Monday, March 10, 2008

Norval Morrisseau Prints (Part II)

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

"SHAMAN & IMAGE OF A MERMAN", 22"x30", c. 1980s - Limited Edition Serigraph, Edition number not known © Norval Morrisseau
-
Source: EA Studios, Jasper, Alberta, Canada

28 comments:

ink guy said...

perhaps we are all over looking something here.
it just occured to me that we/I have not seen an "ugly" documented Morrisseau?
could someone post a well documented Morrisseau of "poor" quality to compare ?
I'm sure many would like to see how his work varied.
people jump all over many of the works claimed to be by Morrisseau because "they don't feel right". let's see how they compare to the inferior work's we know the artist did.
not sure we have explored this avenue yet?

Anonymous said...

Earlier in the blog their was a question to Bryant Ross regarding a painting he sold and that was listed on his archive page that then disappeared. Mr. Ross stated it was not the best Morrisseau he had but trusted it orgins (although not sure where the people he had bought it from had purchased it). Perhaps he would be willing to share this image with SW and blog members as a 'documented' Morrisseau of 'poor quality'. His comments on the painting as well would be appreciated.

AP

Anonymous said...

Bryant stated that he aquired it from a family that owned U-Frame -It in Ottawa. The store was owned by two brothers, who on occasion would sell a few pieces for him, but never sold anything TO him. I remember those days when M. would visit Bryant and Norval as well as a brilliant potter that used to work with them C.T. Those were days when these men were true to their work and produced work continually. My question is this;If you make a mistake on where the piece originally came from how does that effect the authenticity if it is found that it didnt come from that source? Also, could you tell us how many pieces you think he produced while he was staying at "the farm?" Thanks. m.g.

Anonymous said...

M.G. - are you familiar with the piece that Mr. Ross says he purchased from U-Frame It? Have you seen the image on his website? If so - would you think this is an authentic Morrisseau done poorly?
ap

Spirit Walker said...

The only reason, in my opinion of course, why Mr.Ross removed the painting in question titled "Story Teller" was that it's painted in the style of the "questionable paintings" from the 1970s. I would not be labelling this art piece as "an authentic Morrisseau done poorly".

I would really like to see the image in question again because I remember it very well. If Mr. Ross sends me the image I will post it here on the Blog for all to see. Thanks

Anonymous said...

SW - what would you label it if not a poorly done Morrisseau?

Spirit Walker said...

Why Mr. Ross does not send me an image of the "Story Teller" and I will explain it to you?

That's all I have to say about it at the moment. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

It also was not 10 years ago since I recall seeing it appear for sale and then removed to archive and then gone from archive and I have not been interested. I have only been collecting Morrisseau and interested in his work for approx. 7 years...

Anonymous said...

SW - please restate your response above to another blogger. I am not sure what you are saying
ap

Spirit Walker said...

To AP,
Why Mr. Ross does not send me an image of the "Story Teller" and I will explain why I would not consider that painting to be "a poorly done Morrisseau"? SW

ink guy said...

I'm sure Bryant will reply in good time, he is 3 hrs behind TO time, as well he actually has other things to do.

Anonymous said...

anybody else seen the blog on the street...

http://genuinemorrisseau.blogspot.com/


AP

Anonymous said...

the new blog seems to be advertising for kinsman robinson gallerys. Consider that Gabe pulls the strings on this one.

Bryant Ross said...

I have been traveling on the road for the past 5 days and have not had time for this blog. I only returned late last night.

To Spirit Walker;
If you insist on quoting me then at least get it right. Do not put words in my mouth that I did not say.
"Admittedly it is not one of Morrisseau's better works but I do not have a problem with it's authenticity."
I did not say that it is poorly painted.
The painting is not in the questionable style like the painting posted on Thursday, March 6, 2008. I will send you a picture when I can find it.

To MG
You seem to know me but I do not know who you are from your initals. You are wrong about my dealings with Malcom. The painting in question did come from him, as well as a least one other Morrisseau that I got from him. We used to do a lot of trading and I think we Traded these paintings for Northwest Coast carvings. Malcom did sell some paintings for us in the early years. I still have a beautiful piece by Pauline Gagnon that I got from him.
If you know how to contact him I would appreciate hearing from you. I have not talked to him in years. You could contact me through email from my web site.
Craig is still a close friend and lives in the gulf Islands where he produces wonderful pottery.

Morrisseau painted hundreds of paintings at Coghlan Studio. I do not have an exact count.

Anonymous said...

bryant,
My statement was not intended to offend I was just wondering about different scenerious.for authentication purposes. I was a good friend of Malcolms back in the day and I still keep in touch with Brad.I hope no offence was taken..m.g.

Anonymous said...

Question for the board: If the family takes control of the Morrisseau Estate, what will happen to Kinsmen and Coghlan? Will they be prevented from selling Morrisseau paintings? is it possible?

Anonymous said...

Interesting...KRG starts their own blog last week - the exact same time that the volume of postings here decreased significantly. Guess that means that they are not adding comments here anymore. That is ok because, although disappointing, they really had nothing of value to state to help anyone here looking for answers. Only thing they can state is that they are the preferred vendor and have received a letter from NMHS stating this.

KRG...still reading this? If so PLEASE prove me wrong and share some details.

ink guy said...

intresting little note I saw in Bryants post just above.
Norval painted 100s of paintings in the few years he spent with Bryant. to me this could give everyone an idea as to how much he produced. the years, half of 87 ,88 89, 90 were good prolific years for Norval. perhaps Bryant can narrow down the number as this may be a decent indicator of Norvals "output", minus the numerous binges, some which lasted more than 6 months.
add it up and see what we get?
just a thought, as some say 3 to 4000 others claim an absurd 10000+
any thoughts?

Anonymous said...

Why prints? There are so many originals out there to discuss.m.g.

Spirit Walker said...

Prints are based on originals, aren't they? SW

Spirit Walker said...

Answer to "Ink Guy" above: "It is difficult to say how many pieces of art Norval Morrisseau had painted or drawn in all his career. In my opinion he had painted more pieces of art than stated in "The Ottawa Citizen" article "Morrisseau experts hunt for up to 10,000 pieces", written by Paul Gessell - January 02, 2007. My guess would be at least twice that amount which would make him the most prolific artist in art history*, but to prove that would not be an easy task.

* - According to the Guinness Books of records the most prolific artist is Pablo Picasso who produced about 13,500 paintings/designs in his career.

Bryant Ross said...

Apart from what the Guinness Books of records states about Picasso, The most prolific artist in history was CHANG DIA CHIEN (Chinese 1899-1983). He is reported to have done over 30,000 paintings in his lifetime. Incidentally he was also the most prolific forger of all time, with a reported 4000 - 5000 fakes of historical Chinese paintings to his credit. It is said that every major collection of Chinese art in the world has a Chang forgery in its midst.

ink guy said...

to SW, I understand we can't get an accurate number, my thought was as he was very productive in the years with Mr Ross, this might give us an idea of how much Norval produced in general during his good years, not an absolute, but an idea.
prolific yes, but the numbers 10000 plus is just hard for me to imagine, as many of the works were very large which would be very time consuming? that with his periods of inactivity would make this number a bit unrealistic in my mind?

Anonymous said...

I find it absolutely fascinating that the Vadas camp are seeking to argue the right to be the sole party to authenticate Morrisseau art - in a blog. I believe this is highly indicative of the strenght of their legal argument to that right.

Anonymous said...

I think Norval, simply as a result of his keen wit and humour, would make sure he was able to surpass Pablo Picasso's prolific record.

Anonymous said...

Upon reviewing the new Vadas KRG blog (read the copyright notice), there is a section titled "Kudos to Michelle and Gabe Vadas" which could be contrued as being very close to slanderous. THe comment about "where others have failed" suggests that Norval's family were somehow neglectful. This is not only a potential slanderous statement, it is creating an false history for the public. How could his family have been neglectful when Norval left them and lived on the streets? How could they have cared for him when they didn't have free and unfettered access to him in his last years? IT seems to me that Norval was solely responsible for his well documented addictions - not his family. Not only does that statement slander the family, it is morally reprehensible. It will be interesting to see hos the courts react to such an argument if it is put forth in the BC Court.

Anonymous said...

Good point...prints are based on originals. Here is another point to raise....why do all the prints represent paintings done in the artistic style not questioned. I have not seen a print of a Morrisseau done in the artistic style of the Morrisseaus from the 70's that are often questioned here. Am I wrong?

Spirit Walker said...

To eliminate confusion who said what I am requesting that all of the "anonymous" use the nickname as a signature to indicate who they are at the end of the statement. That way it will be easier to follow all of the "anonymous" postings. Thanks.