In a country whose populace has a reputation for not voting as diligently as it can — and should — it strikes me as a little odd that so many institutions are using voting contests to attract interest and involvement.
But here’s another one, a new experiment in “visitor engagement” at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, and it raises an issue: Since Mar. 31, the MIA has been asking people to vote on the conservation destiny of a painting in its collection. I wonder if that is a choice that should be left “to the people.”
It’s a little more complicated than that, of course. Here’s the short version of the story: For years, MIA curators have suspected that the red sportsman in the foreground of a painting called Landscape with a Watermill (above right) by Meindert Hobbema was not painted by the artist, but rather was added at a later date. Recently, they confirmed their suspicions: he was added in the 19th century. The question is, should the figure be left there, as is, or removed?
MIA has posted this story on its blog “The Bubbler,” is asking the public to vote on the question.
Hobbema has earned his reputation as a great landscape painter of the Dutch Golden Age, so this is not some throwaway painting by an unknown. As curators did their research, they discovered from auction records that the sportsman was added between 1810 and 1828. A 1809 record leaves him out of the description, while the 1828 and later records put him in it.
Why would the painting have been altered? Here’s what MIA says:
It’s impossible to know the exact reason, but we do know that in the early 19th century, sporting subjects were extremely popular, particularly in England. Perhaps it was added at the request of the owner, or to make the work more desirable (therefore commanding a higher price) at auction.
Yet, as the MIA also writes on the blog, the addition of the huntsman shifts the mood of the painting. Take a look at the painting without the huntsman, above left.
What to do? The MIA is asking blog visitors: “Does the painting benefit from the removal of the sportsman? Should a paintings conservator mask the 19th century addition of the sportsman (this process is completely reversible)? Or is the figure now part of the painting’s history?”
Nowhere does the MIA state its strong opinion or whether it will be bound by the vote (and that’s a good thing).
At the moment, votes are running nearly 60% to 40% against removing the sportsman, even though the process would be reversible.
Yet I side — and I suspect most art experts side — with those who want to take him out, and return to the painting to Hobbema’s original vision. He’s the artist, afterall.
So what does MIA do if the public strongly feels otherwise? To return to my question, is this the kind of question that should be put to the public? If MIA can manage expectations, and disappointments, it’s ok. It is a great learning experience. But if the public thinks the vote will determine the outcome, then it’s not ok.
Voting ends May 31.
Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Minneapolis Institute of Arts