·
Go
to OpenStudio and to My Exercises, Block 1, Section 1, Exercise 1.3, Saved for
the nation.
·
This is a draft prior to access being given tro Open Studio because I
like to be in control of my own learning to a high degree – more than the
course specifies. Certain decisions will be made about what and how I submit to
Open Studio. It may be:
An
update of this
A
new project slightly more off-beam that reflects either:
·
In final OS draft but already visible here (in OU blog) to them and can
be accessed via my Twitter account.
·
Upload
your image to the slot.
·
See above.
· In
the slot’s description briefly describe the campaign that ‘saved’ the image you
have selected.
The ’campaign’ here is difficult to describe as such, although national
newspapers used government
press briefings which indicated that a temporary export bar was placed on
its sale by the Arts Minister John Glen as a result of lobbying from cognoscenti
near to the art establishment. These articles (see
Guardian November 17th) express the probable loss of the item
should the asking price for the item (over £497K including VAT) not be found
before May 1918. The minister talked about the piece as ‘iconic’ and ‘unique’: the
‘single most important example of Surrealist furniture made in Britain’. The
stress on the link to British manufacture was important. It is valued in terms
of its representativeness as an image or icon at one level (at this level this
sofa was not unique – there were 2 identical sofas at Monkton and one was
already sold and 5 had originally been made, with variations according to
identified sites of placement, for the commission for Edward James. Hence this
was not the only sofa representing Dali’s conceptual image, which James had asked
to be made from his knowledge of Dali’s
conceptual print (now in the Chicago School of Art), Mae West's Face which May be Used as a
Surrealist Apartment, 1934–35. There is a famous one in
Dali’s theatre-home in Figueres, of course.
If this
sofa was unique is that it was torn from its context and re-designed
collaboratively by patron and artist such that features matched the interior
furnishings of the drawing room of Monkton House, James’ residence. The black tassled
embroidered fringe in particular (looking little like the embroidery upon the
epaulettes of a picador … or matador, ’ was added to match the room designed by
Lutyens in 1902 and containing by 1930 a mélange of Victorian, Edwardian and
Surrealist ‘styles’. No doubt the Spaqish fantasy was a pleasing concoction of
both makers. James’ participation involved too lengthening the lip to make for
more functional seating.
Once the sofa was saved it was more common to see
its uniqueness as a ‘fascinating piece of interior design history, …’,
according to Christopher Wilks, keeper of V & A furniture and textiles.
What strikes me is the way in which terms like ‘unique’ and ‘single’ and ‘famous’
can be applied loosely to the ‘great artist’ Dali’s icon of Mae West lips, when
the originality eventually is to be found in its role in a object whose design
and making was in fact a historically time and space limited collaborative
adventure. The
Article in Dezeen (27th June 2018) – the source of much of the
above information – helps to clarify this more than I have space for here.
The
Committee’s function is to consider whether an item referred to it is of
national importance under any of the following criteria.
a)
Is it so closely connected with our history and national life that its
departure would be a misfortune?
b)
Is it of outstanding aesthetic importance?
c)
Is it of outstanding significance for the study of some particular branch of
art, learning or history?
The Applicant, whose interests are in selling the
item to the highest (and therefore non-British) bidder
answers ‘No’ to all these. The expert submissions counter all these
objections in
their submission. Issues of importance, in terms of the aesthetic and
learning criteria of the piece’s significance relate to ‘provenance’ and the ‘circumstances
of its creation’ (its history therefore), which take precedence over the mere
object in assessing its value.
Its importance then is not because of the
uniqueness of the object per se (there
are documented ‘related extant versions’) or its date (it is relatively recent)
is a reflection of the history of British interior design and the
collaborations / amalgamations that involved.
However it is clear that the Committee was also
influenced by the importance of the ‘image’ in the history of art and artistic
genius, labelling it, at the end of their meeting
minutes, ‘one of the most instantly recognisable pieces of furniture of the 20th
century.’ It is ‘recognisable’ not because of features of its importance in
interior design history but because the image is quintessentially attributed to
Dali’s genius.
Image or Object: Saving Mae West’s Lips for the Nation A844 EX 1.3 First Draft
Image or Object: Saving Mae West’s Lips for the Nation – or an example of 1930s interior design work A844 EX 1.3 First Draft
The next part of the exercise will involve OpenStudio. …
· Conduct an image search for one of the works that you have identified as being ‘saved’ following a successful campaign.
· The search took place on 18th September 2018 and started in the latest edition of Art Quarterly, to which I subscribe. A number of items attracted me but the most relevant to the discussion that is current in the relevant page was The Mae West Lips sofa from Monkton House (1938) by Salvador Dali (1904-1989) and his most important British patron, Edward James (1907-1984).
· Go to OpenStudio and to My Exercises, Block 1, Section 1, Exercise 1.3, Saved for the nation.
· This is a draft prior to access being given tro Open Studio because I like to be in control of my own learning to a high degree – more than the course specifies. Certain decisions will be made about what and how I submit to Open Studio. It may be:
· Make this slot visible to your tutor group.
· In final OS draft but already visible here (in OU blog) to them and can be accessed via my Twitter account.
· Upload your image to the slot.
· See above.
· In the slot’s description briefly describe the campaign that ‘saved’ the image you have selected.
The ’campaign’ here is difficult to describe as such, although national newspapers used government press briefings which indicated that a temporary export bar was placed on its sale by the Arts Minister John Glen as a result of lobbying from cognoscenti near to the art establishment. These articles (see Guardian November 17th) express the probable loss of the item should the asking price for the item (over £497K including VAT) not be found before May 1918. The minister talked about the piece as ‘iconic’ and ‘unique’: the ‘single most important example of Surrealist furniture made in Britain’. The stress on the link to British manufacture was important. It is valued in terms of its representativeness as an image or icon at one level (at this level this sofa was not unique – there were 2 identical sofas at Monkton and one was already sold and 5 had originally been made, with variations according to identified sites of placement, for the commission for Edward James. Hence this was not the only sofa representing Dali’s conceptual image, which James had asked to be made from his knowledge of Dali’s conceptual print (now in the Chicago School of Art), Mae West's Face which May be Used as a Surrealist Apartment, 1934–35. There is a famous one in Dali’s theatre-home in Figueres, of course.
If this sofa was unique is that it was torn from its context and re-designed collaboratively by patron and artist such that features matched the interior furnishings of the drawing room of Monkton House, James’ residence. The black tassled embroidered fringe in particular (looking little like the embroidery upon the epaulettes of a picador … or matador, ’ was added to match the room designed by Lutyens in 1902 and containing by 1930 a mélange of Victorian, Edwardian and Surrealist ‘styles’. No doubt the Spaqish fantasy was a pleasing concoction of both makers. James’ participation involved too lengthening the lip to make for more functional seating.
Once the sofa was saved it was more common to see its uniqueness as a ‘fascinating piece of interior design history, …’, according to Christopher Wilks, keeper of V & A furniture and textiles. What strikes me is the way in which terms like ‘unique’ and ‘single’ and ‘famous’ can be applied loosely to the ‘great artist’ Dali’s icon of Mae West lips, when the originality eventually is to be found in its role in a object whose design and making was in fact a historically time and space limited collaborative adventure. The Article in Dezeen (27th June 2018) – the source of much of the above information – helps to clarify this more than I have space for here.
The most telling ‘campaign’ event – with some (rather manufactured) drama is the justification of the export ban based on the deliberations of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and Objects of Cultural Interest (RCEWA), administered by the Arts Council.The ‘drama’ is represented by the debate in the papers about whether the item met the Waverley criteria for considering the item worthy of being saved by the nation. These criteria are as follows:
The Committee’s function is to consider whether an item referred to it is of national importance under any of the following criteria.
a) Is it so closely connected with our history and national life that its departure would be a misfortune?
b) Is it of outstanding aesthetic importance?
c) Is it of outstanding significance for the study of some particular branch of art, learning or history?
The Applicant, whose interests are in selling the item to the highest (and therefore non-British) bidder answers ‘No’ to all these. The expert submissions counter all these objections in their submission. Issues of importance, in terms of the aesthetic and learning criteria of the piece’s significance relate to ‘provenance’ and the ‘circumstances of its creation’ (its history therefore), which take precedence over the mere object in assessing its value.
Its importance then is not because of the uniqueness of the object per se (there are documented ‘related extant versions’) or its date (it is relatively recent) is a reflection of the history of British interior design and the collaborations / amalgamations that involved.
However it is clear that the Committee was also influenced by the importance of the ‘image’ in the history of art and artistic genius, labelling it, at the end of their meeting minutes, ‘one of the most instantly recognisable pieces of furniture of the 20th century.’ It is ‘recognisable’ not because of features of its importance in interior design history but because the image is quintessentially attributed to Dali’s genius.