INTRODUCTION ~ The discovery of JMW Turner's oil on canvas exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1793 ~ INTRODUCTION
We have had some rejections and for this reason continue to research and add unbiased results to the presentation.
We are also seeking reviewers who will examine the evidence methodically as we have done.
In this context reference to Evelyn Joll's comments in his 'Introduction to the First Edition of Butlin & Joll' seem appropriate:
'All these pieces of evidence are of help in the preparation of a catalogue raisonné of Turner's paintings, and in time no doubt our knowledge will be further increased by the emergence of lost pictures, or of pictures at present untraced. No fewer than thirteen oils, exhibited by Turner, have disappeared (in one or two of these cases there is doubt whether the works were oils or watercolours). There also remain untraced a further fourteen paintings which are either clearly documented or were lent to exhibitions while Turner was still alive, or which belonged to patrons whose relationship with Turner make the authenticity of anything owned by them beyond question. However, even if all these twenty-seven pictures were to appear, although they would doubtless provide us with a surprise or two, it seems unlikely that our view of Turner's art would be altered to any marked extent.'
'These vagaries in the accepted oeuvre of a painter, which occur over a prolonged period of time, have been most shrewdly described by Christopher White in his review of Seymour Slive's catalogue of Frans Hals' work (Times Literary Supplement, 28 November 1975): 'An initial period of discovery is accompanied by a spirit of optimistic expansionism; this is followed eventually by a mood of deep retrenchment, in which it almost becomes a matter of honour to reach negative conclusions, so that much of the baby as well as the bathwater tends to be thrown out. Finally a balanced assessment arrives at a solution somewhere between the two extremes.'
Evelyn Joll expected 'lost' works to emerge and cautioned that they might be unexpected.
[_RETURN_]
01_50
*[1] first expert
The first expert was from a major auction house.
The picture and stretcher were examined.
The following points were made in repect of the stretcher:
The bottom member was definitely right for the period.
Timber in the other members appeared to be different, possibly repairs.
The following points were made in respect of the picture:
It was somewhat intriguing that a former owner had valued the picture sufficiently to make the carefully executed repair
The extensive craquelure would make cleaning and restoration expensive.
The examiner did not believe it was by Turner.
*[2] second expert
The second expert was contacted by e-mail following discovery of several old newspaper and magazine reports describing a 'world expert', 'renowned Turner expert' and other such phrases.
The resolution of the image sent was limited due to use of e-mail.
Some time elapsed before receiving a reply which gave lots of information but of the candidate picture said only that it 'was interesting'. There was a little more correspondence by e-mail giving references for further research.
*[3] third expert
The third expert was a major auction house taking on-line submissions on their own template.
Due to the method the submission looked rather scrappy. There was no provision for text formatting or in text images. Images were attached on a different part of the template which would accept only very low resolution.
Their reply was 'insufficient provenance'.
That, of course, is valid in this case which is exactly why evidence from Turner's sketches and from the literature (now presented) is, as things stand, the only viable method of attribution.
*[4] fourth expert
The fourth expert was a team led by a well known expert in a major auction house. They examined scans of the candidate oil. Their reply indicated that they had not specifically examined it as a candidate for the 1793 picture. They rejected it by reason of connoisseurship.
01_50