I find it very interesting to see scholars and connoisseurs review works. Here we have a situation where one mentions how one mentions an aspect as true to Michelangelo's work and another completely discounts the argument. Unfortunately, if two appraisers were to value the sculpture, either as a Michelangelo or not, two different values would probably be returned as well. It is a short and excellent article and reveals very pointedly how subjective a field authentication can be.
Siegle gives a very nice pro and con review from experts of why or why not the sculpture is or is not a true Michelangelo. The article lists 6 areas, I will post the first two. Follow the link below for the full article and the remaining pro/con points.
To read the full article, click HERE.1. The Hair
Pro: “I saw passages in the carving of the hair that only Michelangelo does,” Brandt says. “He would begin by carving out … an undifferentiated cap of marble, and out of that he distinguishes the curls.”
Con: “This is kind of an impressionistic way of making hair,” wrote the late Columbia historian James Beck. “Even the hair of the David, which is very intellectualized, grows out of the head. It’s not applied to the head.”
2. The Face
Pro: Brandt likens it to that of a Michelangelo in Britain’s National Gallery, and Met curator James Draper says the “blunt athletic profile” echoes his Battle of the Centaurs.
Con: The Archer’s bland expression seems inconsistent with Michelangelo, says the University of Pennsylvania’s Leo Steinberg, who adds, “The right cheek and jaw seem planed down.”
No comments:
Post a Comment