arttracks / elysa Goto Github PK

There's something weird about IRN 44424- if I search for it by accession number (2007.30), I can't click through to the page to edit the provenance. Even copy/paste of this URL doesn't work. Other links work.

http://172.25.36.101:5000/#/artworks/44424

For instance,

Sale, (Christie's), New York, on March 12, 1992

indicates a single day event, but

Purchased by Jon Smith on March 12, 1992

indicates that the period begins on that day, not that his ownership took place on a single day.

Options:

1. Sale, (Christie's), New York, over March 12, 1992
2. Sale, (Christie's), New York, during March 12, 1992
3. Sale, (Christie's), New York, on March 12, 1992 and just assume the other usage is bad
4. ???

In the manner of Mr./Mrs./Dr. etc.

This might be a problem with the export data, but if you look at IRN 1000968, it displays its creation date in the page header as 1914. We know for certain this work was created in 1915 because it was commissioned by the museum for the President's office. In KE, its creation date is 1915, and Earliest and Latest are set to 1915.

Not sure if this is a data prep problem, an export problem, a dates issue, or something else. All of the above?

See IRN 1007384 for example.

This work has a lot of parties, and inserting a new unknown party seems to go just underneath the "first" party, and then if you add another unknown party, it inserts about 4 parties down, and it also pulls the first inserted party down the list even more? When deleting extra "unknown parties", their entry in the list jumps up and down the list as well.

Strange- I accidentally had the caps lock on while typing a date in the date field (1904 UNTIL 1932) and when you're done, it actually deletes the date.

Not wanting to use cruise control for awesome, I did "1904 until 1932", and that works just fine.

Seems silly, but should that (can it?) see UNTIL and until as the same thing? Or throw an error message saying "hey dummy, turn your caps off". 💡

So far, this thing is working awesome!
🤘

Galerie Kleinberger, Paris, 1937; Arnold Seligmann, Rey & Company, Inc., New York; (Seligmann sale, Parke-Bernet Galleries, 23 January 1947, no. 830); Mr. and Mrs. Charles J. Rosenbloom, Pittsburgh, 1947-1969; gift to Museum, February 1969.

The first date in front of the hyphen will parse correctly, but the end date doesn't. In most cases, the hyphen has been used to say "from DATE until DATE" this person owned it.

Can't figure out why it won't load- the only odd thing is that there's two creators, one attributed to and one formerly attributed to. It has a heap of provenance too.

Things like the "Kirkwood Sale, Christie's, New York, NY" display as just "Kirkwood", not "Kirkwood Sale" or "Christie's". What's the right thing to do here? Are sales different than the gallery that the sale was held at?

Should add Likely as a synonym for Probably,
Should add ca. as a synonym for c.

Likely Durand-Ruel, Paris by ca.1900 (label on back of painting with partial id no. from Durand Ruel, 16 Rue Laffitte, Paris, where the gallery was located until 1920

"Gift" is more common than "Gift, by exchange".

"Gift by exchange" is the first result when you type "Gift", can we switch that around?

👍

It would be nice to have a way to view the definitions of acquisition methods from the interface, and to have them grouped logically

Dürer returns results that Durer doesn't.

Seems to be something about the image for IRN 1012247 that makes it not want to appear in the provenance tool.

84.62.28: H.J. Heinz Company, women workers cleaning tomatoes – unknown American

does not load.

Where the imported provenance text has (.d 1935), it shows up in Original Text as “Party Name (DIED 1935)” and in Current Text as “Party Name [-1935]” and the death year is populated

I just tried to work on the Dughet Landscape with Arch, IRN 1012194, and I know it is going to come out wacky because it is one of the ones that Costas wrote, but it seems to have parsed out a blank "unknown party"...it comes out as the third party in the record whenever you pull it up. Here's the wall 'o text:

William Harris sale, Christie's, London, February 9, 1811, lot 10; purchased by Sir Henry Charles Englefield for £35, 14s.;
Englefield sale, Christie's, London, March 8, 1823, lot 64 (sold for £39, 18s., to Mr. Norton);
Colonel Hugh Duncan Baillie sale, Christie's, London, March 6, 1824; lot 67. (Did not sell, according to Marie-Nicole Boisclair's "Gaspard Dughet, Sa vie et son oeuvre", Paris, 1987, no. 349, p. 277; also The Getty Provenance Index shows that the work was bought in for 39Gs; the 1889 catalogue of the Earl of Northbrook collection lists a price in pounds, £40, 19s., for this sale.);
purchased by Thomas Baring, M.P., from Mr. Farrer in 1849;
bequeathed to his nephew, Lord Northbrook (subsequently 1st Earl of Northbrook, 1826-1904), in 1873 (see 1889 catalogue of the Earl of Northbrook collection, no. 254, as "The Arch". It is listed as being on panel but when lent by Mr. Baring to the 1872 Royal Academy Winter exhibition as no. 102, "Landscape and Figures", it is listed as on canvas);
by descent to the 2nd Earl of Northbrook (1850-1929) and then to the latter's wife, Florence Anita, Countess of Northbrook, London;
her sale, "Pictures by Old Masters", Christie, Manson & Woods, June 11, 1937 (no. 13, as "A Landscape, with classical figures"; sold for £12, 12s., to Sneyd, according to annotated sales catalogue at the Frick Library, but apparently bought in, according to annotated sales catalogue at the Getty Research Institute);
sale, "Important Ancient and Modern Pictures and Drawings", Christie, Manson & Woods, February 25, 1938 under the heading "The Property of a Lady" (no. 118, as "A Landscape, with classical figures"; sold to Smith for £27, 6s., according to annotated sales catalogue at the Frick Library);
Howard A. Noble, Pittsburgh by November 1949; bequest to Museum, September 1966.

Updated by CGK
July 2014

This might be one of those "have to live with it" things, but hey, it's here.

After adding a party, when clicking on "party name", can we have "Unknown Party" delete itself, rather than having to select->delete?

Downtown Gallery, New York, 1944; Mr. and Mrs. Alvin P. Fenderson, Paoli, Pa., by 1947; Makler Gallery, Philadelphia; Mr. and Mrs. James L. Winokur, Pittsburgh, c. 1965; gift to museum, 1968

Causes date to go in to an unknown party.

Downtown Gallery, New York, 1944; Mr. and Mrs. Alvin P. Fenderson, Paoli, Pa., by 1947; Makler Gallery, Philadelphia; Mr. and Mrs. James L. Winokur, Pittsburgh, c. 1965; gift to museum, 1968

The "Pa." seems to be messing up dates

It would be nice to have a button to navigate to the next field in the all-fields view.

If you use the "direct transfer" slider, the capitalization goes from Gift to gift.

If you use the arrows on the provenance party list to do the same thing, the capitalization doesn't change.

Should we add parties to the end, instead of the beginning?

There is not currently a search field for provenance records.

After editing a provenance record with problematic records, all lines are marked as valid.

So I'm working on IRN 52758:
Estate sale in Cleveland, Ohio, 1950s; Richard D. Link, Parachute, Colorado.

When I enter 1950s, the text displayed is "in the 20th century". I kind of feel like we should display the "1950s" rather than "in the 20th century" for the sake of clarity? Feel free to smack this down with logic around the fuzziness of dates.

See 1014074

Names like Thomas Harris, Ltd.

I guess we should also add LLC. if that's not already in there?

Ltd. and LLC. are roughly equivalent British = US

See IRN 1011246.

Might be something to add to the list of endings to pass over as part of a name.