Well done and bravo for restoring it and bringing it to the public. I do hope many are inspired and learn about our past and don't judge it like a twitter memo.
You'd think more than a 1000 people would Have watched this great story and work. And I'm just a dummy... But hey art, lets check it out. Beautiful... just
I get it, its a great painting...but I don't entirely understand how something of this importance ends up in New York, when the Queen of England or the Louvre is in its grasps..The provenance looks pretty tight but the summary you have given on the website makes it seem like "this painting was lost for a century after WWII and was found hanging in an English country house and ended up at the MET"...unless in your case, ownership doesn't abound for its location.. I wish I can show my face, grimacing..it sounds slightly ridiculous.. but bravo?
Austin D In order to understand how a work of this importance finds a home in New York (rather than in the UK) one only needs to perform a quick Google search. The entire story with all the facts and details is thus freely available with a minimum of effort. In brief: 1) the painting was not “lost” - it was in a private collection in a stately home and thus did not appear in scholarly literature or the public eye for 170 years and 2) the Le Brun received a UK export license because the British didn’t prioritize the painting.
@@tdmthomas you do realize the MET has categorized the painting as lost.. lol I am only against the story being told.. it doesn't match.. and again I am arguing that since this 'is' such an important work.. I am questioning its importance because it was bought by a New York institution rather a European one..please don't tell me I need to do a Google search like I am an adolescent.. p.s. Google lies.
@@austind3459 I urge you to read the document "The Jabach Portrait: An Extraordinary Acquisition," which can be found on The Met's website. It outlines the history of the Jabach portrait from its offer for private sale to its acquisition. You are right to advise caution in regard to Google searches but it also hosts a wealth of information pertinent to this topic, available from trustworthy sources including gov.uk, The Arts Council, and the New York Times (among others).
Why shouldn't NY end up with it? What makes one country more entitled to a painting than another ? The UK is full of paintings by non English painters but don't see you commenting about that
Well done and bravo for restoring it and bringing it to the public. I do hope many are inspired and learn about our past and don't judge it like a twitter memo.
Great attitude!! Great pieces of art belong in museums
Next time I go back to the MET I have to make sure that I see this painting!!!
I loved that someone from an auction house did the Indiana Jones "This belongs in a museum"
RIP Jayne Wrightsman.
Fantastic news!!
You'd think more than a 1000 people would Have watched this great story and work.
And I'm just a dummy... But hey art, lets check it out. Beautiful... just
Bravo!!!!
J'habite à Taubaté, Vale do Paraíba - SP Brésil. Succès pour votre chaîne RUclips ; 10 novembre 2021
I get it, its a great painting...but I don't entirely understand how something of this importance ends up in New York, when the Queen of England or the Louvre is in its grasps..The provenance looks pretty tight but the summary you have given on the website makes it seem like "this painting was lost for a century after WWII and was found hanging in an English country house and ended up at the MET"...unless in your case, ownership doesn't abound for its location.. I wish I can show my face, grimacing..it sounds slightly ridiculous.. but bravo?
Austin D In order to understand how a work of this importance finds a home in New York (rather than in the UK) one only needs to perform a quick Google search. The entire story with all the facts and details is thus freely available with a minimum of effort. In brief: 1) the painting was not “lost” - it was in a private collection in a stately home and thus did not appear in scholarly literature or the public eye for 170 years and 2) the Le Brun received a UK export license because the British didn’t prioritize the painting.
@@tdmthomas you do realize the MET has categorized the painting as lost.. lol I am only against the story being told.. it doesn't match.. and again I am arguing that since this 'is' such an important work.. I am questioning its importance because it was bought by a New York institution rather a European one..please don't tell me I need to do a Google search like I am an adolescent.. p.s. Google lies.
@@austind3459 I urge you to read the document "The Jabach Portrait: An Extraordinary Acquisition," which can be found on The Met's website. It outlines the history of the Jabach portrait from its offer for private sale to its acquisition. You are right to advise caution in regard to Google searches but it also hosts a wealth of information pertinent to this topic, available from trustworthy sources including gov.uk, The Arts Council, and the New York Times (among others).
Why shouldn't NY end up with it? What makes one country more entitled to a painting than another ? The UK is full of paintings by non English painters but don't see you commenting about that
Nice painting,not a fan of 17th century French art...cheesey, overly ornate, all about the Kings and courts.
Great to see male curators for a change. No nonsense.