Testimonial from Mr D., a collector. - Lot 0

Testimonial from Mr D., a collector. Every art collection is a mixture of artistic interest, bargains and good or bad taste. It reflects the collector's interests and constitutes a biased, intuitive and selective identity card, its reasons and deceptions, a skilful blend of calculation and impulse. This collection is no exception to the rule. Acute collector's disease is not hereditary or incurable, so private collections are destined to return to the auction rooms, and that's the way it should be. I won't call this one ordinary or extraordinary, nor will I retrace its history, because it's a lifelong journey, and we evolve, our interests change and sometimes become blunted. What counts is the result, what's on show, and that's enough to bear witness to everything else. I'll say little about the modern and contemporary art collection, as my artistic training has given me broad access to this chapter of art history, and I'll concentrate on the elements that this collection has enabled me to discover, and the debt I owe it, notably the discovery of popular art, its richness and variety that fine art teaching overlooks, and of a few artists, often neglected, those we wish to help people discover. As far as modern art is concerned, this collection does not exclude the recognized masters, but extends far beyond them without compromising the quality of the works. The Cobra group is well represented, but in addition to Alechinsky and Jorn, Jean Raine's freshness of color and transparency, the feverishness of gesture from which emerge a few ghostly figures escaped from some delirium, avoids blending and impasto and produces an abstract watercolor effect. Among the matiéristes, we should mention Jean Piaubert, whose restrained, sober, cosmic-telluric style evokes, in muted tones, some mandala from distant galaxies. We should also mention Jean Lurçat, better known as an upholsterer, represented here by a beautiful, desolate landscape from his experiences on the front in 14/18 and a set of pottery pieces characteristic of this thorny style, where the stars resemble thistles. He is the elder son of Graham Sutherland, also the author of devastated landscapes from the Second World War and of a thorny style in which controlled, sublimated aggressiveness comes to the fore. Let's not forget François-Auguste Ravier, who, along with other landscape painters, is the local of the stage, a contemporary of Barbizon, who, over the shoulder of the Impressionists, through his boldness and freedom, joined abstract landscape painting, a sort of little Turner from Lyon, darker and more tormented, but also much more affordable. We should also mention this beautiful bluish Manessier evoking a shimmering lake. Finally, Serge Charchoune, one of the many figures to emerge from the Russian avant-garde, is a pioneer of abstraction, but an elegant, racy abstraction, infatuated with arabesques and monochromatic cameos evoking a musical universe based on subtle synesthesia. There's a constant dialogue between modern trends and popular, naive, even childlike aesthetics. This collection bears witness to this. That's why a snuffbox sculpted by a farmer in the Gers or Quercy regions can stand side by side with Fautrier or Alechinsky without blushing. A ceramic by Talbot can evoke an African fetish, a statue by Alain Kirili the art of the Cyclades, Jean Rustin the madness of a Francis Bacon, but more restrained and meticulous, more French too. Place a straw marquetry piece next to a Picasso ceramic and a certain connivance spontaneously emerges, revealing the precariousness of our aesthetic judgments, our scales of value, our taste. On what is the value of a work based? The author's name? Rarity? Age? State of preservation? Authenticity? Name is generally associated with presumed authenticity. The more prestigious the name, the more tested and approved the authenticity, the more unique rather than multiple the work, the greater its value. But take away the name, deliver the work to anonymity, as is the case with folk art, and the value, deprived of support, decreases. Material, age, condition and workmanship are important but secondary criteria. Our appraisals are not based on the eye alone, but on a cultural montage in which the eye is only one part of the expertise. Is this set-up fair? Legally sound? How reliable is it? Most of the time, our assemblies betray dichotomous judgments expressed by dualities: scholarly art/folk art, civilized art/primitive art, figurative art/abstract art, major arts/minor arts, great masters/small masters, plastic arts, etc.