End Notes
The Controversies of Constantin Brancusi
To return to your place in the main article, just click your Back button
Part 1
[1] 1876-1957. More correctly, “Brâncuși”.
[2] Stéphanie Giry, “An Odd Bird”, Legal Affairs, Sept/Oct 2002, http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/September-October-2002/story_giry_sepoct2002.msp
[3] A marble version of the same work also exists.
[4] Sanda Miller, Brancusi, Reaktion Books, London, 2010 at 61.
[5] Pontus Hulten et al, Brancusi, Faber and Faber, London, 1988 at 131.
[6] Hulton, op cit at 132.
[7] Roger Devigne, L’Eve Nouvelle, January 1920; Eric Shanes, Constantin Brancusi, Abbeville Press, New York, 1989 at 56.
[8] Sanda Miller, “Brancusi’s women”, Apollo (March 2007), 56 – 63.
[9] Quoted in Miller [note 4] at 60.
[10] Shanes, op cit at 55. According to Hulton, op cit at 130, Brancusi was simply inspired by the “graceful way” the lady gazed at herself in a mirror.
[11] 1882-1962; known to her family as Mimi: Miller, op cit [note 4] at 60.
[12] For a full account of Marie’s remarkable life, see Celia Bertin, Marie Bonaparte: A Life, Harcourt Brace Joyanovich, 1982.
[13] George’s closest friend was his uncle Waldemar, who accompanied the couple on their honeymoon. Waldemar was known as “Papa 2” by the couple’s children: see Bertin, op cit at 94.
[14] Published in the Jnl Bruxelles Médical under the pseudonym A E Narjani.
[15] Marie’s theory is today considered incorrect.
[16] Bertin, op cit at 155,
[17] Miller, op cit [note 4] at 60.
[18] Friedrich Teja Bach and ors, Constantin Brancusi, Exh Cat (1995) at 140; cited at Philadelphia Museum of Art website http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/51035.html
[19] Miller, op cit [note 4] at 62.
[20] Miller, op cit [note 8]
[21] Quoted earlier in this article.
Part 2
[22] This series would preoccupy him for some 20 years.
[23] Giry, op cit.
[24] C Brancusi v United States, Treasury Decisions, 54 no 43063.
[25] United States v Olivotti and Company, Treasury Decisions, 30 no 36309.
[26] For the detail of the court proceedings, I am indebted to Thomas L. Hartshorne’s “Modernism on Trial: C. Brancusi v. United States (1928)”, Journal of American Studies, Vol. 20, No. 1 (April 1986), pp. 93-104.
[27] Editor of Vanity Fair.
[28] Other issues included whether the Bird was simply a copy, rather than an original. The court accepted that it was one of a series of variations on a theme, with different materials and with different proportions, and that each of them were originals in their own right: Hartshorne, op cit.
[29] This question has also tended to get confused with the separate issue of what art is for.
[30] This emphasis was shared even by most of Brancusi’s witnesses.
[31] Giry, op cit.
[32] Sidney Geist, Brancusi, Hacker Art Books, New York, 1983 at 4, 5.
© Philip McCouat 2015
Return to HOME
Part 1
[1] 1876-1957. More correctly, “Brâncuși”.
[2] Stéphanie Giry, “An Odd Bird”, Legal Affairs, Sept/Oct 2002, http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/September-October-2002/story_giry_sepoct2002.msp
[3] A marble version of the same work also exists.
[4] Sanda Miller, Brancusi, Reaktion Books, London, 2010 at 61.
[5] Pontus Hulten et al, Brancusi, Faber and Faber, London, 1988 at 131.
[6] Hulton, op cit at 132.
[7] Roger Devigne, L’Eve Nouvelle, January 1920; Eric Shanes, Constantin Brancusi, Abbeville Press, New York, 1989 at 56.
[8] Sanda Miller, “Brancusi’s women”, Apollo (March 2007), 56 – 63.
[9] Quoted in Miller [note 4] at 60.
[10] Shanes, op cit at 55. According to Hulton, op cit at 130, Brancusi was simply inspired by the “graceful way” the lady gazed at herself in a mirror.
[11] 1882-1962; known to her family as Mimi: Miller, op cit [note 4] at 60.
[12] For a full account of Marie’s remarkable life, see Celia Bertin, Marie Bonaparte: A Life, Harcourt Brace Joyanovich, 1982.
[13] George’s closest friend was his uncle Waldemar, who accompanied the couple on their honeymoon. Waldemar was known as “Papa 2” by the couple’s children: see Bertin, op cit at 94.
[14] Published in the Jnl Bruxelles Médical under the pseudonym A E Narjani.
[15] Marie’s theory is today considered incorrect.
[16] Bertin, op cit at 155,
[17] Miller, op cit [note 4] at 60.
[18] Friedrich Teja Bach and ors, Constantin Brancusi, Exh Cat (1995) at 140; cited at Philadelphia Museum of Art website http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/51035.html
[19] Miller, op cit [note 4] at 62.
[20] Miller, op cit [note 8]
[21] Quoted earlier in this article.
Part 2
[22] This series would preoccupy him for some 20 years.
[23] Giry, op cit.
[24] C Brancusi v United States, Treasury Decisions, 54 no 43063.
[25] United States v Olivotti and Company, Treasury Decisions, 30 no 36309.
[26] For the detail of the court proceedings, I am indebted to Thomas L. Hartshorne’s “Modernism on Trial: C. Brancusi v. United States (1928)”, Journal of American Studies, Vol. 20, No. 1 (April 1986), pp. 93-104.
[27] Editor of Vanity Fair.
[28] Other issues included whether the Bird was simply a copy, rather than an original. The court accepted that it was one of a series of variations on a theme, with different materials and with different proportions, and that each of them were originals in their own right: Hartshorne, op cit.
[29] This question has also tended to get confused with the separate issue of what art is for.
[30] This emphasis was shared even by most of Brancusi’s witnesses.
[31] Giry, op cit.
[32] Sidney Geist, Brancusi, Hacker Art Books, New York, 1983 at 4, 5.
© Philip McCouat 2015
Return to HOME