Cubism, Which Changed Art, Now Changes the Met (+1 Billion Dollar Gift)

[onehandle]

Source: New York Times



In one of the most significant gifts in the history of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the philanthropist and cosmetics tycoon Leonard A. Lauder has promised the institution his collection of 78 Cubist paintings, drawings and sculptures.

The trove of signature works, which includes 33 Picassos, 17 Braques, 14 Légers and 14 works by Gris, is valued at more than $1 billion. It puts Mr. Lauder, who for years has been one of the city’s most influential art patrons, in a class with cornerstone contributors to the museum like Michael C. Rockefeller, Walter Annenberg, Henry Osborne Havemeyer and Robert Lehman. The gift was approved by the Met’s board at a meeting Tuesday afternoon.

Scholars say the collection is among the world’s greatest, as good, as if not better, than the renowned Cubist paintings, drawings and sculptures in institutions like the Museum of Modern Art in New York, the State Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg and the Pompidou Center in Paris. Together they tell the story of a movement that revolutionized Modern art and fill a glaring gap in the Met’s collection, which has been notably weak in early-20th-century art.

“In one fell swoop this puts the Met at the forefront of early-20th-century art,” Thomas P. Campbell, the Met’s director, said. “It is an unreproducible collection, something museum directors only dream about.”

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/arts/design/leonard-lauder-is-giving-his-cubist-collection-to-the-met.html

---

Popped up on my iPhone via NYT as breaking news.

This is incredible. Generous gift. This art should be in a museum.


Oh, and: Warning! Nudity Above!

[CincyDem]

1. It's cubist nudity. Who could tell ? n/t

[frazzled]

2. Good for him

He's been able to collect this work he loves and admires, and he's wise enough to know that it should reside in a public institution, where everyone can now benefit from it. Of course, I'm sure he gets a big tax write-off, but whatever. There's a lot worse you could do with your money. And the newer breed of collector, unlike Mr. Lauder, does not in general seem to be so civic minded: they tend to buy art as an "investment" or build their own private temples.

The Met is very lucky to get this collection.

[KG]

3. no Cezanne?

the father of cubism...?

[xtraxritical]

4. I thought Cezanne was a square.

[nolabear]

5. WOW. This is an awe inspiring collection. MOMA is going to be a destination more than ever!

I'm fond of cubism so will definitely get there. But the potential for offshoot books and other media will be great for the museum.

I assume this is the man who brought us Estee Lauder perfumes and cosmetics?

[CTyankee]

7. MoMA is not the Metropolitan Museum of Art. They are separate museums in separate

places in Manhattan. Here is the info on Leonard Lauder: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Lauder

His younger brother, Ron Lauder, did buy Klimt's Adele Bloch Bauer when it came up for sale and donated it to the Neue Gallerie in NYC. That painting had been demanded as payment for the Bloch Bauer family to leave Austria just before the Second World War. It was put in the Belvedere Museum in Vienna where it remained until a lawyer for the remaining members of the Bloch Bauer family finally convinced an Austrian court of judges to give it back to the heirs of its rightful owners. The Belvedere had argued it was theirs because it was their "rightful patrimony" as a nation. Those bastards.

[nolabear]

10. Oh Christ, I totally misread the OP. (egg on face). I thought it was the Museum of Modern Art.

I love these humbling moments. Sure I do.

[CTyankee]

12. I think it is easy to do. I lived in NYC for several years and now train in to Manhattan

from CT several times a year to go to exhibitions. So it's easy for me.

It IS confusing to someone who hasn't lived here. I grew up in Dallas and I sure didn't know the difference until I moved to the Northeast.

It's all good!

[srican69]

6. I am sorry .. my matchbox sized brain cannot comprehend this...

I am not questioning the beauty of the art ... but the monetary value ...

I can never figure out why a painting is worth more that all the houses on my block put together just because a rich man thinks so ...

[CTyankee]

8. And yet, great works of art have driven people insane for years...

look at the looting by Napoleon, so he could fill his Louvre. The wholesale and carefully planned looting of art by the Germans in the lead up to WW2.

Look at how works of art have driven people to banning them. Their value is powerful and people know that. They stir your heart and your emotions and people who rule by terror and suppression do not want that to happen.

I have been moved to tears by Van Gogh. Literally. I do not and will never doubt the power of art to do this ever again.

Speaking of that, you can go to youtube to see segments of The Power of Art by Simon Schama. I recommend it! It is dramatized and it is awesome!

[Earth_First]

9. I am hardly a rich man nor a smart man...

however methinks that the value is assessed by it's inability to be replaced. Priceless, really...

So for one to be valued at $70, 80, 100 million dollars is actually undervalued, actually.

[Dreamer Tatum]

11. It is precisely because a rich man thinks so.

Jesus, why does ANYTHING have value?

[onehandle]

14. Art is price by how much 'they' don't want you to have it.

Seemingly, these days.

It used to be priced by significance and rarity.

[leftynyc]

13. My favorite NY museum

This will be a terrific addition to an already impressive collection of art. Can't wait for the display.