NitrateVille.com

Dear Nitratevillers,

Check out this story, clicking on the link if you want to view the painting itself:

http://www.gregorymank.com/Clara-Bow-portrait.html" target="_blank" target="_blank

BELA LUGOSI’S LONG-LOST 1929 PAINTING OF A NUDE CLARA BOW

FOUND AND HEADING FOR AUCTION!

The “It” Girl Poses Au Natural for Count Dracula

A Half-Century Mystery Finally Solved

By

Greg Mank

A racy relic from the legendary life of Bela Lugosi -- a 1929 painting, featuring the naked image of Clara Bow -- has emerged from a half-century of obscurity, fated for auction this fall.

It’s sexy, iconic Hollywood history -- the “It Girl,” posing au natural for “Count Dracula.”

And it’s all part of the Bonhams and Butterfields Auction in New York City this November 25, titled, “What Dreams Are Made Of: A Century of Movie Magic at Auction, as Curated by Turner Classic Movies.”

The back story is fascinating. In 1928, Lugosi was appearing on the Los Angeles stage in Dracula (prior to Universal Studios’ 1931 film version). Bow, at a swimming party, put a mink coat over her bathing suit and headed downtown to the Biltmore Theatre to see the play. The towering, blue-eyed “vampire” reputedly entranced her, and backstage, the Jazz Baby redhead most certainly entranced him.

Did a sexual tryst follow? Maybe. Some argue Clara’s main attraction to Bela was that, from what she’d heard, the Hungarian émigré didn’t speak English. As the Brooklyn-born Bow was terrified of making her Talkie debut, she thought Lugosi, with his language difficulty (and reputation for learning his lines phonetically), was an “inspiration.” However, others believe there was a sexual affair -- and indeed, when Lugosi’s third wife divorced him in 1929, she cited Bela’s passion for Clara.

At any rate, Lugosi apparently persuaded Bow to pose for his friend and Hollywood next-door neighbor, artist Geza Kende (1889 – 1952). Bow not only obliged -- she stripped. (By the way, Kende also painted the life-size, full-length study of Lugosi in Prince Albert attire, sold in 2004 by Heritage Auctions for $86,250). Lugosi cherished the Bow portrait, proudly and prominently displaying it in all his various Hollywood homes for the rest of his life. Three different Mrs. Bela Lugosis had to learn to live with it.

After Lugosi’s death in 1956, his widow, Hope, who had wed Lugosi the previous year (he was 72, she was 36), eventually sold the painting to an art dealer before she moved to Hawaii. For personal reasons, Hope never divulged the name of the dealer to whom she’d sold it. She was still keeping her secret when she died in 1997.

Meanwhile, the painting passed hands. For approximately the past 20 years, it has been in the collection of the consignor, a modest collector of arts and antiques, who bought it from the mother of an art collector who had died of AIDS. The mother, a deeply religious lady, had objected to the risqué nature of the painting and as such was agreeable to part with the painting of Clara and her displayed charms.

Some restoration work has been done, primarily to remove Lugosi’s cigar smoke stains from the canvas. A portion of the auction’s proceeds will go to the Film Foundation.

As a piece of classic Hollywood memorabilia, the item has it all: sex, horror, mystery...and a hot-blooded connection between two Golden Age cinema legends

What a great find. Would be great if some curator somewhere could put together an exhibition of similar works.

Doesn't much look like Clara in that image, but the angle of the photo makes it hard to really tell.

There's more about Bela and Clara (plus a photo of Bela in his study, with the painting hanging over his desk) here.

To me this painting looks very much like Bow, but the article just above is even better than my original one. Fantastic. The absolute weirdness of Hollywood!

s.w.a.c. wrote:Doesn't much look like Clara in that image, but the angle of the photo makes it hard to really tell.

There's more about Bela and Clara (plus a photo of Bela in his study, with the painting hanging over his desk) here.

Doesn't look like Clara at all to me. And the mere existence of the painting - even if it looked exactly like her - doesn't prove they had an affair or that Clara stripped for the artist.

That article also repeats the baseless myth that Clara's Brooklynese spelled her doom in talkies. She had quite respectable run in the talkies until scandal, a desire to raise a family, and mental illness caused her to retire.

How true, looks nothing to Bow to me either. And without letters between the two stating they were having an affair, it's all conjecture.

Where is the provenance besides this conjecture that this is Bow? To be accurate, there must be either letters, paperwork, or photographs showing and telling this information, or once again, it's all rumor.

A friend of mine has a nude study painted by his mother. The subject is a zoftig woman with dirty blonde hair. His friends always call it a portrait of a wife of another friend, who is also a zoftig woman with dirty blonde hair. It annoys the second friend, which is the point of the operation.

Except that the woman in this portrait has red hair, it doesn't look in the least like Clara Bow. Even the hair is wrong. Miss Bow had curly red hair. This woman has straight hair and her features appear sharper.

Bob

I'm a tad bemused that this painting is considered risqué.

missdupont wrote:Where is the provenance besides this conjecture that this is Bow? To be accurate, there must be either letters, paperwork, or photographs showing and telling this information, or once again, it's all rumor.

Bela Lugosi always claimed it was Clara Bow, and there is a photo at that other link of Bela at his desk with the painting hanging directly overhead. So basically, it's a combination of Bela's story and conjecture.

I still don't think it looks like Bow, even after blowing up the image, but if you take into account the fact her eyes are closed, she's not wearing makeup, and the chance that maybe the artist wasn't that great at capturing the human face (or went out of the way to make it look less like his model), it could be her.

[/quote]but if you take into account the fact her eyes are closed, she's not wearing makeup, and the chance that maybe the artist wasn't that great at capturing the human face (or went out of the way to make it look less like his model), it could be her.[/quote]

Well by those standards,it could also be Wallace Beery

ajabrams wrote:

but if you take into account the fact her eyes are closed, she's not wearing makeup, and the chance that maybe the artist wasn't that great at capturing the human face (or went out of the way to make it look less like his model), it could be her.

Well by those standards,it could also be Wallace Beery

Beery had bigger boobs.

Here's an example of another auction house's R&D (Research and Disclaimers):
A Bob Hope caricature by Don Barclay, and not, as the auction house guessed, a non-existant Don "Barday."

A caricature of Bob Hope, oil on canvas, inscribed on verso "To Bob Hope/ From Nomi Blackburn/ By Don Barday."12 by 9 inches
Categories: Bob Hope
Terms and conditions
Julien's Auctions guarantees the authenticity of Attribution of property listed in the catalogue or online as stated in the Terms of Guarantee. Except for the Limited Warranty contained in the terms of guarantee all property is sold “As Is”. We make no warranties, nor does the consignor, as to the merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, the correctness of the catalogue or other description of the physical condition, size, quality, rarity, importance, medium, provenance,exhibitions, literature or historical relevance of anyproperty. No oral or written statements made in the catalogue,online listing, advertisement, bill of sale, and announcement or elsewhere made by employees (including affiliated and related companies) shall be considered .....

.

It looks nothing like Bow to me, at all.

Ditto.

Professionally there is no way a major auction house is going to sell a painting by a well-known artist (Geza Kende) of a 20th century movie icon (Clara Bow), if the artifact is not what it claims to be (i.e., a painting of Bow). Not only is the reputation of Bonhams on the line, but so is that of Turner Classic Movies who is co-sponsoring the auction. For those Bow detectives who are interested (and have some extra cash), this is the information from the Bonham website regarding the catalog featuring the Kende painting to be auctioned on November 25th. Closer to the auction date, a description of the painting will be available online.

******************************************************************************************

Thank you for your interest in our upcoming auction: What Dreams Are Made Of: A Century of Movie Magic at Auction as Curated by TCM. We are offering two versions of the sale catalogue for this auction.

Limited Edition Hardbound catalogue:
Domestic address: $100.00
International Address $115.00

Softbound catalogue:
Domestic address: $45.00
International Address $55.00

Please click on this link to go direct to the order form. If you have
any questions, do not hesitate to contact us:
- Bonhams San Francisco - Telephone 1 (800) 223 2854
- Bonhams New York - Telephone 1 212 644 9001
- Bonhams Los Angeles - telephone 1 323 436 5551

You may view lot images and descriptions online roughly two to three
weeks prior to the auction by selecting the following link:
http://www.bonhams.com/auctions/21427" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank.

For all other inquiries in regards to this auction, please do not
hesitate to contact us:

Client Services
http://www.bonhams.com/us" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank
e-mail: [email protected]" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

Restored the canvas to remove Lugosi's cigar stains? I like to think of Bela being that close to the canvas. That is carrying restoration a bit too far, I think.

I hate to tell you, but they sell things with little or no (or made up provenances) all the time, and that's why you often see things pulled at the last minute, like the Alexander Graham Bell notes about flying that Profiles in History had to pull last month when they were sued by the Grosvenor family and National Geographic.

While mistakes have been made at auction houses, and there is the possibility that in the case the Bow portrait might in theory be pulled from the catalog pending lack of sufficient evidence, it is certainly not the case that such errors are simply routine. The big auction houses have reputations that they have spent decades (or centuries) trying to establish, and even one inaccuracy or bogus claim can mean a loss of revenue for years to come. I have first-hand knowledge of the industry from the inside, and will tell you that a single mistake will, at base minimum, cost a person his or her job. Errors are not tolerated. If one happens to occur (and eventually, human nature being imperfect, sooner or later this will happen even if it only happens every so many years), every attempt is immediately made to undue the damage and to insure that it won't happen again. An auction house that adopts a blase view of facts and doesn't care to provide multiple proofs that what is being auctioned is the real deal, will, I assure you, find its days numbered.

Once again I reply, not exactly, as this story about purchasing a Harpo Marx harp from Robert Weide of Curb Your Enthusiasm shows, since the company and person mentioned are still prominently involved in the auction business:
http://www.duckprods.com/weide/harp.html" target="_blank

For every tragedy of errors described in the link, there are (at least) a thousand other examples were the work is painstaking backed up by proofs of authenticity on top of proofs of authenticity. If I weren't bound to a confidentiality contract, wow, the stories I could tell of what's involved -- the steps, the layers, the stages -- of what must be met before an item is vetted. If Stothebys continues to impair it's reputation to the place where an item on ebay is far more trusted than the products it sells, it's days are numbered. Remember, too, that the reputation of Bonhams is not only on the line in this particular sale involving the Bow painting, but TCM (the world's premier classic film network) and the Film Foundation (where some of the proceeds of the auction will go). In other words, three major players have a stake in this auction. Logically, and out of sheer business profitability, what are the chances that all three will permit unconscionably shoddy work to occur?

At the very least, we know that Bela did own the painting, so it has that going for it.

That looks nothing remotely like Clara Bow. Anita Page looks much more like Bow than that painting does. In fact, Joan Crawford looks more like her. If Bow was actually the model for the picture, Bela's neighbor was a lousy artist, at least as far as producing a painting that at all resembled said model.

Perhaps the more logical thing would be to ask: what the heck would Clara Bow have been doing posing for a nude portrait in 1929? Far lesser stars had sued to keep nude photographs out of the public eye. Why would she subject herself to that kind of a risk? Given that every piece of dirt - true or otherwise - was dug up during the Daisy DeVoe trial, wouldn't the idea of a nude portrait of her sitting on somebody's wall have come up? It just seems a little fishy to me.

I wonder if the girl involved wasn't some more obscure flapper starlet who morphed into a better known name over the years, the same way that Harry Houdini was given credit for naming Buster Keaton, or every female who had ever been an extra in a silent comedy was suddenly a 'former Mack Sennett Bathing Beauty' in the retelling.

Brooksie wrote:Perhaps the more logical thing would be to ask: what the heck would Clara Bow have been doing posing for a nude portrait in 1929? Far lesser stars had sued to keep nude photographs out of the public eye. Why would she subject herself to that kind of a risk?

Bette Davis, age 18, posed undraped for an Anne Coleman Ladd statue .
Jean Harlow modeled nude in 1929 for photographer Edwin Bower Hesser.
Many "Follies Girls" (including future stars like Goddard and Dove) did likewise for Ziegfeld shutterbug Alfred Cheney Johnston.
Images for many of these- done anonymously, privately, pre-stardom- can be found on the net.
The only woman who apparently posed nude (often) after film stardom arrived-
with the results for public display on the walls of her home,
might be.....

[url=http://www.bonhamson%20the%20walls%20of%20her%20home.com/auctions/17108/lot/6035/]Click here for Bonhams Auction Result[/url]-------- Click here for Bonhams' nude West image
"LOT 6035
A Mae West color image, 1920s
Appearing to be a vintage print black and white photograph with a matte finish that was hand-tinted in color (though it's hard to tell); image shows the nude actress reclining on a bed; tiny text on bottom border reads "Posed by Mae West / Painted by F.A. Kinzel." 8 x 10in
Sold for US$ 610 inc. premium"

But isn't one of the takeaways from Bow's life her constant recklessness? Examples abound: Her dating several men simultaneously during the mid and late 1920s and early 1930s. Her appearance at parties where, as Frederica Sagor Maas personally remembers seeing, Bow stood "atop a table, shimmying her clothes off and dancing nude to the hoots of an appreciative and inebriated audience." (The Shocking Miss Pilgrim (p. 76). Her racking up gambling debts in Nevada and the accompanying scandal and lawsuit which Paramount capitalized on by making them the subject of a Bow film, No Limit (1930). Her appearing in a film (Call Her Savage) (1932) that featured sadomasochism, a famous scene in a gay bar "frequented by anarchists," and miscegenation, and another film (Hoopla) (1933) in which, as an older woman, she attempts, cougar-like, to be a young man's first sexual experience -- and these were films made after the DeVoe scandal! So I would say that "caution" was not exactly a byword in Bow's life until she married Rex Bell and retired to the ranch.

I don't think those films prove she was reckless. Just that she needed money and appeared in films that could very well just have been exploiting her public image.

I'm doing some writing on the Web today and it's all coming off as world-weary.

Are people here familiar with the writings of Jan Brunvand? Mr. Brunvand has written several entertaining books collecting and discussing modern urban myth like The Choking Doberman (which he traces back to a Scandinavian legend and "The Wedding Photograph" (which I mentioned in an e-mail to him is related to a plot point in Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing. Modern urban myths are those amusing stories we believe because they confirm our expectations. In this case, the two sides come off as

1: It's not a portrait of Miss Bow because it doesn't look like her. This is essentially my position.

2: It's a portrait of Miss Bow because we know she did crazy things like this. This is the essence of a modern urban legend: we believe the story because it conforms to our view of Miss Bow's character -- that she was a wild and crazy woman who gang-f***ed the USC football team and in the midst of a busy career, took the time to pose nude for hours for the neighbor of her lover.

There has been offered in support of thesis 2 the statement that Bonham's would not risk their reputation for this sale. I, like a couple of other people here, have dealt with highly reputable auction houses and found them less than brilliant. In my case it was Sotheby's at their first sf art auction about 20 years ago, in which they misidentified a couple of works. My takeaway is that Bonham's would not knowingly misattribute the subject, but absent some compelling supporting proof -- a letter from Miss Bow in which she mentions sitting for it would do nicely -- I'll stick with my position: it's not her because it doesn't look like her.

Bob

Not that this back and forth isn't fun, but I have a suggestion: we could all just wait until the catalog comes out and the auction showings take place, and then query Bonhams on the attribution.

Frederica wrote:Not that this back and forth isn't fun, but I have a suggestion: we could all just wait until the catalog comes out and the auction showings take place, and then query Bonhams on the attribution.

Why ruin a beautiful argument with facts?

Bob