Tom Campbell yesterday presided over his second press lunch since becoming director of the Metropolitan Museum last January. His delivery was more relaxed and “directorial’ than at any previous time I’ve seen him, and he even leavened his talk with two moments of well received humor—one at his own expense, the other (arrgggh!) at mine.
But first, the serious part. Here’s Tom, in his CultureGrrl video debut, commenting about recent positive developments at the Met. He followed these remarks by giving us a rundown of current and future exhibitions:
In discussing the current Velázquez Rediscovered show (more on that in a subsequent post), Campbell noted:
I was at the Prado in Madrid [where, he said, the Met’s rediscovered Velázquez may eventually be lent] and I gave a press conference over there. And I was photographed by all the Spanish press standing in front of this horse, pointing up his bottom. [General laughter.]
At the press lunch, he only showed us an unobstructed image of Velázquez’s “The Surrender of Breda”:
Velázquez,”The Surrender of Breda,” 1635, Museo del Prado
It includes a man at the far right whose features are very similar to the physiognomy of the subject in the Met-owned Velázquez, now the focus of a dossier exhibition. The most prominent feature of the Prado’s picture is the enormous, glossy horse’s rear in the right foreground, to the left of the twin of the sitter in the Met’s “rediscovered” portrait.
You can see Tom’s unintentionally goofy pose in front of the Prado’s painting by clicking here. [He probably meant to be gesturing towards the mystery man at the far right.] It’s a good thing Colbert didn’t get hold of this one!
When the director discussed the current Young Archer exhibition, your intrepid blogger (mercifully unnamed) came in for some gentle mockery:
There’s been much discussion in the blogs, even regarding the disposition of [the Archer’s] testicles. [General laughter.] Everyone should go and make his own decision.
This post was not my finest hour. It was inspired by a serious conversation about the purported Michelangelo that I had with a major Italian Renaissance art scholar, back when the “discovery” was announced in 1996. (That well known art historian was not, I should mention, the late James Beck, famous for being a contrarian gadfly and among those who publicly cast doubt on the ambitious attribution.) As you can see from my update at the end of my testicular disquisition, I somewhat revised my opinion of their “disposition” (as Campbell put it), after eyeballing them again myself.
Having made rash pronouncements about one bodily protuberance, should I boldly speak out about another? Probably not, but that’s unlikely to deter me from a comparative assessment (in a subsequent post) of Velázquez noses.
I obviously need a break: For the next few days, the only body parts that I’m going to grapple with are wings, thighs, legs and breasts. On this holiday, I do have much to be thankful for, including CultureGrrl Donors 91 and 92, from Maple Grove, MN and Baltimore.
How about an even 100 (or maybe six times chai) in time for Hanukkah?!?