Yes, a great review. I'd be interested too.
Thanks!
Althea

--On 23 January 2012 11:35 -0500 Hilary Robinson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hello Lara – Do you have details about where this review was published?
> Thanks!
> Hilary.
>
>
> On 12/29/11 9:32 AM, "Dr. Lara Perry" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
> Courtesy of Val Drummond -  [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 23 December 2011 19:47
> To: Perry Lara
> Subject: Review - Artemisia Gentileschi at Palazzo Reale, Milano
>
> The show continues until the end of January 2012
>
> **********************************************************
>
> On October 24,  2011,  I eagerly hurried up the steps of the 'Palazzo
> Reale' in Milan, notebook in hand, to see an art exhibition which
> promised to honour Artemisia Gentileschi, famous painter of the 1600s.
> This is the first show dedicated entirely to her work,  so I returned to
> the exhibit on two more occasions to study it in detail, hear the
> commentary in both Italian and English, and to stand before some of the
> new discoveries to admire them at my leisure.  Though I did not attend
> this exhibit with the intention of writing a review,  the review that
> follows essentially demanded to be written.
>
> In the promotion for "Artemisia Gentileschi: Storia di una
> Passione"(Palazzo Reale, Milano, to Jan. 29, 2012), we are told that
> the curators wish to focus on Artemisia Gentileschi's art, thereby
> introducing the gallery visitor to one of the great painters of the 17th
> century.
>
> If the intent is to lift Artemisia Gentileschi out of the stereotypes of
> the past, it is probably ill-advised to have us enter the exhibition
> through an art installation consisting of a rumpled bed, and a looped
> audio commentary reciting the explicit details of the rape of Artemisia
> Gentileschi by Agostino Tassi.  The words of the rape victim, from the
> trial record, are delivered by a woman's voice, in Italian.  The voice
> describes her unsuccessful attempt to repel Tassi and the inevitable
> penetration.  It is a short segment, which repeats over and over and over
> and over and over again.
>
> When you enter the next room, with the words of the rape trial still
> ringing out behind you, you confront the Naples Capodimonte version of
> "Judith Decapitating Holofernes".  It is the only painting in the
> room - a brilliant work by Artemisia.   The audio commentary, however,
> suggests that the piece was probably devised, conceived and requisitioned
> in Florence, by Grand Duke Cosimo II de Medici, shortly after the rape
> trial in Rome.  Apparently, simply being in the orbit of a great man like
> Cosimo II explains the exceptional quality of the composition.
>
> The subtext of the audio commentary accompanying this exhibition is thus
> introduced in the first room and maintained throughout -  you need only
> look to the great men in Artemisia Gentileschi's life to explain her
> success.
>
> First of all, she is born into a "long line of artists".  The family
> tree on the wall of the next room carefully demonstrates Artemisia's
> lineage on her father's side.  Interestingly, we have simply "first
> wife" (no dates) or "second wife" on the female line.  Actually,
> Artemisia's grandmother (second wife), a Lorenzini from Florence, also
> came from a family of goldsmiths and provided family connections in
> Florence for the goldsmiths in her immediate family.
>
> But even Artemisia's mother has only her name listed, with no dates.
> Apparently it isn't significant in this artist's life that her mother
> died when she was just 12.  A life-altering event.  No one can even
> determine this fact for themselves, looking at Artemisia's family tree.
> As Griselda Pollock proposed in her article, "Feminist Mythologies and
> Missing Mothers",  knowing this information about Artemisia has the
> potential to "shift the canonical meanings of her themes".  But in
> this family tree, it's all about the men:  a grandfather goldsmith and
> a father and uncles who painted.
>
> One of the first paintings in the family-tree room is a portrait of
> Artemisia Gentileschi by her friend, Simon Vouet.   To each side of this
> portrait are newly-discovered excerpts from letters which Artemisia wrote
> to her long-term lover, Francesco Maria Maringhi.  These previously
> unpublished letters were discovered in the archives of Cassiano dal Pozzo
> and are available for the first time in the book: Lettere di Artemisia,
> edited by Francesco Solinas.  We owe him a great debt of gratitude for
> his meticulous work on Artemisia's letters, which offer countless
> potential avenues for future research and will no doubt help us locate
> more of the "lost" works.
>
> This large room in the exhibit also features a painting by Artemisia's
> uncle, Aurelio Lomi, along with two paintings by her father,  Orazio
> Gentileschi:  "Santa Cecilia" (1603-05, an unpublished version from a
> private collection), and another work attributed to "Orazio and
> helpers".
>
> Though it is admitted in the commentary that Artemisia Gentileschi barely
> knew her uncle, Aurelio Lomi, and that she had no known connection to him
> or his style, the audio commentary for his painting ends with this
> statement:  "the re-use or exchange of preparatory drawings was a
> well-known practice in the family".  What are we to take from this, but
> the possibility that Artemisia may have used her uncle's cartoons?
> Artemisia was actually capable of her own exceptional compositions.
>
> So far in this exhibition we have been made aware of seven men: Agostino
> Tassi, Cosimo II de Medici,  Simon Vouet, Francesco Maria Maringhi,
> Cassiano dal Pozzo, Aurelio Lomi and Orazio Gentileschi.  We have, in the
> second room, seen one fine painting by Artemisia, but in next one we
> encounter several paintings by other artists and several paintings with
> questioned and questionable attributions.
>
> The works credited to Artemisia in this room include some paintings
> previously not included in her oeuvre, perhaps with good reason.  The
> amateurish "Judith and Abra with the Head of Holofernes" is described
> as "perhaps among the earliest works of Artemisia Gentileschi".  A
> "Ritratto di Monaca", was first proposed by Roberto Contini (Orazio
> and Artemisia Gentileschi, 2001) as a possible work by Artemisia, based
> on a black and white photograph.  The painting is here presented as an
> Artemisia,  despite the fact that the recently discovered original
> painting is even less suggestive of her authorship than the photograph.
>
> In the far right of the room there are two versions of "La Vergine che
> Allatta il Bambino", two paintings on the subject of the "Madonna of
> the Milk".  One comes from the Palatina in Florence and is presented
> side-by-side with another version very recently sold in Paris to a
> private collector.  They recall  the more familiar Spada Gallery painting
> of the same name in Rome, but these two do not involve the child
> caressing the mother's face.  All are considered very early works.
>
> In the next room we finally see the "Maddalena" from the Palatina
> Gallery in Florence.  It is an absolute joy to experience.  However,
> directly opposite this painting is a  huge copy of the painting, which
> has been mutilated.  In the mutilated version, the entire section
> depicting the head of the Maddalena has been chopped out and no doubt
> sold separately.  It is extremely jarring to be exposed to this and I
> have to wonder why it was felt important to display it.
>
> Another room, with many mirrors situated in the middle of the space, is
> focused on Artemisia's work in portraiture.  No one can fail to be
> impressed by two new full-length portraits by Artemisia Gentileschi, on
> display for the first time.  These two works alone would merit a visit.
> They demonstrate Artemisia's exceptional ability to capture character
> and attitude while at the same time rendering fabrics and light with
> absolute virtuosity.  Unfortunately, one of the tour guides leading a
> group of Italian visitors through the show still feels the need to
> question whether or not Artemisia actually painted the two new
> full-length portraits,  despite the fact that historical records comment
> on Artemisia's  skill at portraiture.
>
> Her portraits, however, if you believe the audio commentary, owe a great
> deal to another great man, A. Van Dyck, who arrived in Rome in 1621.
> Artemisia had already been painting portraits of the aristocracy in Rome
> after her return in early 1620.  And even though there is no evidence
> that Artemisia met Van Dyck, we are told that she likely saw his work and
> "naturally absorbed his style".   This is supposedly evident in the
> poses and attributes of her portraits.  She also owes a great deal to
> Vouet with respect to portraiture as well, if you believe the audio
> commentary which suggests she learned "shading and sophistication of
> expression" from Vouet.  A close examination of Vouet's portrait of
> Artemisia (1623-26) actually reveals a painter who could learn a great
> deal from his subject.  Artemisia paints with a great deal more subtlety.
>
> The possibility that other painters copied Artemisia's stellar
> compositions is not considered seriously enough in this exhibit.   One
> huge "Batseba al Bagno" is clearly  a copy.  Unfortunately, some poor
> imitations of Artemisia's work are among the best-lit paintings in the
> entire exhibit.  A  regrettable "Cleopatra" (dated unbelievably
> 1620-25, from Fondazione Cavallini), is prominently placed as you round a
> corner.  At the same time, other outstanding paintings, with widely
> accepted attributions to Artemisia, languish in dim light where it is
> nearly impossible to read the comments beside them.  They are literally
> "al buio"(in the gloom).
>
> As we move along, the audio commentary continues to honour the great men
> whose art influenced Artemisia.  We are told that Paolo Veronese's
> influence is evident in her  large and impressive "Ester and Assuero"
> (1626),  supposedly because a dog and a black page boy were originally
> included in the composition, then painted over, as revealed in ex-ray
> examination of the painting.  We are told that Artemisia was trying to
> use these Veronese-style figures. but likely couldn't succeed in
> painting them, so she left them out.  Unbelievably, even the rapist
> Agostino Tassi gets credit in the commentary for this painting.  We are
> told that the structure of the room has been constructed according to
> rules of perspective, which she learned from him.
>
> And then there's Giovanni Baglione.  Baglione's controversial
> "Allegoria della Pittura" was displayed in the 2002 New York exhibit,
> "Orazio and Artemisia Gentileschi",  and unfortunately shows up once
> again in this exhibition.   Baglione (or Filippo Vitale?) may well have
> painted this piece to ridicule Orazio and Artemisia Gentileschi, and now
> he is given another opportunity to publicly taunt them.  I distinctly
> remember being shocked by its presence in 2002.  Here, the painting
> simply hangs on the wall in the show, with no commentary.  Surely the
> viewer should be alerted to the controversy surrounding the work.  The
> card to the side of the painting simply credits the painting to
> "pittore Napoleatano della prima meta del seicento" (Napolitan
> painter from the first half of the sixteen hundreds).  It is a large
> painting occupying a full wall in this exhibit.  Again, the average
> visitor (and I watched them go through), does not read the card, has no
> audio commentary, and  probably assumes this to be Artemisia's work.
> Why else would it be there?  Why else indeed.
>
> While the show in New York in 2002 attempted to minimize the number of
> controversial attributions on display, this exhibition is overloaded with
> them.  Half of the paintings are from private collections, and several of
> them have recently emerged on the art market with attributions to
> Artemisia.  This is interesting in itself and would make a fine show -
> "Newly discovered work attributed to Artemisa Gentileschi:  Let's
> Talk".  However, because these works are distributed throughout the
> exhibition, often with no commentary, they simply detract and confuse.
>
> For example, Artemisia's exquisite "Danae" hangs in the same space
> as two paintings which bear no relationship to it.  On the left wall is
> the Baglione piece and to the right is the regrettable "Cleopatra",
> both mentioned above.   It is hard to reconcile how a person capable of
> producing the Danae is the same person associated with the other two.
>
> And here is where the language of the exhibition commentary must be
> mentioned.  The Danae is described as receiving coins on her skin 'in
> an almost indecent manner' which alludes to Zeus 'forcing himself on
> her' after 'penetrating her fortress'.  Add to this the following
> words used in reference to other works:  "This magic canvas (Maddalena)
> must have "aroused" the collecting ambitions of more than one
> patron". The Self-portrait with a lute is described as "an almost
> provocative image of Artemisia, the seductress and musician".  This
> language seems intended to titillate the viewer in a way that would not
> be contemplated for any other artist of her stature.
>
> And while it is impressive to hear in the promotional literature that
> over 50 paintings are involved in this exhibition,  we are missing some
> pivotal works of Artemisia's career.  The Pommersfelden "Susanna and
> the Elders" and the Royal Collection's "Self Portrait as the
> Allegory of Painting" are two obvious examples.
> Fully ten of the securely attributed Artemisia paintings included in the
> New York show in 2002, are not on display here.
>
> On a more positive note, the "Cristo e la Samaritana al pozzo" is a
> most valuable addition to the oeuvre of Artemisia Gentileschi, from a
> private collection.  It is displayed for the first time in this
> exhibition and it connects beautifully with a "Christ Blessing the
> Children" earlier attributed to Artemisia.
>
> The next-to-final room in the exhibition is a large one and the huge
> variability in quality that shows up on these walls is overwhelming.  It
> truly has the feel of a catch-all.  Anything that didn't fit anywhere
> else, hangs here.  The only conclusion one can draw is that Artemisia
> must have been very inconsistent in her production,   an unfortunate
> final impression of the artist.  It is possible that many will go away
> from this exhibition saying, "she had her moments" but that is about
> it.
>
> This might not disappoint one of the curators, Roberto Contini, who
> writes in the catalogue for the show that he considers Artemisia
> Gentileschi's art to be at a level beneath that of  Orazio Gentileschi,
> Battistello, Stanzione or Ribera (but not beneath that of Baglione,
> Gramatica, Vouet, Beltrano, Finoglio, De Rosa, Guarino and Palumbo).  He
> writes that he doesn't think Artemisia should be included among the
> greats simply on the basis of what he calls "meriti - se cosi si puo
> dire - extracurriculari" (extracurricular merits, so to say), but
> exclusively based on her specific talent.  Sadly, that talent is not
> truly honoured in this exhibition.
>
> Why is a large "Triumph of Galatea" by Cavallino prominently
> displayed here?  Some of us would know that he was a young painter in
> Artemisia's Naples workshop.  Others might know that a Washington
> version by the same name had been credited to Artemisia (in
> collaboration).  This version of "Triumph of Galatea", sold at
> Christies in 2007, is of interest only to those few who follow her work
> closely enough to know this kind of background information.  Most
> visitors by this point in the exhibition are absolutely exhausted from
> the effort of trying to locate Artemisia's work amidst everything else
> on display.   Others have breezed through, assuming everything is hers.
>
> Fortunately, the last painting in the last little room is hers, a
> book-end to the first painting in this show.  It is Artemisia's second
> version of "Judith Decapitating Holofernes", again a painting that
> will stop you in your tracks.
>
> If the visitor knows what to look for, "Artemisia Gentileschi: Storia
> di una Passione" offers some absolutely unforgettable art experiences
> and it's not to be missed.  There are over 20 paintings from private
> collections and we need to be very grateful to the curators for the
> opportunity to see some of them in exhibition for the first time.
>
> I only wish that some of the works by other artists, together with the
> paintings of questionable merit and questionable attribution, could have
> been displayed in a room of their own, as curiosities of interest to the
> "studiosi",  allowing the truly great works to speak to the gallery
> visitor directly.
>
> Instead, we are left waiting for the exhibition which will finally
> celebrate Artemisia Gentileschi's evolution as one of the greatest
> painters of her time.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by MessageLabs' Email Security
> System on behalf of the University of Brighton.
> For more information see http://www.brighton.ac.uk/is/spam/
> ___________________________________________________________
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by MessageLabs' Email Security
> System on behalf of the University of Brighton.
> For more information see http://www.brighton.ac.uk/is/spam/
> ___________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
> ---------------
> Hilary Robinson
> [log in to unmask]
> School of Art
> Carnegie Mellon University
>
>
>



Althea Greenan
The Women's Art Library/Make
Special Collections
The Library
Goldsmiths, University of London
New Cross
London SE14 6NW

http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/make