Comments on: Michelangelo Drawings: Real or Fake? http://artandperception.com/2006/03/michelangelo-drawings-real-or-fake.html a multi-disciplinary dialog Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:14:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Thur http://artandperception.com/2006/03/michelangelo-drawings-real-or-fake.html#comment-128 Thur Sat, 09 Sep 2006 00:13:00 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/v01/2006/03/michelangelo-drawings-real-or-fake.html#comment-128 "Modern foreignsic analysis would tell all!" Nonsense. If as several sources in the media (all commenting on the current exhibition) are right, they could be contemporary copies, drawings by other masters, or by members of his art-house. How is technology going to discern between two artists who had access to the same materials? Much of this stuff was claimed to have come from friends, family and from the effects of Michelangelo, so any possible dna analysis (or ancient fingerprint remains analysis )would get nowhere. In the end, as you must have read in this thread, it always comes down to the majority of expert opinion. Nothing an artist can do to make their works unique can deter the forger. See forgery of currencies for example. “Modern foreignsic analysis would tell all!”

Nonsense.
If as several sources in the media (all commenting on the
current exhibition) are right, they could be contemporary
copies, drawings by other masters, or by members of his
art-house.
How is technology going to discern between two artists
who had access to the same materials? Much of this
stuff was claimed to have come from friends, family and
from the effects of Michelangelo, so any possible dna
analysis (or ancient fingerprint remains analysis )would get
nowhere.
In the end, as you must have read in this thread, it
always comes down to the majority of expert opinion.
Nothing an artist can do to make their works unique
can deter the forger. See forgery of currencies for
example.

]]> By: Karl Zipser http://artandperception.com/2006/03/michelangelo-drawings-real-or-fake.html#comment-129 Karl Zipser Sat, 09 Sep 2006 00:13:00 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/v01/2006/03/michelangelo-drawings-real-or-fake.html#comment-129 I agree with Thur that if it were a contemporary copy, then nothing in the way of scientific analysis of materials is going to distinguish it from a Michelangelo. I agree with Thur that if it were a contemporary copy, then nothing in
the way of scientific analysis of materials is going to distinguish it
from a Michelangelo.

]]> By: Ashley Clarke http://artandperception.com/2006/03/michelangelo-drawings-real-or-fake.html#comment-127 Ashley Clarke Sat, 09 Sep 2006 00:12:00 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/v01/2006/03/michelangelo-drawings-real-or-fake.html#comment-127 Modern foreignsic analysis would tell all! Modern foreignsic analysis would tell all!

]]> By: Karl Zipser http://artandperception.com/2006/03/michelangelo-drawings-real-or-fake.html#comment-126 Karl Zipser Sat, 09 Sep 2006 00:11:00 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/v01/2006/03/michelangelo-drawings-real-or-fake.html#comment-126 Hi CB, Let me say why the question of whether the drawing is by Michelangelo is an important issue. In the exhibition, Michelangelo Drawings: Closer to the Master (which I studied recently in Haarlem), visitors were presented with the opinion that Michelangelo was the greatest pen-and-ink figure draftsman of the Renaissance. I found this a remarkable statement, even before I began to question the authenticity of "A seated male nude twisting around." In any case, it seems to me that this judgment is based on this one drawing. Therefore, the question of authenticity becomes critical to how we interpret Michelangelo's work in this respect. Michelangelo was a great artist, but not a perfect one. It is precisely for this reason that it is interesting to know if he was a great pen and ink artist, or only a mediocre one (as the other drawings suggest). At the exhibition, one view is presented. That is why I feel it is important to discuss the alternative. I would like to say this about the drawing: it looks terrible on the web. But in real life, viewed from close up, it is an impressive artwork. It is certainly of higher quality than the other pen and ink drawings attributed to Michelangelo that I have seen. Bill has stressed its flaws above, and fairly so. But I think even Bill would be impressed with drawing in real life -- whether it is a real Michelangelo or a fake one. The reason the drawing looks bad on the web is because its best qualities -- the subtly of the pen drawing -- are not apparent, whereas its worst qualities -- the anatomical distortion, become more evident. Best Regards, Karl Hi CB,

Let me say why the question of whether the drawing is by Michelangelo
is an important issue. In the exhibition, Michelangelo Drawings: Closer
to the Master (which I studied recently in Haarlem), visitors were
presented with the opinion that Michelangelo was the greatest
pen-and-ink figure draftsman of the Renaissance. I found this a
remarkable statement, even before I began to question the authenticity
of “A seated male nude twisting around.” In any case, it seems to me
that this judgment is based on this one drawing. Therefore, the
question of authenticity becomes critical to how we interpret
Michelangelo’s work in this respect. Michelangelo was a great artist,
but not a perfect one. It is precisely for this reason that it is
interesting to know if he was a great pen and ink artist, or only a
mediocre one (as the other drawings suggest). At the exhibition, one
view is presented. That is why I feel it is important to discuss the
alternative.

I would like to say this about the drawing: it looks terrible on the
web. But in real life, viewed from close up, it is an impressive
artwork. It is certainly of higher quality than the other pen and ink
drawings attributed to Michelangelo that I have seen. Bill has stressed
its flaws above, and fairly so. But I think even Bill would be
impressed with drawing in real life — whether it is a real
Michelangelo or a fake one.

The reason the drawing looks bad on the web is because its best
qualities — the subtly of the pen drawing — are not apparent, whereas
its worst qualities — the anatomical distortion, become more evident.

Best Regards,

Karl

]]> By: Karl Zipser http://artandperception.com/2006/03/michelangelo-drawings-real-or-fake.html#comment-124 Karl Zipser Sat, 09 Sep 2006 00:10:00 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/v01/2006/03/michelangelo-drawings-real-or-fake.html#comment-124 Hi Thur, It seems to me that "A seated male nude twisting around" is likely to be a 16th c. work, even if it is a copy. Most of the drawings have been "known" since the 18th or 19th centuries. But that is still hundreds of years after they were supposedly made. It seems the best place to look for clues is in the drawings themselves. Provenance is often somewhat shaky as a grounds for attribution for drawings. It in some sense can represent a time-honored sanction of an originally false idea. -K Hi Thur,
It seems to me that “A seated male nude twisting around” is likely to
be a 16th c. work, even if it is a copy. Most of the drawings have been
“known” since the 18th or 19th centuries. But that is still hundreds of
years after they were supposedly made. It seems the best place to look
for clues is in the drawings themselves. Provenance is often somewhat
shaky as a grounds for attribution for drawings. It in some sense can
represent a time-honored sanction of an originally false idea.
-K

]]> By: CB http://artandperception.com/2006/03/michelangelo-drawings-real-or-fake.html#comment-125 CB Sat, 09 Sep 2006 00:10:00 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/v01/2006/03/michelangelo-drawings-real-or-fake.html#comment-125 As for whether or not something is, or isn't, a "real" Michelangelo, I guess I just don't care. That sort of thing is more for people interested in the signature than in the quality of the drawing. While such arguments keep lots of academics fed, they serve no artistic purpose, and tend to perpetuate personality cults. CB As for whether or not something is, or isn’t, a “real” Michelangelo, I guess
I just don’t care. That sort of thing is more for people interested in the
signature than in the quality of the drawing. While such arguments keep lots
of academics fed, they serve no artistic purpose, and tend to perpetuate
personality cults.

CB

]]> By: Thur http://artandperception.com/2006/03/michelangelo-drawings-real-or-fake.html#comment-123 Thur Sat, 09 Sep 2006 00:09:00 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/v01/2006/03/michelangelo-drawings-real-or-fake.html#comment-123 Zipsters document has to be based upon judgement alone, just as, in the end, proof of originality will be. The document is full of things like: "the possible significance of an unusual sheet of paper." "They could also have copied it in other media, such as pen and ink" That's all fine so long as no-one makes the mistake of assigning any more to it than that of an opinion. That opinion may be of significance, I do not make any comment upon that. We can't dig Michelangelo up and ask him, and as far as I know, there is no technology which will provide answers. It's probable that all provenance depends upon agreed opinions of experts. Once you have proved the material could have been available at that time, then what else can be proved? Some experts have accepted there is a case to be answered, and if you had accessed the review file I posted, you would have heard people with no axe to grind accepting that at least some of the drawings might not be of Michelangelo. That exhibition by the way, was gathered based upon one experts opinion. Bill, Your comments upon the source of the drawings may be a little over the top. An important exhibition would not be willing to accept a drawing which had no provenance at all. These drawings/copies/misattributions and fakes have been known of for hundreds of years. Examples of places which hold the "Michelangeo" drawings. Musee du Louvre, Cabinet des dessins du Louvre Casa Buonarroti Florence http://www.casabuonarroti.it/english/e-home.htm Extract: "The idea of creating a magnificent building decorated by renowned artists in the name of family honor, above all that of its illustrious ancestors, was conceived in 1612 by Michelangelo Buonarroti the Younger, that exceptional man of letters and cultural promoter, who achieved his dream with a thirty-year time span. The Casa Buonarroti has remained unchanged down three centuries of vicissitudes, with moments of decline alternating with moments of rebirth." http://www.emmeti.it/Welcome/Toscana/Firenze/SCroce/buonarroti.uk.html "This building was constructed by Michelangelo's great-grandson, and since then many descendants of the family have brought together works by the great master, such as drawings, portraits, and early pieces." British Museum, Uffizi Galleries, Florence, Royal Library Windsor, UK Musee Bonnat, Bayonne, Museo del Vaticano, Fogg Art Museum Cambridge, USA Teylers Museum, Haarlem, Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY -- Thur Zipsters document has to be based upon judgement
alone, just as, in the end, proof of originality will be.
The document is full of things like:
“the possible significance of an unusual sheet of paper.”
“They could also have copied it in other media, such as
pen and ink”
That’s all fine so long as no-one makes the mistake of
assigning any more to it than that of an opinion. That
opinion may be of significance, I do not make any
comment upon that.

We can’t dig Michelangelo up and ask him, and as far
as I know, there is no technology which will provide
answers.
It’s probable that all provenance depends upon agreed
opinions of experts. Once you have proved the material
could have been available at that time, then what else can
be proved?

Some experts have accepted there is a case to be answered,
and if you had accessed the review file I posted, you would
have heard people with no axe to grind accepting that at
least some of the drawings might not be of Michelangelo.

That exhibition by the way, was gathered based upon one
experts opinion.

Bill,
Your comments upon the source of the drawings may be
a little over the top. An important exhibition would not be
willing to accept a drawing which had no provenance at all.
These drawings/copies/misattributions and fakes have been
known of for hundreds of years.
Examples of places which hold the “Michelangeo”
drawings.
Musee du Louvre, Cabinet des dessins du Louvre
Casa Buonarroti Florence
http://www.casabuonarroti.it/english/e-home.htm
Extract:
“The idea of creating a magnificent building decorated by renowned artists
in the name of family honor, above all that of its illustrious ancestors,
was conceived in 1612 by Michelangelo Buonarroti the Younger, that
exceptional man of letters and cultural promoter, who achieved his dream
with a thirty-year time span. The Casa Buonarroti has remained unchanged
down three centuries of vicissitudes, with moments of decline alternating
with moments of rebirth.”
http://www.emmeti.it/Welcome/Toscana/Firenze/SCroce/buonarroti.uk.html
“This building was constructed by Michelangelo’s great-grandson, and since
then many descendants of the family have brought together works by the great
master, such as drawings, portraits, and early pieces.”

British Museum,
Uffizi Galleries, Florence,
Royal Library Windsor, UK
Musee Bonnat, Bayonne,
Museo del Vaticano,
Fogg Art Museum Cambridge, USA
Teylers Museum, Haarlem,
Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY

–
Thur

]]>