In the mid-1930s, Virginia Woolf wrote a letter to the queer composer and militant suffragist Dame Ethel Smyth, requesting that Smyth commission a portrait from a young female artist popular in Bloomsbury circles. “There is a Miss Preece much admired by Roger and Vanessa,” Woolf wrote, referring to the Bloomsbury art critic Roger Fry and her sister Vanessa Bell. “She is poor. She is shy. She lives in Cookham. … Could you come to Cookham? She’s afraid of failing in a strange studio. She — Preece — is in a twitter.”
Preece was, in fact, not shy. Rather, she was known for her flamboyance, her magnetism, and her confidence. Woolf might have found her timid because she was actually trying to evade the commission.
Why would an artist who had complained to Woolf about her money problems and lack of career direction eschew such lucrative work? Perhaps because recent research has shown that many of the paintings previously attributed to (and signed by) Patricia Preece are in fact the work of her life partner Dorothy Hepworth. Shy and permanently unsatisfied with her work, Hepworth fits Woolf’s profile far better than her lover, but Hepworth’s name is rarely mentioned in Bloomsbury correspondence, and then often only as Preece’s “friend” or even “sister.”
For most of their adult lives, the two women employed an elaborate hoax in which Hepworth’s paintings were exhibited and sold under Preece’s name. Their trick was particularly successful in the 1920s and ’30s, when they fooled not only Woolf and Bell, but other major art-world figures including Fry, Duncan Grant, and Augustus John. Hepworth, a very skilled and prolific artist, would produce painting after painting, while the charismatic Preece would use her charm and networking skills to find exhibition opportunities, buyers, and patrons. Preece herself rarely lifted a brush; she wriggled out the commission to paint Ethyl Smyth’s portrait presumably because her lack of talent would have revealed the ruse on which they had based their lives.
A forthcoming exhibition at Charleston in Lewes, the home and studio of Bell and Grant, attempts to bring Hepworth out of the shadows, celebrating her work as an artist and highlighting the pair’s radically collaborative lifetime partnership. Dorothy Hepworth and Patricia Preece: An Untold Story, opening March 27, will exhibit archival letters, diary entries, and photographs alongside paintings and drawings that, for the first time, are attributed to both Dorothy Hepworth and Patricia Preece.
“In the past, their relationship was really misrepresented,” the exhibition’s curator, Emily Hill, told Hyperallergic. “We want to focus on their uncontentious collaboration and their life partnership together.” Previously, much of the narrative around the pair has focused on Preece’s more public and tempestuous life, with Dorothy portrayed as a minor background figure. However, Hill explains that “a lot of Patricia’s life was actually devoted to allowing Dorothy to paint as much as possible.” As well as being the public face of the partnership, recent research suggests that Preece also did a lot of practical administrative work, for example “setting up a still life for Dorothy to paint or organising a payment from a sitter.”
Hepworth’s paintings have a powerfully quiet and luminous quality. Many of her works are portraits, in which faces and objects are thrown into relief by colourful, dappled light. Her sitters are mostly depicted inside, among the modest but comfortable accoutrements of middle-class life. In “The Green Devan” (undated), a young woman lies on a day bed in a small, low-ceilinged room that is somewhat incongruously decorated with a classical sculpture and gilt-framed paintings. This sense of self-containment and privacy defines her oeuvre, perhaps reflecting a personal life largely conducted behind closed doors.
Preece and Hepworth met while sharing a studio at the Slade School of Art in 1922, and quickly formed a close romantic relationship. After a stint studying in Paris, the couple established themselves in Cookham, Berkshire, supported by an allowance from Hepworth’s father and whatever they could make from selling Hepworth’s paintings under Preece’s name. However, in 1930, Hepworth’s father passed away, revealing his finances as near-bankrupt, and the pair lost the income they had relied on during the previous decade.
They next turned to Preece’s charms for support. She modeled extensively for their next-door neighbor, the painter Stanley Spencer, who became obsessed with her. Indeed, some of his most famous portraits, such as “Self-Portrait with Patricia Preece” (1937), depict her. Spencer eventually divorced his wife in 1937, marrying Preece five days later. Preece then left for their honeymoon in Cornwall — taking Hepworth with her, while Spencer stayed behind to work.
In that interim, Spencer slept with the same ex-wife he had left for Preece. Claiming to be furious at this “betrayal,” Preec refused to consummate the marriage. Preece and Hepworth then moved back into their old home in Cookham — without Spencer. Preece, however, somehow persuaded Spencer to sign his house over to her; she quickly evicted him and rented out the house to provide herself and Hepworth with an income. It is tempting to think of Preece’s relationship with Spencer as another hoax, planned from the beginning to secure Preece and Hepworth’s future together.
These ruses seem to have formed the basis of Preece and Hepworth’s lives together. But were they simply a means of survival, or did the couple take pleasure in knowing they were fooling their richer, more famous peers? There is no way of knowing for sure, but Hill suggests that the significance of their collaboration goes beyond simple trickery: “I think it allowed them to create something together. They weren’t allowed to express their love for each other beyond their interior lives, and this was a way in which they could work and live together. And they did it, for over 50 years.” Indeed, in a show of devotion, Hepworth continued to sign her paintings with Preece’s name, even after the latter’s death. Eventually, the couple were buried in the same grave, below a headstone reading: “United in life and in death.”
LONDON (AP) — With a few daubs of a paintbrush, the Brontë sisters have got their dots back.
More than eight decades after it was installed, a memorial to the three 19th-century sibling novelists in London’s Westminster Abbey was amended Thursday to restore the diaereses – the two dots over the e in their surname.
The dots — which indicate that the name is pronounced “brontay” rather than “bront” — were omitted when the stone tablet commemorating Charlotte, Emily and Anne was erected in the abbey’s Poets’ Corner in October 1939, just after the outbreak of World War II.
They were restored after Brontë historian Sharon Wright, editor of the Brontë Society Gazette, raised the issue with Dean of Westminster David Hoyle. The abbey asked its stonemason to tap in the dots and its conservator to paint them.
“There’s no paper record for anyone complaining about this or mentioning this, so I just wanted to put it right, really,” Wright said. “These three Yorkshire women deserve their place here, but they also deserve to have their name spelled correctly.”
It’s believed the writers’ Irish father Patrick changed the spelling of his surname from Brunty or Prunty when he went to university in England.
Raised on the wild Yorkshire moors, all three sisters died before they were 40, leaving enduring novels including Charlotte’s “Jane Eyre,” Emily’s “Wuthering Heights” and Anne’s “The Tenant of Wildfell Hall.”
Rebecca Yorke, director of the Brontë Society, welcomed the restoration.
“As the Brontës and their work are loved and respected all over the world, it’s entirely appropriate that their name is spelled correctly on their memorial,” she said.
In a case that has sent shockwaves through the Vancouver Island art community, a local art dealer has been charged with one count of fraud over $5,000. Calvin Lucyshyn, the former operator of the now-closed Winchester Galleries in Oak Bay, faces the charge after police seized hundreds of artworks, valued in the tens of millions of dollars, from various storage sites in the Greater Victoria area.
Alleged Fraud Scheme
Police allege that Lucyshyn had been taking valuable art from members of the public under the guise of appraising or consigning the pieces for sale, only to cut off all communication with the owners. This investigation began in April 2022, when police received a complaint from an individual who had provided four paintings to Lucyshyn, including three works by renowned British Columbia artist Emily Carr, and had not received any updates on their sale.
Further investigation by the Saanich Police Department revealed that this was not an isolated incident. Detectives found other alleged victims who had similar experiences with Winchester Galleries, leading police to execute search warrants at three separate storage locations across Greater Victoria.
Massive Seizure of Artworks
In what has become one of the largest art fraud investigations in recent Canadian history, authorities seized approximately 1,100 pieces of art, including more than 600 pieces from a storage site in Saanich, over 300 in Langford, and more than 100 in Oak Bay. Some of the more valuable pieces, according to police, were estimated to be worth $85,000 each.
Lucyshyn was arrested on April 21, 2022, but was later released from custody. In May 2024, a fraud charge was formally laid against him.
Artwork Returned, but Some Remain Unclaimed
In a statement released on Monday, the Saanich Police Department confirmed that 1,050 of the seized artworks have been returned to their rightful owners. However, several pieces remain unclaimed, and police continue their efforts to track down the owners of these works.
Court Proceedings Ongoing
The criminal charge against Lucyshyn has not yet been tested in court, and he has publicly stated his intention to defend himself against any pending allegations. His next court appearance is scheduled for September 10, 2024.
Impact on the Local Art Community
The news of Lucyshyn’s alleged fraud has deeply affected Vancouver Island’s art community, particularly collectors, galleries, and artists who may have been impacted by the gallery’s operations. With high-value pieces from artists like Emily Carr involved, the case underscores the vulnerabilities that can exist in art transactions.
For many art collectors, the investigation has raised concerns about the potential for fraud in the art world, particularly when it comes to dealing with private galleries and dealers. The seizure of such a vast collection of artworks has also led to questions about the management and oversight of valuable art pieces, as well as the importance of transparency and trust in the industry.
As the case continues to unfold in court, it will likely serve as a cautionary tale for collectors and galleries alike, highlighting the need for due diligence in the sale and appraisal of high-value artworks.
While much of the seized artwork has been returned, the full scale of the alleged fraud is still being unraveled. Lucyshyn’s upcoming court appearances will be closely watched, not only by the legal community but also by the wider art world, as it navigates the fallout from one of Canada’s most significant art fraud cases in recent memory.
Art collectors and individuals who believe they may have been affected by this case are encouraged to contact the Saanich Police Department to inquire about any unclaimed pieces. Additionally, the case serves as a reminder for anyone involved in high-value art transactions to work with reputable dealers and to keep thorough documentation of all transactions.
As with any investment, whether in art or other ventures, it is crucial to be cautious and informed. Art fraud can devastate personal collections and finances, but by taking steps to verify authenticity, provenance, and the reputation of dealers, collectors can help safeguard their valuable pieces.