A Russell Drysdale Painting?

Art Gallery NSW and Restorer

2006-05-03T19:00:00.000+10:00

It's been a while since my last update, and that is because I have returned to full time work and havn't had much time for this investigation. In the last couple of weeks there have been some interesting developments.

I finally managed to get Barry Pearce, curator of Australian Paintings at the AGNSW to have a look. His initial reactions involved a lot of chin scratching and head shaking. He was concerned about how small the signature was, and that the painting appeared to be coated with a very thick varnish - unusual for any painting. He also was concerned about the level of detail in the painting - that Drysdale was 'not concerned with detail'. In a way I was glad to hear this because this was one of my concerns when I first inspected the painting.

Although he noted that there were some arguments for it being a Drysdale (palette, plausible signature) his theory is that someone had found this painting, thought that it looked a little bit like a Drysdale so added the signature, then covered it in a thick coat of varnish so that tests with 'blue' or 'black' lights would not be able to discern that the signature was added long after the painting was completed.

However, he did acknowledge that this was just a theory, and that the only way to come to any definitive conclusion would be through forensics. He recommended that I take the painting to, a trusted restorer, to remove the layers of varnish over the signature area and then run the 'blue' and 'black' light tests.

So the painting is now at the restorer awaiting this treatment...

Provenance

2005-09-01T12:37:00.000+10:00

I finally have some information on the provenance of the painting. The painting was offered for sale in the March 2005 auction by Deutscher-Menzies with the title of 'Bayswater Road'. The vendor was a dealer from Melbourne, who bought the painting as a speculative buy, not sure if it was actually a Drysdale. The experts at Deutscher-Menzies took it to the Melbourne expert on Drysdale - Geoffrey Smith - who said that the pallette was correct, but was concerned about the exectution/technique, and therefore could not confirm it as a Drysdale.

This also solves the mystery of the sticker with the number '7708', which is the item number from Deutscher-Menzies.

All in the technique

2005-08-22T15:46:00.000+10:00

Recently I have been distracted with the task of trying to find the location of the scene in the painting. While this has been interesting, even if I were to find the exact location it would not really help in confirming the painting as a Drysdale or ruling it out. It would only really add to the interest of the painting. Maybe the exact location does not even exist. In a video I watched today on Drysdale, he stated that "Bell taught me how to draw from memory". Maybe this picture is an amalgamation of different elements of a typical inner city scene.

In any case, a better chance of determining the authenticity lies within the technique. Another quote from the video I watched today is as follows:

"I was taught to paint by the indirect method, and that is, instead of picking up paint already mixed and putting it on the canvas and leaving it there, I've been taught to build a composition up so that one uses an underpainting - posititve and neutral tones, and the glaze, a film of colour and paint into the glaze and gradually build up the quality of the paint that way."

The painting I have is very textured with what seems to be many layers of paint underneath. Although I have never seriously painted with oils, to me it seems plausible that this painting was painted with the technique described above. I'll need to have a look at some other Drysdale paintings, as the only ones I have seen are the ones that are currently on display in the NSW art gallery. Soem trips to the National Gallery in Canberra and the state gallery in Melbourne could be on the cards.

Barcom Avenue store sells a red herring

2005-08-15T21:37:00.000+10:00

I went out this afternoon to see if the store still exists, and to my surprise it did! Here it is:

Although its days as a corer store have long passed, it is still standing. A few things looked right about the location - narrow street, terrace houses surrounding it. There were also terrace houses behind from where this photo is taken, so I could imagine that there could have been washing hanging at the front of these houses as depicted in the painting.

The things that are wrong about this location is that Bayswater Avenue is at least 1 block away, but the big factor here is that directly opposite from where this photo was taken there should be terrace houses, but instead there is Darlinghust Primary School, which according to the school's website has been there since 1883, and was a water mill before that from 1810.

I think its time to focus on the other Bayswater Avenue in Kings Cross to see if there was a deli advertising McNivens Icecream there.

A corner store

2005-08-15T12:07:00.000+10:00

I have been researching on the Sydney City Council archives today for corner stores on either of the Bayswater Avenues I have recently discovered, but couldn't find anything. So I decided to search for corner stores in the surrounding streets, thinking that the corner store in the painting may have actually been on the other cross street. I found the following picture on the pictures australia website:

This picture was taken on 35 July 1940, and is at the corner of Barcom Street (which runs parallell to the Bayswater Avenue in Darlinghurst) and Liverpool street. The description of the picture is as follows: "Corner store advertises McNivens Icecream and Mothers choice flour". This sounded strangely familiar, so I inspected the signs on the store in the painting, and sure enough the words "McNivens Icecream" can just be made out.

Could this be the store? It has the same 'castle-like' brickwork around the top, if though a little more detailed in this corner store. Maybe artistic license was used to simplify the store when it came to painting it.

The lost roads - Bayswater Avenue

2005-08-12T15:48:00.000+10:00

My previous theory on the location of the scene in the painting was that it must be on Bayswater Road in Kings Cross / Darlinghurst. This is beacause a street sign in the painting says 'Bayswater..' then something illegible. After finding only Bayswater Road in the current street directory I assumed that this must be it, but what bothered me was that Bayswater road had always been a very wide, busy road, with trams running down it, whereas the painting depicts a smaller road, or even a back lane.

In the state library of nsw today I found a couple of old street directories from 1942 and 1950, which show that at these times there were two different Bayswater Avenues - one in the middle of Kings Cross off Bayswater Road, and one a bit further down in Darlinghurst off McLaughlin street. At some stage between 1950 and today these streets have been reclaimed and lost forever. However, my spirits have been lifted with this discovery because the size of these streets is more consistent with the painting. After arriving back home, I had another look at the street sign in the painting under the magnifying glass, and could definately make out an 'A' after 'Bayswater'. Now the next step is to see if I can find if a corner store existed on either of these Bayswater Avenues.

Pricing gun theory shot down

2005-08-08T15:45:00.000+10:00

Called Lawsons in Annandale today and was advised that the price gun sticker refers to Lawson-Menzies in the city - the same auction house that I bought the painting from, and the same auction house that is not being cooperative with any information.

Pricing gun sticker

2005-08-05T13:53:00.000+10:00

All over the back of the painting there are small stickers that have come from a typical price gun, as well as a bigger sticker with the number 7708. This bigger sticker is white with red numbers and looks like it was from an auction house. It was not the same as the stickers that they use at Lawson-Menzies, and for now I will assume that it is a sticker put on there by Deutscher-Menzies. This is where I was told the painting came from. It may have passed in at a Deutscher-Menzies auction, then given to their subsidiary company, Lawson-Menzies, where it was bought by me. I must get to Deutscher-Menzies just to confirm if this is one of their stickers.

Anyway, getting back to the smaller 'price gun' stickers. There is about 10 of them, all the same, with the number '117104 1' with a big gap between the '4' and the '1'. Until now I had no idea what this meant or who put them on there. Today I attended the general weekly auction at Lawsons in Annadale, which is another division of the same auction house that deals with general goods, deceased estates, furniture and other bric-abrac. On the items for auction here, as well as the auction lot number (not in the same style as the '7708' on my painting) they have the same price sticker with numbers in the similar format - ie. six numbers, then a big space, then a final number. In addition, they are stuck on in a similar fashion to the painting - lots of them, stuck randomly on the object.

I think this number refers to the seller of the item, so I hope to take it into Lawsons next week and ask them about it. With this new information, it is looking likely that this painting originally came into the auction house through Lawsons in Annandale. I'll give up persuing Lawsons-Menzies for extra information, and see what information I can get through Lawsons in Annandale.

Does size really matter?

2005-07-25T17:27:00.000+10:00

I picked up the painting from Sotheby's this morning. While I was there, Geoffrey Cassidy, the Deputy Directory came out to have a look at it. He agreed that if it was a Drysdale that it was probably early 1940's. He mentioned that the size was about the right size for what he was painting at the time, which reminded me that I had seen another Drysdale painting in an auction catalogue that was exactly the same size. I mentioned that to Geoffrey, who thought that was interesting.

When I got home this evening I found a reference to the painting that was the same size. It was a portrait of a girl (Drysdale's daughter, Lynn). It was listed as being 50x39.5, whereas the exact size of my painting is closer to 51x39.5. Still, fairly close. It will be interesting to research if any of his other paintings are this size, and then to see if this is a common partical board size for any other artists of the time.

Expert Opinions

2005-07-22T19:58:00.000+10:00

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.

Response from Sotheby's

2005-07-21T16:53:00.000+10:00

Sotheby's have just called in response to my email. Georgina, the Australian Painting consultant, says that from the image I emailed it does have some Drysdale qualities, but she would like to have a better look at it. Have made an appointment for tomorrow morning. The fact that they called back so soon gives me some hope that I may have a real Drysdale here, but I don't want to get my hopes up too high.

Where do I start?

2005-07-20T16:49:00.000+10:00

After admiring the painting for a few days, I decide that it is time to start researching it. My first step is to email the bigger auction houses - Christie's and Sotheby's - to see if they would be interested in having a look. Their painting experts may take one look at it and tell me straight away that it is a fake.

The Auction

2005-07-17T13:23:00.000+10:00

I spent this afternoon nervously waiting for lot 109 to come up. So many questions were running through my mind. Would there be any bidders other than me? How how would the bidding get? If the bid goes well beyond the estimate does that mean that there are some experts bidding who are convinced that it is a Drysdale, or does that just mean that there are other suckers out there like me? If I can get if for below the estimate, does the lack of interest provide further evidence that it might be a fake?

The auctioneer starts off with an absentee bid of $900. I wait a few moments before raising my hand (don't want to show that Im too keen!) for a bid of $1000. The auctioneer takes my bid and scans the rest of the room for a better one. She is about to drop the gavel when someone chimes in with a bid of $1100. Bugger! I think its the dealer at the back who has been buying just about everything. Oh well. At least I may not be the only fool. We battle it out for a minute or so and the gavel finally drops at $1600 - to me! A bit more than I wanted to pay, but I was willing to go a bit higher so not a bad result in the end.

Bayswater Road

2005-07-13T23:21:00.000+10:00

A street sign in the painting appears to read 'Bayswater Road', so I decided that my research today should focus on this. Considering that the known paintings that are similar to this one are all painted from 1942-1944, and because Drysdale was living in Sydney at this time, I think that this 'Bayswater Road' is probably in Sydney. There are a few Bayswater Roads in Sydney, with the most likely suspect being the one in Kings Cross/Darlinghurst because Drysdale lived in nearby Rose Bay.

I take a drive down this road, to discover that it is nothing like the Bayswater Road in the painting. There are no terrace houses here, although it is possible that there were terrace houses here when the painting was painted. I will need to go to the state library to see if I can find some photos of what this street looked like in the 1940's.

Some initial research

2005-07-11T22:48:00.000+10:00

I spent my lunch hour today in the Art Gallery's research library comparing a photo of the painting with Drysdale's known works, and also brushing up on my general knowledge of the artist. My thoughts at this stage are that there are some strong similarities in parts of this painting to some parts in his other works. For example, the clothes lines are similar to the clothes line in 'Sunday Afternoon' , the blue sky is similar to the sky in 'West Wyalongi', the red doors in the foreground are similar to the red in many of his paintings and the distinctive green colour is also found in 'The Cricketers' and 'Home Town'.

However, although parts of the painting can be related to parts of his known works, the painting as a whole can not be related to another work. I can't find any reference to another painting of an inner city street scene. I will hopefully be able to come back to the library during the week for some extra research.

ooh - that's a nice picture

2005-07-09T21:49:00.000+10:00

While browsing through the paintings on offer in the next Lawson-Menzies auction, I notice the above painting of a street scene with terrace houses. Referring to the gallery copy of the auction catalogue (I am too cheap to purchase my own copy at $15) it states that the painting is 'attributed' to Russell Drysdale. In 'fine-art land', this means that they think that it is by the artist, but they are not 100% sure, or something like that. Basically, it means that the auction house won't guarantee that it is by the artist, so if you later confirm that it is a fake there is no recourse you can take.

As I could never afford a confirmed drysdale oil, the possibility of picking one up cheaply is quite exciting. I enquire further. A young lady working for Lawson-Menzies tells me that their experts think that it is a Drysdale based on the colours and style, but because it is not signed they can't confirm it. Fair enough.

I take it down from the wall (after asking of course) and give it a closer inspection. After about 30 seconds I notice that in the lower right hand corner it is actually signed 'R. Drysdale'.

As well as being a small signature, it is signed in black paint on a dark background, so could the auction house have missed this? Or did they see it, and, for whatever reason, decide not to mention it? In any case, Im not going to be the one to point it out to them. I decide I'll have to do some research of my own.