undercover pig at calvin college

Barn Interior (before restoration) by Egbert van der Poel

Conservation turned into excavation when Calvin College sent off a recently donated painting, Barn Interior, by Egbert van der Poel. A flayed pig was discovered under what turned out to be excess paint that was not original to the painting. The painting had obviously been doctored to cover up the pig and we can only guess at the reasons why. What we do know is that the pig in this painting is critical to its composition. It's exclusion damages both the integrity and quality of the work.

Barn Interior (after restoration) by Egbert van der Poel

This potentially "offensive" painting is tame to our post-postmodern eyes; especially when compared to any number of other "offending" paintings that have been made since the 17th century. But if you were to hang this painting in your home which version would you choose and why?

Comments

[Tamara Murphy]

great, great question....

[Brian Moss]

So Tamara, which one?

[John Pelphrey]

It's 17th century censorship. Definitely the pig painting, but I could see how people even today wouldn't want to hang a pig carcass.

One thought - would the painting have survived for over 300 years in the original composition? Changing it might have preserved it for us today.

[Brian Moss]

John,

Interesting question! I would have to say that, in some way, the cover up did allow for its preservation. It was most likely a wealthy patron who had the painting modified in order for it to hang in their home. This person probably also had the means to protect and care for the painting. The other player involved is the painter who did the cover up...what was the situation/cost leading up to that scenario...so many things to think about.

OK, Labour Love Gallery...definitely want to hear more about that!

Brian

[Andy]

The artist intended that the pig carcass would take up a lot of canvas space for a reason; I'd be interested to know what that reason was, but whatever he intended, it evoked something different in me than a mere ladder.

Someone tried to tame the artwork with the ladder. I wonder about this human impulse to tame other things that are parts of everyday life... things that are necessary and good.

- How many kids have never had a healthy conversation with their parents about sex and sexuality?
- How many good books and movies have we gone without because of a topic that made us uncomfortable?

Maybe we need to be made more uncomfortable, because it will provoke necessary questions about what it means to be a human being?

On the other hand, you ask a good question about 'offending' paintings.
- Does our culture allow for mystery? Isn't it good that some things are covered up?
- Aren't you more frightened when Hitchcock doesn't show you the body?
- Isn't the imagination powerful enough to fill in the gaps?
- What kind of people are we becoming if we never filter, never censor, never hold back?

So maybe I would have the pig carcass painting in my house, but probably not in the dining room. Maybe in the kitchen? I don't want to think about pork chops while I'm eating my bowl of Lucky Charms.

[Brian Moss]

Andy- Yes, context always plays huge in the equation. Lucky Charms + Bacon Bits = not the best combo. -Brian

[John Pelphrey]

Brian,
It's our leap of faith. You know I spent years selling my soul to the corporate machine. We opened the gallery in May in downtown Durham, NC. We rotate exhibitions every two months, make our own giclee prints, sell t-shirts, stationary, and do kids art lessons. Basically, we're trying to do something creative while carving out a living. It's the most fun I've had in a long time, but it's also the scariest thing I've ever done. No more safety net. I've always admired my Belmont friends who continued to pursue their creative passions. It just took me a few years to get the guts to try it myself.

John

[Brian Moss]

John- The website looks amazing. I hope to see it in person someday. I have many thoughts about doing a similar type of venture, but intentionally as a/the church...we'll see. -Brian

[Red & Black Redneck]

Interesting find. I will bet it was not a 17th century cover up, but rather a 19th century Victorian cover up. Here are some guesses that could easily be proven or disproved but since I know Van Der Poel was Dutch, my guess is he was likely Dutch Reformed and since the light comes directly onto the carcass, which is hanging in a crucifix position, my further guess is that he may be symbolising something. I'm not familiar enough with symbolism in dutch painting to hazard a guess on the meaning. In medieval Christian art, the pig was often a symbol of gluttony - maybe that? But I doubt it.