It beats me where all the Boxsius woodcuts and linocuts that have have come up for sale in the past few weeks and months actually come from. One reader believes the prints recently for sale on British ebay were part of a collection. This may be true but I wonder how a collector has found unsigned proofs and why they should be a damaged print in a collection. It is always possible they have come down through the family of Daisy Boxsius or were sold in a sale following her death. But that was a long time ago.
Spring morning, Arundel (top) has never appeared online until the past few weeks and then to my surprise not one but two unframed proofs turn up. This is very unusual even for Boxsius. I happened to already know the print well because my old friend Alan Guest owned a proof which he thought highly of (and I coveted), so making a purchase was the obvious thing to do. It was under-priced and in good condition. There is no sign of framing, no scuffing or deterioration caused by exposure to light so it looks like both proofs have been lying undisturbed somewhere for a long time.
Having bought that, I was then encouraged to get A Devon village as well (second from the top) and did not regret the purchase either. Also available was an unsigned proof of Seaside (above). This is a great little print but I was suspicious about the lack of a signature and resisted the temptation even though figure subjects by Boxsius are rare. I have copies of a number of watercolours of Shakespeare characters that show another side to someone who we all tend to see as a landscape artist.
His use of figures was carefully considered. As you will see from the design above, the two young women on the left were an addition. Others may disagree but I believe they refer back to figures in both Georges Seurat's Bathers, Asnieres and Giorgione's The tempest (below) which had been exhibited in London in 1929. (Boxsius exhibited Seaside in 1931).
Boxsius had always had an interest in the history art and he and Daisy had books about the old masters at home. What is impressive is the way he used very different sources to put together his prints. On the face of it, Twilight, Winchelsea (below) (which also came up for sale on ebay but was damaged) draws on the modern stylishness of Grosvenor School artists who Boxsius exhibited alongside in the early 1930s. But both William Giles and the Giorgione are also in the mix. Here was an artist of wide sympathies who took a great interest in the work of others.
The white railings and orange roof-tops are direct borrowings from Giles' bizarrely wonderful At eventide, Rothenburg am Tauber (below) for about 1906. What is missing in the Boxsius is the eccentricity of Giles' railings. Also compare the buildings in the Giorgione with the array of chimney pots in A Devon village. A trained artist's visual memory should work in that way but you have to be sympathetic in the first place to retain the information.
I have come to the conclusion that Boxsius was a holiday and weekend artist. He had a responsible job as art supervisor at the London School of Photo-engraving and Lithography, which sometimes involved taking evening classes. But the palces he visited mattered to him and what is worth remarking on is the strong sense of place he achieved. As a person, he was always north London and never strayed far from Highgate Cricket Club all his life. Even when he and Daisy moved from rented rooms into a proper flat in Fortis Green, he made sure the club wasn't far way. Look how closely he places the figures between the rocks and the way the half-timbered building at Arundel is made to fit into the image.
The black bull (above) has turned up twice, once in Britain and once in the US (where it was wisely bought by a reader). With its reading of the weather, it is a classic Boxsius image. The others appearing recently include Noon-day and the early woodcuts Houghton Bridge, Sussex, The broken plough and The old mill, most of which appear elsewhere on Modern Printmakers. The only reason I say 'early' is because I have never found a record of any of them being exhibited which means they all probably belong to the period prior to 1928.
I also want to say there is an article in preparation (and almost finished) 'Yoshijiro Urushibara, Arthur Rigden Read and S.G. Boxsius' which I hope to place in a journal or magazine. I am aware this has all been a long time coming but the issues with reproduction rights and copyright are most trying.
I almost missed these as it seems the dealer couldn’t spell the name Boxsius! It is surprising to see so many all at once and does suggest they’re from some sort of private collection. They all looked to be in great condition and seemingly never framed, as if they’d just been kept in a drawer. I picked up the print of Seaside, which is certainly genuine, though like you I was surprised by the lack of signature.
ReplyDeleteThe article you mention sounds fascinating. I hope you’ll be able to share a link as and when it’s out there.
Chris
I am pleased 'Seaside' has gone to a good home, Chris. I am sure there is nothing at all wrong with it despite what I said. I checked my files and discovered that the estate of Daisy Boxsius was divided between her four nieces and nephews in 1967. My guess is these prints went to one of those people. And I agree the best thing about them is they were never framed. I had a Kenneth Broad print from his grandson which he had never signed but was in perfect condition.
ReplyDelete