University Waits for Return of Stolen Art

Harvard is still awaiting the return of two stolen paintings—including one depicting the University’s 14th president, John T. Kirkland—as art history experts continue to dispute the provenance of the Kirkland portrait.

And the University has learned that it wasn’t the only victim of theft whose artwork ended up at an estate auction earlier this month. Several other objects left by the late New York art collector William M.V. Kingsland—including a bust by surrealist painter and sculptor Alberto Giacometti—have been confirmed stolen, The New York Times reported yesterday.

Last week, auction house Stair Galleries halted the sale of pieces from Kingsland’s collection when they were discovered to be stolen. Harvard confirmed that two paintings from Stair—one of which is a portrait by John Singleton Copley—were stolen from the University’s collections more than three decades ago.

The other Stair collection portrait shows Kirkland in ministerial garb and is either a copy or an original painting by famed early American artist Gilbert Stuart.

FBI spokesman James Margolin said that the New York bureau is still investigating the issue but would not comment further.

Harvard has not yet confirmed the authenticity of the Kirkland portrait, which was a part of the University’s collections in the 1960s.

“Further research is needed before we may be able to make a more definitive attribution,” University Art Museums spokesman Daron J. Manoogian wrote in an e-mail. It is still unclear when the paintings will be returned to Harvard, he added.

Emory University art historian Dorinda Evans, author of “The Genius of Gilbert Stuart,” believes the Harvard portrait is a cropped copy of an original Stuart rendering—though other experts are less sure.

“The flesh coloring and the size are odd for Stuart and the whole expression of the portrait is different from that of the Stuart original,” Evans wrote in an e-mail.

“[Harvard’s painting] is in some ways improved upon in that the eyes are opened wider, the lips smile more, the shape of the ear is changed, and an extra hair swirl is added above the temple. This is just the sort of thing a copyist often does,” she wrote.

Evans added that the Kirkland portrait lacks the “lightness of touch” characteristic of the portraitist. Evans also noted that the shadow under Kirkland’s chin in the painting is incomplete, as if not done from real life.

But Eleanor P. DeLorme, an art lecturer at Wellesley College, said that it was still possible that the painting was an original by Stuart.

“It looks to be in the style of Stuart,” she said in an interview this week. She added that it was common for artists to make copies of their own work. In fact, Stuart frequently made copies of his famous works, according to Jennifer L. Roberts, an assistant professor of history of art and architecture at Harvard. She said that Stuart reproduced 100 versions of the George Washington portrait that is now featured on the dollar bill.

“He was definitely in the habit of making copies,” she said.

But Evans remained convinced that the painting was not Stuart’s work. “This is a re-interpretation,” she said.

—Staff writer Katherine M. Gray can be reached at kmgray@fas.harvard.edu.