this valuable Chagall, an asset from Canada’s national collection, could be offered for sale via a Canadian gallery or auction house before it was offered to Christie’s, an international private company?

To me, the fundamental issue is not the professional and personal preference of which work is better for the national collection. That is a matter for the highly skilled specialists at the gallery. The fundamental issue is about trust. Do we have confidence the gallery will make a wise trade? If not, is it better to leave well enough alone.

In 1988, the Edmonton Oilers famously traded Wayne Gretzky to the Los Angeles Kings. It provoked a catastrophic collapse of the Oilers, halting the dynastic Stanley Cup rule of the City of Champions. Who remembers the names of the players the Oilers received in exchange? We do, however, remember with acrimony that the owner received $15 million and Edmonton took a hit to its civic pride. It’s agreed that everyone needs to strengthen rosters by draft and by trade, but the question is whether your team is trading the family cow for a bag of magic beans.

Whatever the decision, there’s another issue to consider. Was there ever any discussion whether this valuable Chagall, an asset from Canada’s national collection, could be offered for sale via a Canadian gallery or auction house before it was offered to Christie’s, an international private company? The commission payable on an anticipated sale of $8 million to $11 million, or more, would certainly bolster the business prospects of any Canadian establishment. The presence of a Chagall in a Canadian auction catalogue would obviously bring international attention, often for the first time, to a broad range of other Canadian artists. In these electronic times, important international buyers would have found this Chagall no matter which Canadian city was selected for its sale. Strengthening Canadian commercial galleries and auction houses helps build art-support infrastructure. We cannot have a healthy commercial sector if our national institutions invariably shop their sales, as well as key purchases, abroad.

Often it is the obfuscation that can be one’s undoing.

To me, the crux of the problem is that the National Gallery has declined to clarify its intentions. It wilfully left uncontested the public’s expectation that the gallery intended to trade the Chagall for an important Canadian work. This permitted the gallery to short-circuit debate and gain public support for an otherwise contentious, infrequently employed de-accessioning mechanism. When you parse the statements, the gallery never said so directly. It can rightfully mount a disclaimer pointing to carefully worded phrases. However, unless current speculation about the target work is totally incorrect, it’s reasonable to conclude we were misled. When does a half-truth cross the line? There were opportunities to speak the plain truth, to set the record straight, without putting at risk the integrity and confidentiality of delicate acquisition negotiations.

A confidence, once broken, is a difficult thing to repair. Often it is the obfuscation that can be one’s undoing. I think I hear the blaring of a trumpet’s clarion call from David; perhaps in this Chagall case, it is, more appropriately, the ceremonial Jewish shofar. ■

UPDATE: The National Gallery of Canada announced April 16, 2018, that it is working to purchase Saint Jerome Hears the Trumpet of the Last Judgment (1779) by Jacques-Louis David with proceeds from the sale of The Eiffel Tower by Marc Chagall. Read the full statement by gallery director Marc Mayer.