Scandals, Vandals, and da Vincis: A Gallery of Remarkable Art Tales; by Harvey Rachlin.

I am still in the middle of reading this amongst other books, but it seems promising. A collection of various interesting tidbits, anecdotes and history of various art works including the famous Mona Lisa - did you know it had been stolen once, for quite some time with no clues? I certainly did not.

Then there is the critic who was sued by Whistler and lost, but Whistler was only awarded a farthing and went more into debt while Ruskin's friends took up a collection to pay his costs although he wasn't poor - but we know history turned the verdict around, and Whistler is far more the famous one through his simple and eternal evocative Mother. Does anyone know about the guy who criticised him in abusive terms and drove him into bankruptcy? Of course except for his descendants, only those that go looking for details of Whistler's life and trials and travails, and come across the man who was lacking in vision of art.

There are many, many tales, each a huge piece of history, and very interesting. There is the portrait by Holbein of a possible could have been consort for Henry the eighth, after he lost his third wife to childbirth when he finally had his first legitimate son. Duchess of Milan, Christina of Denmark, was related to the emperor of Spain and so the whole affair was politically suitable as well, but the king was adamant about marrying someone who would please him personally too and hence he sent around not only for portraits (a common tradition of those days) but insisted on meeting various candidates as well, and this is one candidate he was pleased with the portrait of to the extent that he signaled negotiations to begin for a marriage. That however was not to be, since the negotiations were connected to Spain, and Catherine being divorced had not been forgotten. Hence the Anne of Cleves was the next choice.

One of the telling stories - telling about a supposedly liberal artist as well as about this writer - is that about Nelson the hero of England and Lady Hamilton, love of his life. Both the artist who painted the picture the writer is telling the story of Nelson and Lady Hamilton in context of and the writer would like to be considered liberal and compassionate, but they straddle the fence without perhaps being aware that their compassion and sense of justice is faulty. They blame Lady Hamilton for qualities that go unpunished not only in men at all times, irrespective of time and culture and geography, but also in most women of high - read wealthy and socially considered upper class - origins. While superficially they indict Lady Hamilton for having an affair and generally being far from virgin or celibate, the exact same life story in another - any man or a woman born to wealth and position - not only goes unpunished but remains unspoken except in inconsequential whispers that might in fact lend glamour to the persona.

Lady Hamilton is in fact indicted and despised by the society then and the artist Redgrage and this writer now, for being of poor origins and achieving not only a position of wealth and glamour for a while, with social status and political achievements to boot, but also being fortunate in being loved and loving - and that too a hero of the stature of Nelson. He did not give her up in spite of the displeasure of not only society but even the king.


Then again, who ever claimed monarchs were virtuous, unless one is talking of the virgin queen Bess, beloved of England! One has only to read Daphne du Maurier's biographical Mary Anne. Or know about the ancestors of todays royal couple being illicit paramours a few generations ago. Hypocrisy amounts to ascribing one's distaste for someone to questions of virtue and vice - and all the while it is merely a question of if you knew the person socially, if you could have been related, in past or in future.
...................................................


One of course has to mention Guernica, however worthy other entries. The whole story of the wwII is something no one ought to be allowed to forget but this part, the beginning and the field where the axis weapons were tested and showcased, with the destruction of Spain in general and Guernica in particular serving as a show and a warning to other nations that might think of opposing the Axis, is often overlooked, and it is the theatre where many Europolitic factors became clear. There were those that helped the fascists, and then those that not only agreed to stay away but threatened to persecute such of their citizens who went individually to help the new nation of Republic of Spain, the democratically elected government being socialist. The net result was the poor populace got massacred, and this time the word is used literally.

Too many people on either side hold up the bombing of Dresden subsequently by allies as a heinous crime - forgetting not only the bombing of London with thousands of civilian casualties including women and children, but also the very purposeful destruction of Guernica and Spain, which was not at war with those that did the bombing, namely the nazis. And while it is not to say one murder is justified by another, it certainly ought to be remembered that you cannot expect to reap strawberries by sowing cactii. Or that while Dresden citizens might have been less innocent of the war and the nazi crimes, the poor of Guernica were entirely innocent by any criteria even if someone (neo nazi, for example) manages to argue that citizens of London deserved the few months long relentless bombings due to their nation not giving up to the nazis.

Picasso could paint, and he portrayed the massacre, the butchering of Guernica. The painting went home when fascism gave way and Spain became a democracy, according to his will.
.......................................................................................................




All in all, very interesting and thought provoking a read.