一幅究竟值5200美元還是520萬(wàn)美元的畫(huà)作

The viscountess had decided to downsize.

子爵夫人決定節(jié)儉度日。

When Lady Hambleden, the former wife of the fourthViscount Hambleden, moved from her stately manorto a cottage in a village outside London, she had littleroom, and even less desire, for the Aubussoncarpets, Louis XV chairs, Regency girandoles andlesser English paintings that populated her estate.

第四任漢布爾頓子爵(Viscount Hambleden)的前妻漢布爾頓夫人從富麗堂皇的宅邸搬到倫敦郊外的鄉(xiāng)村小屋，屋子里地方不夠，她也沒(méi)什么興趣把原來(lái)大宅里的奧布松地毯、路易十五椅子、攝政王時(shí)代燭臺(tái)和那些不那么英國(guó)的油畫(huà)搬過(guò)來(lái)。

 

 

So, in 2013, she held a kind of “Downton Abbey” tag sale at Christie’s in London. Among the300-plus items she put up for auction was an oil sketch that copied “Salisbury Cathedral Fromthe Meadows,” one of the best-known works of the great 19th-century English landscapepainter John Constable.

于是，2013年，她在倫敦佳士得舉辦了一場(chǎng)“唐頓莊園”式的拍賣(mài)會(huì)，拍賣(mài)300多件物品，其中有一幅油畫(huà)草圖，模仿《洼地那邊的塞利斯伯爾利教堂》(Salisbury Cathedral From the Meadows)，那是19世紀(jì)偉大的英國(guó)風(fēng)景畫(huà)家約翰·康斯特布爾(John Constable)最著名的作品之一。

“The painting was so black, so somber and a little nightmarish, with dark clouds and a ghostlikecathedral, I never considered it as important,” Lady Hambleden said in a phone interview.

“這幅畫(huà)太黑暗、太陰郁，讓人有點(diǎn)害怕，畫(huà)面上有深暗的云朵和鬼魅般的大教堂，我從來(lái)不覺(jué)得它有多重要，”漢布爾頓夫人在接受電話采訪時(shí)說(shuō)。

Listed as the work of a Constable follower, it sold for just £3,500 (around $5,200).

這幅畫(huà)被標(biāo)記為康斯特布爾的模仿者所做，以3500英鎊賣(mài)出(約合5200美元)。

But the anonymous buyer, an art dealer, had a hunch. Real Constables were often paintedover during the 19th century, when their rough, seemingly unfinished quality put offprospective purchasers. So the dealer had it cleaned and took it to a leading Constable expert,Anne Lyles, a former curator at Tate Britain.

這位匿名買(mǎi)家是一個(gè)藝術(shù)商，他卻產(chǎn)生了一個(gè)預(yù)感。在19世紀(jì)，康斯特布爾的真跡經(jīng)常被涂改，因?yàn)樵瓉?lái)畫(huà)面上那種粗糙，看似未完成的特質(zhì)會(huì)令可能的買(mǎi)家望而卻步。所以這位藝術(shù)商清理了畫(huà)面，把它拿給重要的康斯特布爾專(zhuān)家——安妮·萊爾斯(Anne Lyles)，她曾是英國(guó)泰特美術(shù)館的策展人。

“When I first saw this sketch, newly cleaned, there was just something about the applicationof the paint, the texture in the sky and the expression of the light and shade — all lookedpromising,” she said recently in a phone interview.

“第一眼看到這幅新近清理過(guò)的草稿，便可以看出顏料的應(yīng)用，天空的質(zhì)感，以及光與影的表達(dá)方式——一切看上去都很有希望，”最近，萊爾斯在接受電話采訪時(shí)說(shuō)。

In January, the painting, now deemed a true Constable by Ms. Lyles, was sold at Sotheby’s inNew York. It fetched $5.2 million.

這幅畫(huà)已被萊爾斯女士鑒定為康斯特布爾真跡，一月，這幅畫(huà)在紐約蘇富比拍賣(mài)行賣(mài)出，達(dá)到520萬(wàn)美元。

At a time when the attribution of paintings can be so litigious that many experts haveretreated from the field, the startling reassessment of the “Cathedral,“ and its suddenexplosion in value, provides a rare window into the often imprecise, and debate-riddled, fieldof identifying the authorship of artworks.

如今這類(lèi)鑒定非常易于引起爭(zhēng)論，因此許多專(zhuān)家都退出了這個(gè)領(lǐng)域，而這幅《教堂》以及它的突然大幅升值為人們提供了少有的機(jī)會(huì)，可以一窺藝術(shù)品作者鑒定這個(gè)充滿模糊和爭(zhēng)議的領(lǐng)域。

The Metropolitan Museum of Art has twice changed its mind in the past four decades overwhether its portrait of Philip the IV is a masterpiece by Velázquez (the current view), or a finepainting by an also-ran. Sotheby’s was sued after it sold what it had determined to be a copyof Caravaggio’s “The Cardsharps” for £42,000 (about $83,000) in 2006, only to have a scholarlater declare it was actually by the master himself.

在過(guò)去的40年里，大都會(huì)藝術(shù)博物館曾經(jīng)兩次改變主意，無(wú)法確定一幅菲利普四世的肖像究竟出自委拉斯貴茲(Velázquez)之手，還是另一位落選者的作品(目前該館認(rèn)為它是委拉斯貴茲的作品)。一幅名為《打牌作弊者》的油畫(huà)曾被認(rèn)為出自卡拉瓦喬(Caravaggio)的模仿者之手，2006年，蘇富比將此畫(huà)以42000英鎊(合83000美元)拍出，一位學(xué)者鑒定此畫(huà)是卡拉瓦喬本人所做后，蘇富比遭到訴訟。

This time it is Christie’s that is facing questioning over whether it bungled the attribution of apainting. “We understand that there is no clear consensus of expertise on the newattribution,” the company said in a statement.

這一次佳士得也面對(duì)質(zhì)疑，他們是否弄錯(cuò)了畫(huà)家。“我們理解，對(duì)于這項(xiàng)新鑒定，專(zhuān)家沒(méi)有清晰的一致意見(jiàn)，”公司在聲明中說(shuō)。

It then provided the name of an expert who holds a different view from Ms. Lyles. “I could seeno sign of Constable’s hand in the work,” said Conal Shields, an art historian and Constablescholar.

之后公司公布了一位不同意萊爾斯意見(jiàn)的專(zhuān)家的名字。“我在這幅作品中看不出康斯特布爾親手繪制的跡象，”藝術(shù)史學(xué)家與康斯特布爾專(zhuān)家康諾爾·西爾德斯(Conal Shields)說(shuō)。

Nonetheless, some in Hambleden, an idyllic village of brick and flint cottages that was thebackdrop for movies like “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang” and often fills on weekends withequestrians and shooting parties, say they feel aggrieved on behalf of the viscountess.

漢布爾頓小村莊風(fēng)景如畫(huà)，布滿磚石農(nóng)舍，《飛天萬(wàn)能車(chē)》(Chitty Chitty Bang Bang)等影片曾在這里取景，周末常常有騎馬和狩獵活動(dòng)。不管怎么說(shuō)，在這里，有人為子爵夫人感到憤憤不平。

“Lady Hambleden is a lovely person — very gracious, friendly and kind,” said Steve Skowron, aneighbor of the viscountess, who was Countess Maria Carmela Attolico di Adelfia when shemarried William Herbert Smith, the fourth viscount, in 1955.

“漢布爾頓女士是個(gè)好人，她慷慨、友好，善良，”子爵夫人的鄰居史蒂夫·斯科隆(Steve Skowron)說(shuō)。子爵夫人于1955年與第四任子爵威廉·休伯特·史密斯(William Herbert Smith)結(jié)婚的，當(dāng)時(shí)是瑪利亞·卡梅拉·安托里克·德·阿德?tīng)柗苼喤?Countess Maria Carmela Attolico di Adelfia)。

“She’s very well liked in the village,” he said. “She has an annual Christmas party and inviteseveryone over. The case of the John Constable painting is a very strange one. How canChristie’s have missed it? I think the consensus of the village is that she should sue.”

“村子里的人都喜歡她，”他說(shuō)。“每年她都舉辦圣誕派對(duì)，邀請(qǐng)所有人參加。這幅約翰·康斯特布爾的畫(huà)是件怪事。佳士得怎么會(huì)搞錯(cuò)?我想村子里的人都認(rèn)為她應(yīng)該打官司。”

Yes, admits Lady Hambleden, 84, when she first learned the painting was by Constable, “I feltlike a fool! I know it’s not my fault, but that was my first feeling.”

是的，84歲的漢布爾頓夫人說(shuō)，當(dāng)她知道這幅油畫(huà)是康斯特布爾的真跡時(shí)，“我覺(jué)得自己太傻了!我知道這不是我的錯(cuò)，但我的第一感覺(jué)就是這樣的。”

But she said she has no intention of suing over a work for which she had little affection andthat her mother-in-law had stuffed in a cupboard for 60 years.

但她說(shuō)，她不想為了一幅自己不怎么喜歡的畫(huà)打官司，60年前，她的婆婆把這幅畫(huà)塞進(jìn)了一個(gè)柜子里。

“It was sold under my name,” she said, “but on behalf of my children. So it would be theirdecision whether or not to bring legal action.”

“它是在我的名下賣(mài)掉的，不過(guò)卻是代表我的孩子們。所以由他們來(lái)決定要不要采取法律行動(dòng)。”

Her sons did not respond to a number of messages seeking comment.

本文作者多次發(fā)送信息要求她的兒子們對(duì)此作出評(píng)論，他們均未予以回應(yīng)。

In the 2006 case involving Sotheby’s and Caravaggio’s “The Cardsharps,” the reattribution alsocame after a scholar had the painting cleaned and restored.

2006年，蘇富比的卡拉瓦喬《打牌作弊者》一事中，也是畫(huà)面先做了清理和復(fù)原，再由一位學(xué)者進(jìn)行重新鑒定。

The consignor sued, alleging negligence and breach of contract. But in January a judge ruledin Sotheby’s favor.

拍賣(mài)委托者發(fā)起訴訟，稱拍賣(mài)行疏忽大意，違背合同。但是一月，法官做出了有利蘇富比的判決。

Karen Sanig, the head of art law at Mishcon de Reya in London, said the crux of the case wasn’twhether the painting was a Caravaggio or not.

倫敦Mishcon de Reya律師事務(wù)所藝術(shù)法部門(mén)的主管凱倫·薩尼格(Karen Sanig)說(shuō)，此案的重點(diǎn)并不在于那幅油畫(huà)究竟是不是卡拉瓦喬的真跡。

“It all comes down to a question of whether the auction houses carried out their analysis withenough care and attention,” she said. “Which the court found they did in the circumstances.”

“問(wèn)題在于，拍賣(mài)行做出分析是否足夠細(xì)致周到，”她說(shuō)。“法庭認(rèn)為在當(dāng)時(shí)的情況下，他們確實(shí)做到了。”

Ms. Lyles’s willingness to register an opinion on the Constable contrasts to the situation inthe United States, where scholars and artists’ foundations, like the Roy LichtensteinFoundation, are increasingly sitting out authentication battles because of fears of being sued.

萊爾斯愿意為康斯特布爾的作品發(fā)表自己的意見(jiàn)，這和美國(guó)當(dāng)前的情況形成鮮明對(duì)比。在美國(guó)，學(xué)者和藝術(shù)家基金會(huì)(比如羅伊·利希滕斯坦基金)擔(dān)心遭到控告，日益淡出對(duì)作者身份進(jìn)行鑒定的爭(zhēng)論。

“If you lower the reputation of an artwork incorrectly, then you’re liable for damages,” saidMs. Sanig, referring to the legal concept of slander of title to goods. “We don’t have lawsuitsinvolving artwork on the same basis in the U.K.”

“如果你錯(cuò)誤地降低了一件藝術(shù)品的聲譽(yù)，你對(duì)物主的損失便富有責(zé)任，”薩尼格說(shuō)，她是指詆毀物權(quán)的法律概念。“在英國(guó)，同樣的情況下就不會(huì)有涉及藝術(shù)品的法律訴訟案。”

Constable, who is known for his expressive brushwork, often done with a palette knife, andfor mixing colors on the canvas, is now viewed as a precursor to Impressionism. But fordecades after his death in 1837 his sketches were over-painted to make them more palatableto buyers who expected something more finished.

康斯特布爾以其富于表現(xiàn)力的筆觸聞名，經(jīng)常用調(diào)色刀作畫(huà)，還常常在畫(huà)布上混合色彩，如今他被視為印象派的先驅(qū)。他于1837年去世，在他去世幾十年間，他的草圖經(jīng)常被覆蓋和修改，好讓它們顯得更像已經(jīng)完成的畫(huà)作，令買(mǎi)家更易接受。

“He leaves bits of the primed canvas showing through a finished painting; he leaves thesevisible brush strokes; he doesn’t smooth out the tones of his colors so there’s an evengradation,” said Jonathan Clarkson, a senior lecturer in the history and theory of art at theCardiff School of Art and Design and the author of a monograph on Constable. “And at the timepeople just thought this was sloppy practice, that it was because he couldn’t paint betterrather than he was choosing to paint this way.”

“在完成的油畫(huà)中，他讓底層的畫(huà)布露出來(lái)，讓筆觸清晰可見(jiàn)，他從不把色調(diào)弄得平順緩和，也沒(méi)有漸變效果，”卡迪夫藝術(shù)與設(shè)計(jì)學(xué)院的藝術(shù)史與藝術(shù)理論高級(jí)講師約拿森·克拉克森(Jonathan Clarkson)說(shuō)，他還曾寫(xiě)過(guò)一篇關(guān)于康斯特布爾的專(zhuān)著。“當(dāng)時(shí)人們覺(jué)得這只是隨意的練習(xí)，覺(jué)得他沒(méi)法畫(huà)得更好，他們不明白他是故意這樣畫(huà)的。”

Complicating matters: as Constable’s reputation grew, forgers and imitators picked up theirpace. And one of his seven children was also an accomplished artist, whose work cansometimes be difficult to distinguish from that of his father.

更麻煩的是，隨著康斯特布爾的名聲漸漸增長(zhǎng)，偽造者和模仿者們也隨之而來(lái)?？邓固夭紶柕钠邆€(gè)兒子之中，有一位也成了成功的藝術(shù)家，他的作品有時(shí)候會(huì)被人和其父的作品混為一談。

So before Ms. Lyles would affix her name to a reattribution of the 18-inch-by-24-inchHambleden “Salisbury Cathedral,” she wanted to show it played a role in the evolution of thefinal work, rather than being someone’s imitation, albeit with brilliant brushwork. She foundseveral features that, to her, proved the link, including the striking way the light from thestormy sky falls on the Cathedral spire.

所以，萊爾斯為漢布爾頓這幅18x24英寸的《塞利斯伯爾利教堂》做出重新鑒定時(shí)，她希望說(shuō)明，除了精美的筆觸，這幅草圖還在最終作品的形成過(guò)程中起到了一定作用，并不是其他人的仿作。她發(fā)現(xiàn)了若干特征可以證明這種聯(lián)系，包括暴風(fēng)雨的天空中透出的光線落在教堂尖頂上這種驚人的方式。

Sotheby’s later hired her to write the catalog entry for the sale, for an undisclosed fee. “Obviously,” she said, “I’m not going to risk putting my name to something that I don’t believein.”

蘇富比后來(lái)雇用她為這次拍賣(mài)撰寫(xiě)拍品目錄介紹，潤(rùn)筆費(fèi)數(shù)額不詳。“顯然，”她說(shuō)，“我不會(huì)冒險(xiǎn)為自己不相信的事情而簽下自己的名字。”

With her imprimatur as the bedrock evidence, the painting was put up for sale as a Constableat Sotheby’s Jan. 29 sale. The bidding soon surged past the high estimate of $3 million andended light years from the high estimate that Christie’s in 2013 placed on the work — $1,200.

她的認(rèn)可被視為可靠的證據(jù)，1月29日的蘇富比拍賣(mài)會(huì)上，這幅畫(huà)被當(dāng)做康斯特布爾的真跡。拍賣(mài)迅速超過(guò)300萬(wàn)美元的最高估價(jià)，這和2013年佳士得為這幅畫(huà)所做的最高估價(jià)可謂相去甚遠(yuǎn)——當(dāng)年它的最高估價(jià)是1200美元。

And even that value would have been excessive for Mr. Shields, the dissenting Constableexpert: “It’s a really crass, inept painting.”

持不同意見(jiàn)的康斯特布爾專(zhuān)家西爾德斯覺(jué)得，1200美元也有點(diǎn)太多了，“這就是一幅粗笨拙劣的畫(huà)。”