Rice Portrait fails to sell: updated
Talk about your anticlimaxes. Bidding on the “Rice Portrait” did not meet the owner’s specified minimum price and failed to sell. jasna.org has information about the bid amounts.
After lackluster bidding for two and a fraction minutes by two in-room bidders–which started at $280,000 and reached $350,000–the portrait was withdrawn, clearly having failed to meet its reserve price. Christie’s had estimated the sale at $400,000 to $800,000.
Before the sale, Alert Janeite Lisa let us know that the Guardian’s “Comment is Free” had a short piece by Angus Stewart, British president of the International Association of Art Critics, who is convinced that the portrait is one of Jane Austen.
The Rice Portrait shows us what we sense, that young Jane Austen had a turbulent spirit. Her juvenilia, including the History of England, are evidence of an intelligent adventurer who was to shrug off any harness. And the portrait shows nothing of the prim and the proper, but much that conveys the immediate hunger of a girl smouldering for life.
We look at the sweet young lady in the portrait and get none of that, really. But to each his own. We also like the comment from “LawrenceUS” in response to the piece:
There are no references to the painting in any letters or documents from around 1790, when the painting supposedly was done. There are no references to it in any letters or documents in the years leading to 1831, during which period second cousin Col. Thomas Austen supposedly gave the painting away. There are no records or mentions until the 1880s, when someone says, Oh! I have a painting of Jane Austen that Col. Austen gave my stepmother!
Precisely. 
NPR also had a piece this morning (which we somehow missed–hangover from Downy high, we suppose) in which Clive James and the reporter said, among other things, that many considered the girl in the portrait “too pretty” to be Jane Austen; after all, if Jane Austen had been pretty, she would have gotten married! Which is crazy, considering Jane pretty much actively chose to not marry. Mr. James said “I think the sensible consensus is that it isn’t her, but is a nice picture.” We agree. It’s a lovely portrait.
April 19th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Hahahaha!! Am I completely cruel to think it incredibly funny that there was all this hype and they couldn’t even sell it?
April 19th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Awww… Somehow I think it’s a pity it didn’t sell. As if no one was interested in a portrait of our dear Jane (not that we know it’s really her, but well, you know what I mean! ;)).
But it also makes me laugh somehow, to know that there was so much fuss about this portrait: all for nothing!
April 19th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
I wish there was some reasonable compromise that would help Henry Rice feel OK about himself and the world, and allow the public to see the portrait. For instance, the portrait could be displayed somewhere in England on permanent loan (The Vyne? Holburne Museum in Bath?) in return for Henry Rice getting a generous annuity from the Heritage Lottery Fund.
I now think this portrait probably is Jane Austen. If only the companion portrait, the one of Cassandra that Lord Brabourne or his mother Lady Knatchbull reportedly owned, would come to light, we’d know for sure. But the Cassandra portrait disappeared without a trace.
April 19th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
I’m enjoying the schadenfreude as well. Also pleased that the “friendly” Americans didn’t get taken in by the hype.
Robin, it seems to me that the only “compromise” the Rices are interested in would be pots and pots of cash. This is not the first time they’ve tried to sell the painting, both privately and publicly. I think if the painting could be determined as being of Jane without a doubt, no one would grudge them their big payday, but trying to force the issue is rather Fanny Dashwood-like, and they’ve been at it for years now. Cluetrain boarding on Platform Five!
What I want to know is: who did the bidding? Reports are that the BBC had a camera crew present; maybe word will get out.
April 19th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Apart from going tee-hee, I did love the “Rice and his family have said they never doubted the girl wearing a long white dress and carrying a parasol was their ancestor”. Ancestor? Yowza, even ‘Becoming Jane’ didn’t go THAT far! I am glad the ‘friendly’ (which seems to be a rather patronizing euphemism for ‘dim’) intended audience didn’t buy the hype. Personally, I think it’s a beautiful portrait but not Jane Austen (and until I get some credible evidence I’ll stay this way!). And quite frankly the estimate was ridiculous high for a painting which is, lets face it, ‘portrait of an unknown girl’ by obscure artist (one could even add the ’said to be Jane Austen’ label). If they hadn’ tacked the ‘It’s Jane Austen’ tag on it, the estimate would have been at least 10 times less.
April 19th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Robin, it seems to me that the only “compromise” the Rices are interested in would be pots and pots of cash.
Huzzah!
And the moral of the story, Mr. Rice, is thus: greed is not classy. Donate it to a museum if you don’t want the painting hanging about. And please, stop trying to pretend you are really interested in your “ancestor.”
April 20th, 2007 at 12:07 am
It’s not even so much greed as just failing to get a bloody clue that the provenance of the painting just doesn’t support those asking prices. Speaking for myself, I don’t think the portrait is Jane, but it’s still sort-of-Jane. And I’m perfectly willing to admit it *might* be Jane. Barring some sort of miracle, we’ll never know; and “we’ll never know” is not worth that kind of money. As Janeites, naturally we find the discussion and study interesting, but I don’t think that’s going to translate to filthy lucre.
April 20th, 2007 at 9:56 am
I agree… it certainly could be Jane (!!!maybe), but the whole rumpus seemed to be overshadowed by the almighty dollar and that (ridiculous idealistic fan that I am, I know) irritated me.
April 20th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
I am delighted to see that Austenblog now has a Cluetrain — boarding on Platform 5. Must one possess a Cluebat of Janeite Righteousness to board, or do the train conductors carry them?
April 20th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
The comments of the “art critic” really make me wonder about art critics in general. The fact that the portrait shows a young girl of “turbulent spirit” who was “smouldering for life” doesn’t make it Jane! I continue to believe that it portrays one of her more well-to-do nieces (one of whom, James’s daughter Anna, was lamented for having cropped her hair short); and I am glad that none of my fellow “less discerning” Americans was willing to take the bait.
April 20th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
I guess you would have to be a really rich, fanatic Janeite to want to buy it and then in that case you would not want to because you would know it isn’t Jane. Quite a paradox. Still the painting isn’t bad in itself.
April 21st, 2007 at 5:33 am
I *am* a fanatic Janeite :-), and if I were rich I would buy it as ‘The painting supposed to be of Jane Austen, but not sure’
In the same way as I have bought the various adaptation DVDs supposed to be of the novels but not really
I guess that is what they were expecting - but it didn’t happen!!!
April 21st, 2007 at 3:19 pm
My comment doesn’t really have to do with the post. Well, contrary to the painting the item I saw is definitely authentic. I’m a student at the University of Oklahoma and work in the special collections in the library. The librarian I work for took me to a smaller collection that is only open on request. It has a decent array of rare books, mostly British Lit, and includes a first edition of Pride & Prejudice and Sense & Sensibility. The curator told me that Austen is one of her favorites as well, and asked me if I’d like to sit down and read the P&P. I don’t think my hands have ever shaken so much. All three volumes were in amazing condition. Reading it reminded me that people have been enjoying Her works for almost 200 years and there in front of me was the evidence. That gave me my adrenaline rush for the day.
April 21st, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Lori–congratulations! What a treat!
I saw some first editions a year or so ago–MP and Emma and NA/P–and didn’t even realize they were first editions until I saw an inscription on the flyleaf of MP, someone’s name and the year 1817. They were really beautifully bound and did not appear to be that old.
Reeba, the Superhumanly Rich version of you is Mr. Rice’s dream, I think! I hope you would then display the painting somewhere for all your fellow Janeites to enjoy…