Years may pass without the work of the singular modernist Florine Stettheimer (1871-1944) appearing in the art market. His property went mainly to museums and universities. What made 2020 a memorable year, with five pieces appearing at auction houses and galleries across the United States.
Only two were actually created by Stettheimer. Of the other works, two were removed from the marketplace and the assignment changed in the third.
Stettheimer is loved for her ultra-feminine false-naive style, expressed in richly detailed paintings that often featured her circle of friends, including artist Marcel Duchamp, writer Carl Van Vechten and sculptor Elie Nadelman. But along with the problems of authenticity, current sales have raised another question: how do you rate an artist with a history whose work is rarely available?
Late last year, Boston-based Skinner auction house announced it would include a painting by Stettheimer, “Dancer sitting in a halo of electric light”, depicting a young woman with a big lamp behind her, at her fine art sale on January 22, and estimated the job at $ 70,000 to $ 90,000.
For at least one Stettheimer specialist, another type of lamp was lit.
“He is not a Stettheimer,” declared art historian Barbara Bloemink, who organized “Manhattan Fantastica”, the 1995 Whitney Museum of American Art exhibition Stettheimer with Elisabeth Sussman, and wrote a biography of Stettheimer that she is expanding substantially. She is also compiling a raisonné catalog. “It’s a shit kitsch thing, probably painted in the 50s or 60s,” said Bloemink of Skinner’s painting. “She would never have painted those strange, fluorescent colors.”
Bloemink said he called Skinner to tell them that the painting was misidentified. (Skinner holds the $ 375,000 Stettheimer auction record in 2016 for a floral still life.)
Robin Starr, Skinner’s director of American and European art, said the auction house had authenticated “Seated Dancer” with “some of Stettheimer’s obvious” experts, but she declined to mention them. In December, Skinner released “Sitting Dancer“ auction, calling it the result of “a difference of academic opinion”.
According to Starr, “Sitting Dancer” was sent home as an authentic Stettheimer by a San Francisco collector who recently purchased the painting through an intermediary and declined to comment.
This reporter managed to trace “Sitting Dancer” to Shapiro Auctions in Mamaroneck, NY, where it was sold last July for $ 375, including taxes under the name “Ballerina”. Dasha Badikova, an expert at Shapiro, said the work was merely “attributed” to Florine Stettheimer because there was limited validity to authenticate him. “There was no raisonné catalog” to check, she said.
This fall, another work that is said to be a Stettheimer appeared on lists at Rago Arts and Auction in New Jersey, part of an art treasure from Spanierman Gallery, an American art specialist that closed in 2014. The little ink-on-a paperwork shows a half-naked female figure, with extra arms and legs, reclining on a couch. Stettheimer’s name is at the bottom edge of the drawing, but the corner next to him appears to have been torn out. Alerted about the sale, Bloemink provided Rago with proof that the drawing was not a Stettheimer – but, in an interesting twist, he had belonged to the painter.
A photo taken in the bathroom of Stettheimer’s studio in the city center in the 1940s shows the design resting on the edge of a dressing table. Next to Stettheimer’s name, in the corner that is now missing, is the signature “Paul Thévenaz 1916”.
Dancer and artist, Thévenaz was friends with Stettheimer who appears in two of his real paintings – performing a handstand on “Sunday Afternoon in the Country” and taking a photo with a box camera in “Asbury Park South”. Known for his decorative painting and portraits influenced by Cubism, Thévenaz was on the rise when he died in 1921, aged just 30.
Meredith Hilferty, Rago’s director of fine arts, said the documentation accompanies the inventory of paintings that came from Spanierman, but not most works on paper. Rago did not question the lady’s provenance of many members until Bloemink weighed, and then Rago quickly changed the description of the auction, listing Stettheimer as provenance rather than artist. The draw was sold in September for $ 5,000, well above its $ 1,500 estimate. Hilferty said she did not know when or how the corner of the drawing disappeared. And with the death of Ira Spanierman, the gallery’s owner, in 2019, she said, “There’s really no one to ask.”
Bloemink also learned of a third falsely identified Stettheimer, who was to be managed by a gallery in Manhattan. “It was not a painting,” she said. “But I can’t tell you more. The owner is a friend whose business will be hurt. ”She said the owner returned the job to his dispatcher after talking to Bloemink. It is not clear whether this work is still being sold as a Stettheimer.
Born into a wealthy family, Stettheimer did not need or want to sell his art. She once said that “allowing people to have their paintings is like letting them wear their clothes”. After his death in 1944, most of his work went to institutions. Yet, from time to time, a legitimate Stettheimer appears.
In 1949, “Asbury Park South”, one of Stettheimer’s most important paintings, depicting an interracial crowd on a restricted beach in New Jersey, was donated to Fisk University by Florine’s sister, Ettie. In 2010, his finances were strained, the historically black school in Nashville quietly sold it to a dealer – an action that sparked criticism when the Times found out. It was the first time that a great Stettheimer appeared on the market in 20 years. Another dealer resold it at the Armory Show in New York in 2012 for an undisclosed amount.
In 2020, two legitimate Stettheimers – both accompanied by a lot of background – passed through New York galleries on their way to new owners. If a Stettheimer appears, it is usually one of his floral paintings, which was sold by Debra Force Fine Art. “We were thrilled about this,” said Force, “because his work doesn’t show up very often.” Force did not disclose the final price, but said the gallery originally asked for $ 600,000 and was satisfied with what the painting brought.
Galeria Alexandre also sold a genuine Stettheimer last year, the 1927 work “Fourth of July, No. 2.” Phil Alexandre, the gallery’s president, did not disclose the amount his new owner paid, but said that if “Fourth of July, No. 2” reappears in his gallery today, he would order between $ 775,000 and $ 825,000 and is confident he will sell quickly.
If so, why wasn’t a Stettheimer portrait of Marcel Duchamp sold at an auction at Christie’s in 2017? The unusual and important painting, framed by rows of silver “MD” s (Stettheimer used to draw his own frames), shows Duchamp twice – both as his conventional self and as his female alter ego, Rrose Sélavy. The pre-sale estimate was $ 1 million to $ 1.5 million, but it did not reach its reserve.
“The challenge with Stettheimer,” said Eric Widing, vice president of Christie’s, “is so little of his art reaching the market that people are lacking good price data to make an assessment.” But after the auction, Christie’s experienced what Widing called “one of the most active waves of after-sales interest I’ve ever seen”.
Within a week, he said, Stettheimer’s portrait of Duchamp was sold privately, “at a substantial price.”