Art lovers’ letters framed gallery’s ‘wild Chagall ride’
It was early April and a National Gallery of Canada painting by Marc Chagall, La Tour Eiffel, was having a successful exhibit — in Hong Kong.
The Gallery was planning to sell the Chagall and use the money to buy a painting of St. Jérôme by Jacques-Louis David. Christie’s, the auction house, was showing the Chagall to impressed and wealthy viewers.
“It has been much admired in Hong Kong. Hopefully this will bode well for the sale,” a Christie’s official wrote to Gallery officials.
But while Hong Kong was happy, revolt was brewing among the Gallery’s patrons in Canada.
Art lovers are an articulate bunch, as shown by their politely incensed letters to the Gallery,
and these have now been released (minus the writers’ names) under an access to information request. “Folly.”
“A garage sale.”
“An insult to all of us who love art.”
They didn’t pull their punches about the Chagall sale, which was later cancelled. Some claimed the Gallery has an artistic élite that is out of touch with the viewing public.
Others pointed to last year’s Chagall exhibit at the Montreal Museum of Fine Art which drew 302,992 visitors in five months.
One anguished plea came from a doctor in Nunavut who was heading out to deliver a baby when the news came on the radio.
“It really was a visceral feeling of no, no, no … wrong decision,” the doctor wrote.
He or she recently saw a Chagall show in France “that was so grand. I’ve always loved most of his art and I also find his life story affecting and profound. I had not previously known that much of the art world thinks his work is mediocre. They are wrong.
“I’d ask that you do anything you can to keep that fabulous red sky and the Eiffel Tower in Ottawa.”
Another well-travelled art lover wrote of Chagall’s curtains at New York’s Lincoln Centre, which “reassure me there is beauty, pleasure, energy and love in the world.” Chagall’s Tour Eiffel, he or she says, should have been on display in Ottawa long ago.
The “heartbroken” writer adds that “I fear the public — in Canada and the world — will lose another great painting. A public work of art will probably go to a private collector. That the Gallery tried, without success, to offer it to another Canadian gallery or museum will not soften this real possibility.
“Once this Chagall is sold, there is no going back. The Gallery bought it with taxpayers’ funds, for the Canadian public. It is highly unlikely that we will ever be able to afford to repurchase it or purchase a similar painting from this artist.”
Others were more brusque: “This makes me think of a garage sale.” Here are more voices: “How could you keep a piece of art by this master hidden away when it should have been proudly on display for all to see? I frankly do not care how many PhDs were involved in the decision. It was ill thought out and an insult to all of us who love art.”
“Please do NOT sell the Chagall — please pull it from Christie’s auction. I gather the NGC had only 2 Chagall — it would be a mistake to lose this one which is obviously significant as it has been independently valued at $6 to $9 million USD.
“Chagall is important to Canada because he served as a beacon of hope in a troubled century to Jews who fled the Holocaust to have a life in Canada.”
“Maybe the curators were tired of the painting but not necessarily the viewing public.”
“Chagall is part of our collective art history. He inspired a whole generation of immigrants from one of the greatest world tragedies — to hope and dream of freedom.”
“In the 1950s the Guggenheim (Museum) decided they had too many Kandinskys so they had a sale of a dozen or so ‘excess’ works. Needless to say history has not been kind … It’s a very slippery slope you have started on, museums across the country will act on your precedent …” (Wassily Kandinsky was a Russian painter.)
“I am wealthy enough to have travelled to Europe to see his work but many Canadians are not. Their only chance of appreciating one of his paintings is when they visit the National Gallery. Visiting a gallery should open our eyes to the world. I will no longer support the Gallery.”
“Really disheartened to see the gallery sell a Chagall painting and not even exhibit it. You only have 2 paintings by Chagall. If it is not of historic significance why is it worth so much?
“The sale of the Chagall has scant support among Canadians yet the administration seems to blithely not care. If there isn’t room to display a second Chagall, then we hardly need another over-rated Lawren Harris …”
“So sad we are losing one of only two Chagalls belonging to us!”
An art teacher wrote “it is one of my very favourite paintings, and the magicness of it is so appealing on several levels. I hope you can find some other way of raising the money you want.”
One writer noted the Gallery already had $8 million on hand for acquisitions, and argued using this would be better than selling the Eiffel Tower.
“Chagall is part of our collective art history. He inspired a whole generation of immigrants from one of the world’s greatest tragedies — to hope and dream of freedom. It would be tragic to lose this gorgeous Chagall.”
The Gallery has said it did not want to spend its whole budget on one work.
Handwritten by a gallery visitor: “Where does the notion that 1 (one) Chagall is enough come from? ...” (The museum planned to keep its other Chagall, Memories of Childhood, calling it “more appropriate in the context of our strong collection of modernist works than The Eiffel Tower.”) “Reconsider this folly.” There were a few letters of support, mostly from people who believed the Gallery was selling a Chagall to buy a prominent Canadian work: “I want to express my excitement about the sale of the Chagall in order to acquire a Canadian work of art.” The writer hoped the new work would show a woman, but was happy that at least it was going to be “Canadian or Indigenous.” (It isn’t: The new painting was to be by a male artist from France, and portrays a man.)
A second writer also supported the sale, since the proceeds would purchase a work of Canadian art. He suggested Tom Thomson. But the Gallery had not promised a Canadian artist; rather it talked about our “national heritage” — because David’s St. Jérôme was owned by the Catholic Church in Quebec, but not painted here.
Inside the Gallery, staff were riding out the storm, repeating the message that they were protecting a part of our heritage that might otherwise leave the country. The David painting was finally identified more than a week later.
Opposition was strongest in Quebec, Mayer wrote after being verbally battered in one of many radio interviews. In a note to a friend he called that period his “wild Chagall ride.”