Cézanne, “Madame Cézanne in the Conservatory,” 1891, Metropolitan Museum of Art
The journalistic benefits and pitfalls of the NY Times‘ de facto status as house organ for the Metropolitan Museum have recently been demonstrated not only by what the newspaper has published (yet another Met-related scoop, thanks to privileged treatment from the museum) but also, much more problematically, by what it hasn’t published.
“Philip IV,” the painting that the Times, in last week’s front-page story, breathlessly described as a “vindicated” Velázquez, I regard as vitiated Velázquez. When you’re handed a gift story, though, it’s hard to look it in the mouth. The result is great promotion for the museum but not necessarily great journalism.
The continued frustration of the rest of the scribe tribe with the Met’s “Times-first” policy can be dismissed by some as sour grapes from the scoop-less. But this sweetheart relationship between a news organ and news source starts to look like a Faustian courtship when one considers an important story, concerning an undeniable masterpiece at the Met, that for almost three weeks the Times has NOT seen fit to print.
On Dec. 9, Chris Herring and Erica Orden of the Wall Street Journal broke the story of a lawsuit filed against the Met in U.S. District Court by Pierre Konowaloff, an heir of the legendary Russian collector Ivan Morozov, claiming title to Cézanne‘s “Madame Cézanne in the Conservatory.” I followed up with a detailed report and analysis and provided a link to the complaint (a public document that the Times could easily have obtained).
This case is significant not only because of the painting’s importance but also because of the important precedent that could be set: Konowaloff, through his lawyers, is trying to claim that the same concessions that museums have made to claimants in Nazi-loot cases should also be extended to Bolshevik-loot claimants.
One might speculate that the Times agrees with the Met that this lawsuit “is totally without merit” and therefore not worthy of coverage, except for the fact that the Times has covered (albeit briefly) Konowaloff’s claim for another ex-Morozov work—van Gogh‘s “The Night Cafe,” in the collection of the Yale University Art Gallery.
Perhaps the Times will get around to the New York-based story when the Met’s lawyers file their response to Konowaloff’s complaint (not posted on the court’s website at this writing).
I’m not saying that the Times shouldn’t accept free scoops from important sources. What journalist in her right mind would turn down privileged access? (Bring it on!) But if coverage appears to be influenced by favors repeatedly granted, we’ve got, at the very least, a perception problem and, at worst, a professional problem.
For comments regarding this issue that were made publicly by Sam Sifton, the Times’ former cultural news editor, go here.