Expert Opinions
Took the painting over to Sotheby's for Georgina to have a good look at it. She confirmed again that there we certain qualities about the painting that suggest it could be a Drysdale from the early 1940's, but that the composition was atypical. As far as she is aware, there are no other Drysdale paintings or sketches of inner city scenes, and that such a scene is more often done by fellow George Bell art school student Sali Herman.
I had previously considered that Herman did many of these terrace house scenes, but after studying many of Herman's paintings, the only similarity seems to be the topic. I couldn't find any other similarity in style, colour and technique. And why would someone sign it as a Drysdale, when a Herman would still have been of some value?
To answer any questions about the signature, a blue flourescent light was fetched and we proceeded to the forensics room (also known as the storeroom). Under the light there was no flaring around the signature, which suggested that the signature was added at the time the painting was painted. Phew!! I was a bit worried that this test would result in a negative conclusion, and my fun would be over.
This test wasn't conclusive though, and Georgina has other questions, mainly around why Lawson Menzies either didn't notice the signature, or if they did, why they didn't disclose it. And also, why didn't they consult the leading Drysdale expert - Lou Klepac - to get his opinion on its authenticity. Luckily, Lou would be dropping by Sotheby's this afternoon, and was keen to have a look. I leave the painting there, return home and wait for the phone call.
The call eventually came from Georgina, and the news was neither good nor bad. Lou had seen the painting and couldn't confirm it as a Drysdale, nor rule out the possibility that it could be. I was given Lou's number and followed up with a call. Lou's main concern is that he thinks that Drysdale would not have painted a scene of poverty stricken inner city houses, as he was from a wealthy background. My thoughts on this are that his background didn't stop him from painting scenes of poverty in country towns. He also thinks that it is not Bayswater Road in Sydney, which reminds me that I need to get my hands on some old photo's of the street to see if anyting matches. It is clear from my phone conversation that Lou will not 'baptise' the painting until he can see some solid evidence to suggest that it is genuine. This all seems qute reasonable, because as an expert in the field he could not risk his reputation by certifying something unless he is 100% sure.
I had previously considered that Herman did many of these terrace house scenes, but after studying many of Herman's paintings, the only similarity seems to be the topic. I couldn't find any other similarity in style, colour and technique. And why would someone sign it as a Drysdale, when a Herman would still have been of some value?
To answer any questions about the signature, a blue flourescent light was fetched and we proceeded to the forensics room (also known as the storeroom). Under the light there was no flaring around the signature, which suggested that the signature was added at the time the painting was painted. Phew!! I was a bit worried that this test would result in a negative conclusion, and my fun would be over.
This test wasn't conclusive though, and Georgina has other questions, mainly around why Lawson Menzies either didn't notice the signature, or if they did, why they didn't disclose it. And also, why didn't they consult the leading Drysdale expert - Lou Klepac - to get his opinion on its authenticity. Luckily, Lou would be dropping by Sotheby's this afternoon, and was keen to have a look. I leave the painting there, return home and wait for the phone call.
The call eventually came from Georgina, and the news was neither good nor bad. Lou had seen the painting and couldn't confirm it as a Drysdale, nor rule out the possibility that it could be. I was given Lou's number and followed up with a call. Lou's main concern is that he thinks that Drysdale would not have painted a scene of poverty stricken inner city houses, as he was from a wealthy background. My thoughts on this are that his background didn't stop him from painting scenes of poverty in country towns. He also thinks that it is not Bayswater Road in Sydney, which reminds me that I need to get my hands on some old photo's of the street to see if anyting matches. It is clear from my phone conversation that Lou will not 'baptise' the painting until he can see some solid evidence to suggest that it is genuine. This all seems qute reasonable, because as an expert in the field he could not risk his reputation by certifying something unless he is 100% sure.
posted by damo at 7:58 pm
2 Comments:
Lou Klepac can be very arrogant in his assessments. He is very dismissive of any Drysdale he doesn't know about and is happy to base his assessment on a basic photo rather than the work itself. Poor form for someone with so much influence on opinion.
Lou Klepac can be very arrogant in his assessments. He is very dismissive of any Drysdale he doesn't know about and is happy to base his assessment on a basic photo rather than the work itself. Poor form for someone with so much influence on opinion.
Post a Comment
<< Home