#I have been told several times that my preparatory drawings are interesting. But they are small and I don't want to part with them: they ar

[mart-singer]

I have been told several times that my preparatory drawings are interesting. But they are small and I don't want to part with them: they are part of my archives. I always wanted to redo them larger but how can I convey the messy and dirty spirit of the drawing without making a hyperrealistic and soulless copy. Here is an attempt with the help of monotype and colored pencils. Since for monotype, you have to draw upside down so that it prints right side up, I didn't always understand the numbers I was printing. It produces weird things, sometimes incomprehensible but it keeps the spirit of the original. Monotype and colors pencils on paper, 16,1 x 11,7 inches / 24 x 29,7 cm

[lemomentfatal]

October 31, 2022, 1:03 pm

This is the last day I can call. Tomorrow I am going back to Paris, back to the exhibition space, to see the performances programmed on the last day of the show. Two days ago, I fell on my bike, nothing serious, just kind of stupid, and the screen of my phone broke, the device no longer accepts my headphones, the transmitted sound is not distinct. There are parts of what this young person tells me that I cannot make out. It is the first time she has come to the Salon de Montrouge, she is here on her own, it is the beginning of the holidays. She thinks it is a great idea to call the visitors. She is a student in a preparatory art school near Paris. Her teachers told her go and visit the exhibition; she was very keen to come.

She is standing in front of a house, she thinks it is made of lead, it is a piece by the artist Corentin Darré. She finds it funny to encounter this material here, because last year she did some work on church windows, she thought a lot about this material which she did not like at all, because of its toxicity.

She does not identify herself as an artist, but this year she is being asked to create things. It is a beginning, on a small scale, it is not very concrete yet.

It scares her that as an artist you are not supposed to be there with the audience of your work. There is something about the things having to be finished, that disturbs her. Her interest in art began with theatre. This February, she went with some friends to see a play, which really touched her. She has been thinking a lot about stage design since then.

Our conversation does not quite flow. I ask her several times to repeat words that I cannot make out, there are silences while I take notes, she waits for me. She speaks slowly, but the phone obscures her speech. I explain that I have a problem with the sound, that my phone is broken.

It is a quiet hour in the exhibition. She is now next to a lot of small, white bunk beds that multiply in space because of a mirror, it is a piece by the artist Camille Sart, she thinks it is great.

She goes towards the drawings. She asks me if they are the ones with people with funnels in their heads. She reads the text on the title card, she likes Roland Topor too, the first thing she saw of him, but without knowing it, was the film La Planète Sauvage, with the blue people.

I feel like I have not asked people the right questions. What did I really want to hear from them? What did I want to give them? I want these calls to have a certain importance; I was looking for a certain sense of intensity that I often feel is missing in exhibitions. Today, I have the feeling that I am not really achieving it. The words are mumbled, as if I were under a duvet. It is the last day, it is the end of this framework of writing, this way of narrating that I have imposed on my life since the first day of the exhibition.

She asks me if I have talked a lot with the other artists. I say that I do not think I have talked enough with them, that the days of installing the exhibition and the opening were a bit feverish, that maybe I should start calling the other artists. She laughs. She asks me if I am happy with our exchange. I say that I am very happy to have spoken with her. I wish her a good day, good luck, and so does she.

[gyrlversion]

The $450 million question: Where is the Salvator Mundi?

Written by Oscar Holland, CNN

When bids for Leonardo da Vinci’s “Salvator Mundi” hit $200 million there was an audible gasp in the auction room. At the $300 million mark, onlookers broke into applause.

By the time the painting sold for $450.3 million, Christie’s in New York had witnessed one of the most dramatic moments in recent art history. Once dismissed as a copy and sold for just £45 ($57) in the 1950s, this mysterious depiction of Christ had become — by some considerable margin — the most expensive artwork ever to appear at auction.

And the drama didn’t stop there.

“Salvator Mundi” hasn’t been seen in public since that evening in November 2017. Its whereabouts have become the source of intense speculation after the Louvre Abu Dhabi, which had previously announced it would display the painting, last year postponed the grand unveiling without explanation.

Bidding hits $400 million at Christie’s in New York in November 2017. After fees, the painting’s final sale price was $450.3 million. Credit: Eduardo Munoz Alvarez/Getty Images

The most common theory is that the 500-year-old artwork is sitting in storage in Switzerland — specifically in Geneva, where, according to The New York Times, more than a million works of art are kept in secretive tax-free warehouses by collectors and galleries. But last week, another theory emerged in an opinion piece by art dealer Kenny Schachter published on Artnet: that the last known privately-held Leonardo is on a luxury yacht owned by Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman.

It is widely thought that the record-breaking bid was made on behalf of bin Salman by his friend, ally and fellow Saudi prince, Badr bin Abdullah bin Mohammed bin Farhan al-Saud. Shortly after the allegation emerged in 2017, the Saudi Embassy in Washington published a statement claiming that Prince Badr had, in fact, been asked to act as an intermediary for the Abu Dhabi Department of Culture and Tourism, not the crown prince. But bin Salman, often known as MBS, has himself never publicly confirmed or denied his role in the purchase.

Art world mystery

The yacht story may not be as farfetched as it seems, according to Ben Lewis, author of “The Last Leonardo,” a book detailing the mystery and controversy surrounding the painting.

“It’s either on the yacht or in a Geneva lock-up, and I’m slowly coming to the conclusion that the yacht is really quite plausible,” he said in a phone interview, adding: “But I would suggest that it may not be the safest environment in which to hang up this picture.”

Lewis’ growing conviction centers on an account by Dianne Modestini, the conservator responsible for restoring the “Salvator Mundi” ahead of the $450 million sale. She told CNN that, about a year after the auction, she was contacted by a Swiss restorer looking for advice on how to safely transport the fragile painting to France, with the suggestion it was headed for the Louvre in Paris.

Yet, the painting appears to have never arrived — or not at the Louvre, at least. (The museum confirmed to CNN that the Abu Dhabi government has not yet responded to its request to borrow the artwork.)

The “Salvator Mundi” on display in New York ahead of the 2017 auction. Credit: AFP Contributor/AFP/AFP/Getty Images

Of course, the fact that logistical inquiries were made doesn’t mean the “Salvator Mundi” was moved at all. And Modestini said that, following initial exchanges with the Swiss conservator, a subsequent inspection of the work was called off, “which indicated to me, at least, that the planned transfer of the painting … was canceled,” she said in an email.

“Of course, something else may have happened since then. I find it hard to imagine that an insurance company would agree to cover it if they knew it was going to (be) kept on a yacht. But that is just speculation on my part.”

“Personally, I don’t find the story particularly credible,” she added.

Schachter, who would only reveal that the alleged transfer to bin Salman’s yacht occurred “within the last year,” countered: “You can insure anything anywhere, you can do anything you want as long as you pay the money.”

A matter of attribution

This is just the latest in a maelstrom of rumors and conspiracy theories that have swirled around the painting. How much credence to afford any of them is clearly up for debate.

But the global interest in such claims speaks to the art world’s obsession with the painting’s whereabouts. And much of the speculation around why the painting has remained hidden centers on its attribution.

For centuries, the “Salvator Mundi” was believed to be either a copy, or the work of one of the Italian master’s assistants. But in 2005, a consortium led by art dealers Robert Simon and Alexander Parrish purchased the work for under $10,000 in the hope it might be revealed to be an authentic Leonardo.

When they tasked Modestini with restoring the artwork, it was in dire condition — it had been heavily overpainted and its wood paneling badly damaged. Only after the restoration was complete was the painting declared a true Leonardo.

In 2011, following six years of investigation and authentication research, the National Gallery in London unveiled the newly restored painting at its Leonardo exhibition. A Christie’s account of this process describes “broad” and “unusually uniform” consensus that it was Leonardo’s work.

How do art auctions really work?

Yet the painting’s attribution has been questioned by several art historians. Collaborative efforts between Leonardo and his assistants were not uncommon, and while few experts totally discount the Italian master’s involvement, some believe the “Salvator Mundi” should, at the very least, be partly attributed to his workshop.

Scholars who back the authentication point to hallmarks of Leonardo’s craft: the skillful depiction of Christ’s raised hand, the “sfumato” painting technique used on his face, and the use of pigments and panels consistent with the artist’s oeuvre. The existence of a hidden thumb (a “pentimento,” or “second thought” whereby a painter changes his or her mind) suggests, to some, that the painting cannot be a copy.

Other historical evidence is also regularly cited, such as the existence of preparatory drawings by Leonardo and a 1650 etching of the “Salvator Mundi” by the printmaker Wenceslaus Hollar, who claims to have sketched from the original and directly credited the Italian master.

“The picture, in a number of key areas, shows what I call Leonardo’s ‘science of art,'” said Martin Kemp, a Leonardo scholar, in a phone interview.

“That is to say: His understanding of various aspects of nature and how it can be recreated (manifests) in a way that none of the copyists really understand. Indeed, (Leonardo’s) immediate followers in the studio didn’t have that level of intellectual understanding of science, optics, anatomy, dynamics and so on.

“On the basis of what I’ve seen in the picture, in incredibly high-resolution digital, in the scientific examination and in the photographs of it when it was being conserved, I don’t rule out the possibility of studio participation,” said Kemp, who is set to publish a book on the subject later this year. “But I cannot define any areas that I would say are studio work.”

Scholarly disputes

Others are less certain. Numerous writers and scholars have filled the silence surrounding the painting with alternative theories.

Lewis believes that the artwork is “Leonardo plus workshop — and very little Leonardo.” Oxford University historian Matthew Landrus, meanwhile, has claimed that only about 5% to 20% of the painting was completed by Leonardo (“It is a Leonardo painting with the help of workshop assistants,” he told CNN last year, attributing credit to the painter’s assistant Bernardino Luini).

Metropolitan Museum of Art curator Carmen Bambach — who, along with Kemp, was one of a small number of scholars invited to examine the painting at the National Gallery in 2008 — is expected to credit another assistant, Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio, in her forthcoming book.

According to Lewis, there is not only disagreement in the wider art community, but also among the small group of experts that inspected the painting in 2008 — a meeting he described as “absolutely crucial” in the decision to attribute the work to Leonardo. Indeed, in comments published in the Guardian, Bambach has since criticized Christie’s for including her name in its cataloging, saying that she did not expressly back the attribution at the meeting.

Christie’s did not directly respond to Banbach’s criticisms, but a spokesperson for the auction house told CNN in an email: “The attribution to Leonardo was established almost ten years prior to sale by previous owners in preparation for the painting’s inclusion in the National Gallery show … While we recognize that this painting is a subject of enormous public opinion, no new opinion or speculation since the 2017 sale at Christie’s has caused us to revisit this position.”

The “Salvator Mundi” is the source of ongoing debate between scholars and art historians. Credit: Drew Angerer/Getty Images North America/Getty Images

Kemp described Lewis’ account of the meeting as “completely spurious,” saying that “we were not asked to vote and say (whether it was a Leonardo) … It was a very controlled, responsible process. I was put under no pressure at all to express an opinion.”

In a statement emailed to CNN, the National Gallery defended the decision to attribute the painting to Leonardo in its 2011 exhibition, saying it “makes careful consideration before including any loan in an exhibition.”

“It weighs up the advantage in including it — the benefit to the public in seeing the work, the advantage to the argument and scholarship of the exhibition as a whole,” the statement continued. “On that occasion we felt that it would be of great interest to include ‘Salvator Mundi’ in (the exhibition) as a new discovery as it was an important opportunity to test a new attribution by direct comparison with works universally accepted as Leonardo’s.”

Amid the disputes, what is less debatable is that any change in attribution would be hugely damaging to the artwork’s value — as well as the credibility of institutions involved in its authentication. Lewis, who said that “as a workshop painting this picture would fetch between $1.5 and $20 million,” also speculated that the current owner may be keeping the artwork hidden to protect it from further scrutiny.

“I think (the owner is) worried about exposing the painting to the oxygen of public display,” he said. “What’s that going to do? Lots of people can come and discuss whether it’s a Leonardo or not … the picture would come in for a lot of criticism. I think its authenticity would be argued over.

“The simple fact is that the world’s greatest Leonardo experts are divided about the attribution of this painting.”

Rich provenance

For all the public wrangling over its attribution, fascination with the “Salvator Mundi” initially stemmed from its remarkable history.

Thought to have been commissioned by Louis XII of France, the artwork was later owned by England’s Charles I. Some historians believe it was later kept in the private chambers of Charles II’s wife, Henrietta Maria.

But the painting’s storied past is also filled with long periods in which — like today — its whereabouts were unknown.

The “Salvator Mundi” was unaccounted for between 1763 and 1900, when it was acquired by the painter and collector Sir Charles Robinson (at which time it was still being credited as the work of Luini). It sold at Sotheby’s in 1958 for just £45 (approximately $57), and then again disappeared before resurfacing at a small auction house in the US.

It was here that Simon and Parrish took their gamble. And in 2013, following the painting’s authentication, they sold it for $80 million (more than 8,000 times what they had paid for it) to Swiss art dealer Yves Bouvier, who, shortly after, sold it to Russian businessman Dmitry Rybolovlev for $127.5 million.

This rags-to-riches tale — coupled with the painting’s rich provenance and the fact that it’s considered one of around 20 surviving Leonardo works — proves, perhaps, that the value of an artwork is as much about its story as its aesthetic value.

But recent twists in this remarkable tale may have had the opposite effect.

“I think it would be very difficult to sell it now for $450 million,” Lewis said. “It would just be impossible — it’s too controversial.”

The Saudi government and the Louvre Abu Dhabi had not responded to CNN’s requests for comment at the time of publication.

The post The $450 million question: Where is the Salvator Mundi? appeared first on Gyrlversion.

from WordPress http://www.gyrlversion.net/the-450-million-question-where-is-the-salvator-mundi/

[powellproject]

News Coverage of the Buchanan County Courthouse Competition

A postcard showing the Buchanan County Courthouse.

Over the past few days, I’ve been searching the 1873 editions of the St. Joseph Daily Morning Herald for additional articles discussing the Buchanan County Courthouse competition. I’ve previously written about the courthouse here:

The Buchanan County Courthouse Competition (PART 1)

The Buchanan County Courthouse Competition (PART 2)

A New Courthouse

Two articles about the project appeared in the February 12 edition of the St. Joseph DMH:

COUNTY COURT.

Plans for a New Court House to be Considered To-Day.

A General Invitation Extended to all by the County Judge.

The County Court held a secret session yesterday, in which they selected jurors for the next term of the Court, under an old law of 1849, which has never been repealed.

No orders were issued yesterday.

To-day the plans for a new Court House will be considered. It is thought by some that sufficient notice has not been given to parties interested, and that no definite action will be taken in the matter to-day. All citizens who take any interest in the enterprise are requested to be present and aid in the election of plans for the building. The Court will open at 9 ½ o’clock.

and

NEW COURT HOUSE.

Plans Submitted To-Day.

Let Every Architect Have a Show.

For the Morning Herald.

St. Joseph, February 10, 1873.

Sam Patch once said that some things could be done as well as others. This remark was probably evolved from Sam’s inner consciousness before leaping from Genesse Falls. A year ago it was proposed to build a new Court House and the Gazette loudly protested against such folly, insisting that the present old tumble-down shanty was all-sufficient for legal purposes. Now, that organ of the taxpayers is in favor of the change and it is not at all particular whether or not the interests of the tax-payer is consulted in the matter.

St. Joseph has long felt the necessity for a Court House, one that will reflect honor upon our city; one that our citizens can proudly point to as an ornament, one that is on a par with other buildings lately erected by private citizens. Our neighbor, Kansas City, has expended her money liberally, and her Court House does her credit. For several years the different County Courts have had this matter before them. The last County Court took the initiatory step and invited all our architects to make drawings and plans. All our architects did so, and some from abroad. But nothing definite was done. The old Court House was taken down, the hill graded, and as we thought, the matter was settled that we were going to have a Court House. A howl was made by the Gazette and its strikers, and the old Court let the matter drop. The new Court it seems have taken the matter into consideration, and last week appointed Wednesday of this week for a public meeting to select plans for the Court House. So quickly and nicely has the matter been done that we venture to say that not fifty citizens outside of the Ring know of it. We have not fault to find with the Court for appointing a public meeting. But in the name of common sense let it be a public meeting and not a ring of men who, from their continued residence in the Court House, one would suppose are fed by the county. We needn’t name them; their faces are so familiar that we need only to refer to them as standing jurors and general utility men, in order to recognize them. The president of the court is always [illegible] doubt honestly. Now let him be honest and not be the cat’s paw of the scheming set that [illegible] around the Court House. The County Court owes it to themselves to do everything free and open handed. The cry has been for the last ten years, “corruption of the office holders,” and this Court, above all others, must see to it that they do right. Let the citizens have a chance to see the plans and elevations. Let them be put up in some public place, say in the court room.

Let the attorneys, Judges of the Supreme Court, Circuit Court, Probate Court, and other public officers be asked to give their suggestions. The architects were given to understand that none of the plans submitted to the old Court would be recognized by this Court. And now, in the last few days, it has leaked out that there is one Architect in our midst that is the fair haired boy of the Court, and that, under their directions, he has quietly gone on and prepared his plans and elevations, and on Wednesday morning he comes in, all cocked and primed, the only architect ready.

Now, is this fair dealing? Why not let [Edmond] Eckel, [Alfred] Meier, [Patrick] Meager, [G. A.] Harweise, and [W. Angelo] Powell have a chance to compete with the famed architect? Why not give them time to make elevations and plans, and not take snap judgement on them in this manner? We call upon Michael Fitzgerald, as honest a man as ever sat in that court, to stop these proceedings. We call upon Squire Taylor, who is too just a man to be guilty of any such meanness, to do the same. And as for honest John, we call upon him to show us the law for such inquitous proceedings.

No! No! Gentlemen, this matter must not be made a cut and dried game. Give all the architects a chance to show their skill. We have some eminent architect here, and let them have ample opportunity to compete in this matter. Give them fifteen or twenty days to get up their plans and elevations, and don’t give way to these old rats, that are nibbling away at the county cheese, preparatory to a big steal. Let our Court House be an ornament to our city. Let everything about it be done with deliberation, and let our County Court be just in all things and partial in nothing.

CATO.

The identity of this editorial’s author is lost to history, but it could have been W. Angelo Powell. Powell had a habit of corresponding with the DMH and his name is curiously placed last among the list of St. Joseph’s architects.

The February 13 edition of the DMH summarized the results of the County Court’s meeting from the previous day:

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT.

The Proposition to Erect a New County Court House.

The Result of Yesterday’s Deliberations.

The County Court was busied during the greater portion of its session yesterday in considering the proposition to build a new Court House.

Several leading citizens were present, and their sound advice was very gladly received and considered by the Judges.

The following points were raised: That a new Court House must be built, that it never could be built cheaper than now, and that the county never has been, or never will be better able to build one than at the present time, when county warrants sell at 97 ½@100, and scarce at that.

The result of the consultation, in a few words, was the favorable consideration of the following proposition: To build the foundation this year, at an expense not to exceed $30,000, and then let it settle during next winter, before the second year’s work is commenced. It was also deemed advisable to pay for the same in county warrants, to be exchanged at the option of the holder, for county bonds, bearing an interest of ten per cent per annum. It was thought best to employ a competent Superintendent of this proposed work.

No decisive action was taken. The question will be again considered at the cession of the Court to-day.

That same day, someone writing under the pseudonym “PLUTO” responded to CATO’s editorial:

Rings.

St. Joseph, February 13, 1873.

EDITORS MORNING HERALD—Saturn got inside of a ring or two and has always been proud of its position, and has held itself in its orbit like a well behaved planet. But we cannot all be Saturns. Some of us are of the earth, earthly. I perceive that your neighbor, the Gazette, is after your correspondent “Cato” with a pile of “dirt.” Well, let every man use the commodity of which he has the greatest supply and which he can spare.

“Cato” shared the Gazette with opposing the construction of a new courthouse last winter and favoring it now. Therein “Cato” told the truth and no amount of duct or “dirt” thrown by the foul birds who now scratch in the Gazette office and around John Bretz, can cover it up. Such a state of purity and economy as the Gazette would give us is absolutely sickening. It has favored every steal ever undertaken here, as you have often shown. Its proprietor and fugleman, Wm. Ridenbaugh, has gone to Jefferson City with Joe Grubb to get Joe’s salary as Judge raised $1,000 or $2,000 per annum. All through last fall’s canvas that sheet upheld Woodson for taking $20,000 of our county bonds as a consideration for saddling on the Buchanan County taxpayers a debt of $1,200,000 in bonds, principal and interest, not a dollar of which was legal, not a dollar of which would have been put upon us but for him, not a dollar of which ever ought to be paid. Yet, the moment our County Court refuses to pay the interest on those bonds till their legality can be settled, this shyster among journalists raises a hue and cry about the ears of the County Judges, while every member of the spotless sheet is filled with sickening puffs of our “pure and high minded Governor!” Faugh!

How was it on the proposition to throw away $500,000 of cash invested by this city in the bridge” The stream that is welling forth from the bunghole was caused to run by the St. Joseph Gazette. But I understand it does oppose the giving of $15,000 to secure the State Lunatic Asylum. Very likely. Now, I wonder if my old friend Cundiff won’t give me a little editorial lift from his “dirt” pile? He is so very argumentative!

PLUTO

This response seems more concerned with the journalistic sparring of two newspapers than the courthouse competition and leads me to believe Powell was not “CATO.”

The February 14 edition of the DMH reported:

County Court.

The Court convened pursuant to adjournment. Present—All the Judges.

The matter of a new Court House was again discussed yesterday, but no progress was made. At the final adjournment no definite action had been taken.

The Court adjourned, until the first Monday of March, at 1 p.m.

On February 15, the DMH reported:

“STRAWS TELL, &c.”

Is There to be any Improvement in County Headquarters.

Shall Odd Fellow’s Hall, or Some Other Building be Purchased or Rented!

There was a rumor current on the street yesterday forenoon that the County Judges had purchased Odd Fellow’s Hall for the use of the courts and officers of Buchanan county. So far as we could learn the rumor was unfounded. It naturally had its origin in the belief, entertained by nearly every tax per, that this course, or one similar to it, is the best one to be pursued.

Some step must be taken in that direction soon. There is no staring down that fact. The present accommodations are entirely insufficient and quite uncomfortable. While the new Court House is being built and made ready for occupying, which will consume the better part of four years, some desirable building must be obtained for county head quarters, and we know of no better one than Odd Fellows Hall, if it can be secured on reasonable terms.

The County Judges will make a further examination of plans for a new Court House on the 5th day of March next.

On March 28, the DMH reported:

COUNTY COURT.

Another one of those Unaccountable “Secret Session.”

The Architects to Appear in Court To-day.

During the afternoon, the County Court held another of those unaccountable SECRET SESSIONS that have been so frequent of late. Even the County Clerk and his deputy were excluded from the room. The people demand from the judges their authority for sitting as a court with closed doors. A court is supposed to be open and free to all men.

The court adjourned to nine o’clock this morning. At ten o’clock the competing architects will answer questions proposed to them by the County Judges, on the Court House plans.

Under “MINOR ITEMS,” published the same day, the DMH stated:

—It is very probable that the County Judges will adopt to day a plan for the new County Court house.

The following day, the DMH announced that Patrick F. Meagher was to be the architect for the new Buchanan County Courthouse:

THAT BOND.

The Acceptance of P. F. Meagher’s Plans for the County Court House.

The Absurd Bond Demand From Him by the County Judges

After weeks of deliberation the County Judges have selected plans for the new county court house.

They received six plans from St. Joseph architects, one from Chicago, and one from Quincy. Drawings have been exhibited for days past in late show windows on the most prominent street corners, for the people to admire the imposing architecture.

And all this has resulted in the choice of the plans submitted by P. F. Meagher, architect of this city. We shall publish a description of the same tomorrow morning.

But here we desire to call public attention to the bond that the Judges have ordered Mr. Meagher to give before the plans are formally accepted. They decree that he shall give a bond of $100,000 (a very large sum as all will see.) that the cost of the building shall not exceed the estimates thereon.

Mr. Meagher presented a bid from contractors in this city who offered to do the work, according to plans and specifications, for less than the estimates, and he stated that the contracting parties would file a satisfactory bond so to do. The Judges refused to entertain this bid, as they intended to have the work dome by a Superintendent employed by the Court.

We gave the County Judges credit for more judgement and sense than to ask such a bond form a man who would have no agency in the construction of the building. The bond would have no consideration whatever, and would not be legally worth the paper it would be written on.

Directly next to this article was published another:

COUNTY COURT.

The War of the Architects.

The Plans of P. F. Meagher Accepted Conditionally.

The Court convened pursuant to adjournment. Present, all the judges.

During the afternoon, the Court was in secret session.

“Upon consideration that P. F. Meagher furnish to this Court, on or before the 11th day of April, 1873, a bond in the penalty of $100,000, with security to be approved by this Court House, furnished by him in accordance with the statements and estimates in his response to the questions propounded by this Court, can be carried out, and said Court House fully completed in accordance therewith, and to the amount therein embraced—then said plan prepared by Meagher shall be adopted by this Court, subject to such modification of arrangement of rooms as may be ordered by the Court. Said plan, showing the plan, 235 feet and depth of 205 feet from out to out, the compensation to be paid for said plan to said Meagher to be two percent of the estimated cost of said building, and all working plans to be furnished by said Meagher.”

Adjourned until 9 o’clock this morning.

As I have previously written, Meagher’s submission for the Buchanan County Courthouse was likely chosen not for its design, but because his estimate for the cost of construction was the lowest of those submitted. Meagher’s figures aroused so much suspicion that he was ultimately required to put up a $100,000 bond. In an attempt to placate his critics, Meagher agreed to set his architectural fee at two percent of the project’s cost of construction (an extremely low figure).