For my ART 272 class Visual Assignment project, I studied object number 125, a carved wooden statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary, with a book in her left hand. Her right hand sits on her breast. The exact artist is unknown, but the statue was created in Northern Italy in the mid 15th century, possibly in Siena. The statue’s eyes point slightly downward, potentially at someone kneeling in front of the statue. This leads to a possible conclusion that the object was originally created for devotion, as it is not unlike modern statues created for devotion (although modern statues are much more complex in materials and make). At some point before 1960, the statue was acquired by one Lady Marcia Cunliffe-Owen, who owned it in a private collection in England. She also had some sort of residence in the United States, as letters in the Special Collections file include an address of 891 Park Avenue, New York City, New York. According to those same letters, it came with a Persian rug of some sort, and was donated on the suggestion of one John Shapely (whose relationship with Lady Cunliffe-Owen is unknown). Before donating it, it was appraised by Leon Medina, a semi-prominent art appraiser in New York at the time. He was the one to determine its origin and creation time. When it was donated, there was some miscommunication with regards to the donation. CUA thought that the statue had been given on a permanent loan (with Lady Cunliffe-Owen intending to make it a donation at some later date), but this was not the case, as a letter in early 1961 would confirm that the statue was always intended to be a donation. There are two relevant factors in this, the first being the fact that if the statue had been on “permanent loan” then it would have been legally still considered property of Lady Cunliffe-Owen, meaning that she would still be responsible for insurance, and the value of the statue would still be counted among her own assets (relevant for tax purposes, I assume). Thus, the change to an official donation would mean that the school is now in charge of the statue, and that the statue is not considered on Lady Cunliffe-Owen’s taxes. Presumably the very high appraisal of $20,000.00 USD (which, according to https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/, would be $191,700.00 USD today) affected the decision to donate the statue outright rather than giving it on permanent loan. Either way it is clear that Lady Cunliffe-Owen intended to donate the statue at some point, but it seems to me that she was planning on waiting for an opportune moment in order to perhaps offset some gains on her taxes. Perhaps after seeing the potential value of the statue she realized it would make much more sense simply to donate the statue outright rather than deal with the potential headache of donating it later.
The statue was reappraised on September 1st, 1981, to the tune of $5,000 to $6,250 USD (somewhere between $15,605.94 and $19,507.43 today). There are two possible reasons that this appraisal is so much less than the original 1960 appraisal. The first is that the object lost value through damage in those 20 years, which is possible although impossible to prove, as we have no pictures of the object in the Special Collections file from that time. The second reason could be that the object was simply not as valuable as the original appraisal thought, although why this would be is beyond my area of expertise. I assume art appraisal is complicated and the market can change a lot in 20 years. In June 1994 the object was officially “cataloged” by CUA Special Collections. It was perhaps reappraised on March 9th, 1997, as the object file gave that as the “Date of Appraisal” (seperate from the appraisal given by Mr. Medina and the appraisal given in 1981). However, there is no place on the object file for an estimated value for the object, so I am uncertain where the results of this supposed 1997 appraisal are. Either way, the location of the object (Curley Annex, 1st floor hallway) was officially confirmed on November 16th, 2015. I studied the object in February and March of 2022.
The object’s purpose was undoubtedly for devotion, but it has not served that purpose since CUA received it, and I find it unlikely that Lady Cunliffe-Owen used it for devotion considering she was willing to give it away and also that it was previously “In her private collection in England”. It is possible that the person who had it before Lady Cunliffe-Owen did use it for its intended purpose, but it is impossible to know. It would still be possible to use the object as it was likely originally intended, but given the condition of the object I’m not entirely sure it would make sense. Either way, the placement of the object almost actively prevents doing so, and prevents pretty much any interaction with the object at all. It is currently located in a dark, humid corner of a poorly ventilated hallway. While the positioning does mask the poor condition of the object, it also masks the object’s features and discourages interaction with passers-by. Moving the object (if possible) should be considered, for the benefit of all.
The object can give a unique perspective on Renaissance Art, but not without some critical thinking. As a work of art from 15th century Northern Italy, it remains relatively non-unique, but it does have the distinction of being a wooden sculpture, which while relatively common at all times are not usually studied when people discuss the Renaissance. Instead the focus is usually on paintings, or architecture, or stone statues and sculptures. All of those are generally more hardy through the ages, either through the nature of the material (stone statues) , the nature of the work (architecturally impressive buildings) or due to the easy ability to preserve them (in the case of artwork). Wooden sculptures/statues occupy a unique space where people do not perceive them as delicate or worthy of extensive protection, when in fact they can be if left in the wrong environment for too long. Excessive humidity, rapidly fluctuating temperatures, and other environmental factors usually considered important for protecting paintings are also important to protecting wooden works of art. This shows a unique factor of our study of the Renaissance, in that the things that survive are the things that people wanted to survive. While we study the masterpieces of the Renaissance because we consider them masterpieces even today, it is important to remember that they were protected through the ages because everybody thought they were masterpieces. Whenever someone studies history (particularly when that history is studied through works of artisans) it is important to remember that the only physical objects you have are the ones that people wanted to keep around. It is easy to see the works of the past as amazing when the not so amazing ones have been unintentionally destroyed by centuries of lack of care. This statue perhaps uniquely illustrates this point, as it is very damaged, being heavily pock-marked and cut in several pieces on its back. The base is either coming off or has come off in the past. Originally this must have been some pretty good work, for it to come to us through the ages, even in this relatively poor condition. Sadly, it appears that this object may die here, as it is placed out of sight in a corner where its condition will only get worse.
Another possible way that this piece illustrates our study of the Renaissance is through its mobility. Originally the object was created in Northern Italy. Presumably, it was created for someone in the area, although it is possible that it was created for someone farther away. In one way or another, the statue came into a private collection in England in the mid 20th century. The movement of the statue from Italy to England could have happened really at any time in those 500 years. It is possible that this statue was even created for some English person, or perhaps an Italian going to England, and thus its original destination was always England. Equally likely, however, is that this statue was intended to remain in Italy, or perhaps go to Germany, France, or Spain. It is impossible to know without more information regarding the original acquisition of the statue. In any case, the movement represents a clear European Renaissance identity through to the modern era. While some may consider the Renaissance primarily focused on Italy, or perhaps Italy and the Netherlands, the truth is that the entirety of Europe (and beyond, with North Africa and the Middle East) took part in the Renaissance and reaped eventual rewards.
After coming to a private English collection, the statue came across the Atlantic to the US (specifically New York City). This movement is somewhat important for our study of the Renaissance, as we are American. Unlike our European counterparts, we must acknowledge that much Renaissance artwork present in America only came to us in the past 200 years or so. These works only came here because of rich (sometimes eccentric) European or American collectors of the 19th and 20th centuries who enjoyed the works of the Renaissance. This is interesting because with an American view we can finally perhaps view the Renaissance with a somewhat more outside lens. An Italian studying the Renaissance studies much different things than an American, and in a much different way. This statue represents this difference in some way, as the change of hands from a rich English private collector to an American institution remains the most prominent feature in the work’s life outside of its creation.
Something rather interesting about this piece is the lack of a baby Jesus, as Mary is usually presented as holding Jesus. Instead, she is holding a book. This is very interesting, and can lead to many frivolous conclusions which perhaps do not have a large basis in evidence. Nevertheless, it is extremely likely that the book represents knowledge, learning, or perhaps education. This would be slightly surprising for Blessed Mary, but not necessarily entirely out of the question I suppose. The Catholic Church built and supported many educational institutions (such as our own), particularly in Europe before and during the Renaissance. A statue presenting Mary as a “Mother of learning” could have perhaps been created for University, or more likely a smaller institution of some sort (given that the statue is now in our possession). This interpretation makes CUA’s possession of it very apt, although it also makes the neglect of the object much more depressing. In the end, this statue shows off a Renaissance that was not only interested in redoing the old, but also creating new ideas and new representations of old figures.
In conclusion, the statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary is a lovely piece, although it does suffer from general damage, the potential impact on a devout believer is not necessarily decreased. It was created in the mid 15th century, and came to the University in the mid 20th, and has unfortunately languished in corners of hallways ever since. A change should be made, in my opinion. The statue should be placed somewhere out of the way, but still accessible. The ventilation should be better and the humidity should be somewhat lesser than where it is now. I do not think the object can survive another 50 years in the corner of a damp dark hallway. At some point in the past, someone suggested putting the statue in a glass case to preserve it, and while that would be useful, it would not solve the inherent problem, which is that people cannot really access the statue. If you moved the statue somewhere people could see and appreciate it, then more people would be interested in preserving it, thus fixing both problems.