If you could choose one artwork to own, what would it be?

[AllaMova]

With the following caveat, you must select one that you love, rather than for its worth etc.

At the moment, I would choose “Sketch of a Seated Cat” by Gwen John. ❤️

As a figurative painter it's making me so happy to see all the love for really amazing paintings here. Great thread.

I think I'll go for La Nuit by Bouguereau, for today.

I'm live fairly close to the London Tates and National Gallery, so appreciate the easy access to Ophelia, Lady Jane Grey, Carnation Lily Rose and others that have been mentioned, and visit fairly often. So glad they are free to enter. Also love Holbein's Christina of Denmark and that she's got pride of place in the new NG rehang. She had a lucky escape from Henry VIII.

In reality I tend to buy things like Japanese prints as I'm an oil painter myself so have a house full of paintings, if not to the standard of van Eyck, Sargent, Millais or Bouguereau.

The painting of the cloth on the first page of the thread is beautiful.

I think this is first come first served system.

But, it seems Starry night over the Rhone is still free, so you might consider that one.

Not necessarily, but there can be a difference.

My favourite painting of all time is the Execution of Lady Jane Grey because of how emotional it makes me feel. It’s the painting, which heightened my love for art.

I wouldn’t be able to look at it every day, though because it makes me so emotional, so I wouldn’t want it in my house.

That’s why I didn’t select it as my choice, but instead chose Sketch of a Seated Cat by Gwen Owen. I have a cat, which looks just like it, so I’d happily be able to look at it everyday.

I appreciate that I’ve overthought this thread! 😊

Christ in the Storm on the Sea of Galilee. Lost to thieves sadly but such a masterpiece.

Me too! I want the lego version too

I've already chosen mine but I'd really like a Dutch flower painting too. It'd be rude not to get a Ruysch. Not only is the work beautiful but they are so politically and scientifically relevant in history. Ruysch was a woman making a good living out of painting during the mid 17th-18th centuries. As well as the feminist angle of being a financially independent woman in the 1600 & 1700's (!), her floral still lives reflect and communicate advances in botanical knowledge. Basically, they are like 17th century SciComm. Amazing stuff.

https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/rachel-ruysch-still-life-of-flowers-in-a-glass-vase-on-a-marble-ledge

I’ve been thinking about this question of ownership versus favourite since I saw it posted.

For what it’s worth, I took it in what I thought the spirit of the thread was: ownership as a kind of shorthand for “ability to easily see, whenever you want, because it’s such a favourite.” And then, haha, chose for myself something that no longer exists.

But, can you even “own” art? Most of the artworks on this thread aren’t art in terms of what you can buy. The artists are mostly dead, often long dead, and all the works are long finished. What you can buy is just wood and canvas and paint and stone and whatever else.

The art that’s left in these works is, I think, more in the reaction of people to them. Someone seeing it, whether for the first time across a crowded gallery, or for the hundredth time, and being affected by it. And you can’t buy that.

Yes, some squillionaires have bought famous paintings and squirrelled them away in private collections, never allowing them to be seen. Even they, I would argue, haven’t bought that art. They have bought the object, and as a kind of colateral damage, are inhibiting art.

Christ of St John of the Cross - Dali

Luckily I live in Glasgow and can see it for free at the Kelvingrove. And it wouldn’t fit in my new build!

I treated it as which painting would I most like to be able to look at every day, for as long as I liked.

Of course, I would not really want to own my Burne Jones choice. For one thing, the responsibility of keeping it in good condition - temperature, humidity, fear of accidental damage - would be too worrying, and for another it would feel terribly selfish having it out of sight in my home, I'd feel obliged to have it constantly on loan to galleries, which would defeat the object.

Yes, it's only the fun thought of owning something so precious and thinking how it would look in your house. The actual practicalities would be impossible, the painting would have to live in a vault. Let alone how selfish it would be.

If I remember correctly when Van Gogh rented a house, I think it was the one he would share with Gaugin for a while, he decided to paint some pictures to decorate it with. These included the sunflowers. Can you imagine what that house looked like, all the beauty?

The Garden of Earthly Delights.

I encountered it at Frameless and I think it's fascinating.

Re. 'actual vs fantasy ownership'

If I were rich enough to be able to afford the masterpiece of my choice, what I'd actually do is commission an artist to paint me the most accurate reproduction they could, money no object, pay for them to rent accommodation near the Real Thing, pay to have specially made paint replicating what the original artist used, specially made canvas, etc.

I expect I would be able to find a talented artist who would accept the project, especially as I'd be paying generously so once they'd finished that would free them to work on their own projects for a good long period.

The Persistence of Memory by Salvador Dalí.

Not a beautiful painting by any means but it was haunting at a sad point in my life.

I wonder if galleries / museums keep the art if the lender dies.

No, not unless specifically bequeathed. They would form part of the estate of the owner.

Most privately owned works aren't loaned out of the goodness of the owner's hearts. It's tax-efficient and a way of getting out of paying for full price for additional costs relating to specialist security and other protections or adjustments to the environment (light or humidity changes for eg for older, delicate works).

Not unless the owner has bequeathed it to them. Otherwise it would form part of their estate and go to whoever it had been left to, or whoever the 'residual' beneficiary was for chattels if it wasn't specifically mentioned.

I imagine, and would be interested to know if true should anyone here work in a gallery or museum, there is a clause in whatever contract is signed for the loan detailing the circumstances in which it must be returned.

Le rendez-vous d'Ephèse by Paul Delvaux. Thank god it was recovered.

Yellow-Red-Blue by Kandinsky - always loved his work, chose him as my topic when I did GCSE art!

It’s a wonderful painting..I used to have a Glasgow postcode and went to the Kelvingrove often .

My choice The Monarch of the Glen by Landseer because it represents a lot of my life..memories of before moving to the Greater Glasgow area

I don't think anyone has had a Whistler yet? I'd take any of his nocturnes, sea scapes or more impressionistic groups of people, but I think these two are my favourites - today anyway!

I also love Japanese woodblock prints, of which these are very reminiscent.

Not unless in the will, but there are some in the big galleries which were receiving lieu of death duties (can't remember the exact wording.)

I love Lowry i have a couple of prints. A Monet or Salvador Dali. My older sister had a weird print of his when I was a kid and was fascinated by it .

The cat and its shadow us lovely.

@ManintheCity, yes, the cat in the painting is actually Blanche ( I believe Percy’s mother) but Hockney preferred the title Mr and Mrs Clarke and Percy.

Ah, OK. It is such a great show. It's fascinating to see how her style changes as her career goes on.