Famous Paintings Reviewed

the person or persons who made this painting were never fully competent as artists. It is phenomenally  
depressing to think that any cognitive entity could think that this work came from the hand of Michelangelo. The maker of this work has no knowledge of the human structure, let alone the ability 
to paint it. The lighting of the subjects in no way resembles any approach that the master ever used. The representation of pictorial space has no coherence, developed in a manner that has no 
clarity and forms no basis for expression that a master of desegno would demand of himself. 
If one focuses only on the areas of drapery, and asks is this the work of the same person who CARVED IN STONE the pieta at age 25? PREPOSTEROUS! There is not one single instance of the slightest hint of anatomical plausibility in this work; Michelangelo's entire life spun around creating this plausibility and the life it creates in all of his work, and no one, NO ONE ever has done it better! If one looks at the progression of Michelangelo's work in his later years, the changes that occur NEVER move toward the level of artistic failure and vulgarity rampant in this picture. Even in his last sculptures, made in his late 80's, where a case might be made for misjudging the volume of marble necessary to render some figures, his vision is clear, and cohesive, and powerfully expressive. This painting pulls itself apart with every possible disruptive implausibility, and visual anomaly, with incompetency-driven distortions, ugliness, and clumsiness. All this together in this painting PREVENTS and makes impossible the kind of expression with which everything that Michelangelo created was inevitably and inextricably imbued. If the person who painted this work was Michelangelo, he was not Michelangelo any longer. 
 
This is like a nightmare to me, where it becomes clear that "experts" don't grasp the essence of their area of expertise. 
 
A word about experts; a work of art is more than a collection of molecules. if science needs to 
be invoked, let the science be about the morphology of imagery in all its complexity- I'm certain that science can produce methods to extract the pivotal essences that are particular to each individual artist. 
I'm sure if Michelangelo painted this, he would have ended his life. 
 
Peter Stetler 
 
 

It's incredible how the news of a new Michelangelo Painting is going 
 
around the world in all kinds of media, newspapers, magazines, videos! 
 
I have one observation which is very interesting. If you observe the 
 
original drawing named "Deposition of Christ", 1495, by Pietro 
 
Perugino (1450–1523); Galleria Palatina, Palazzo Pitti, Florence, 
 
you will find this to be the identical image of the so claimed 
 
Michaelangelo. 
 
It looks like they colored a copy of the drawing by Perugino. 
 
This whole news may be a hoax! 
 
 
 

I cannot agree more with Stetler's post. But I have to correct Comas: the original by Michelangelo is called the Colona Madonna in the Isabella Stuart Garner in Boston. 
 
This drawing has been copied by other artists close to M. and other followers, like Clovio and Venusti. It was well known in his day, and this painting is undoubtedly one of those copies. Though the child on the left is very Peruginoesque/Pinturiccioesque, they were not active/alive when M. drew the original drawing.

Lowell, you are basically correct and I stand corrected. However to set the information straight, there is no record of that image "painted" by Michaelangelo. The only record is the drawing at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum. It is black chalk on paper and although it is sometimes refered to as "Colonna Pieta", it is actually named "Pieta" at the museum. 
 
 
 
Stetler is so right in his words. The anatomical details in the painting are just terrible. A real shame that someone or several people engage in this awful plagiarism.

Comas, forgive my lack of clarity: by "it" I was referring to the drawing, not a painting that may or may not have been executed by him. However, I believe your implication that there is no historical record that he painted this image is essentially true. 
 
 
 
I am bothered by the recent publicity around several "lost discoveries" by Michelangeo and Da Vinci. In particular I speak of this one, the "La Bella Principessa" and the Kimball's "St. Anthony". It's not that I think these artists are so hallowed that their corpus should not be expanded. But declarations like these should really undergo peer review in scholarly journals and symopsiums first. Otherwise, you can take these public pronouncements no more seriously than cold fusion (remeber that one?). 
 
 
 
Take the "La Bella Principessa" forwarded by Kemp as a work by Da Vinci. As I understand, in lieu of peer review Kemp has chosen to write it into a coffee table-book. I have read that his evidence is weak and the "forensic expert" is suspect. Then there is the Kimball "St. Anthony". I remember it well when it sold a few years ago -- as "Studio of Ghirlandaio" -- for a small sum. The possible tie to Michelangelo when he was (briefly) in Ghirlandaio's atelier was well known to literature. Modern and historical scholars have debated this one for ages and are clearly divided on it, and at best the Kimball should display it as "attributed" to Michelangelo. Sotheby's had the good sense not to sell it as a genuine article, and there's a reason the museums and private collectors did not get into a bidding war (and thus the Kimball acquired it for under 1M GBP). The Kimball should be more responsible imo. 
 
 
 
The recent attribution to Michelangelo put forth by Dr. Fahy for the Met's painting, and the attribution put forth by Dr. Marciari for the Yale Valazquez, are far more believable to me. Not because I am an expert on either artist, but because they've done it the right way. They have done exhaustive research on style and technique, history, technical analysis, and have been presenting their findings to other scholars for peer review for years before publishing their work and presenting at symposiums. Of coarse the press eventually caught wind of the stories, but not through self promotion. 
 
 
 
For a story on La Bella Principessa, see: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/7582591/La-Bella-Principessa-a-100m-Leonardo-or-a-copy.html 
 
For the original sale of the Kimbal "Michelangelo", see: http://www.sothebys.com/app/live/lot/LotDetail.jsp?lot_id=159467861

...regarding my comments about the Kimball painting, from the museum website: "Dr. Lee [Kimbell’s newly appointed director] commented, 'The acquisition of this rediscovered work from the very beginnings of Michelangelo’s artistic career offers an extraordinary opportunity to advance the understanding of European art.'" 
 
 
 
This is so irresponsible to me, since from his own statement misleadings the reader into thinking it is a new discovery when this attribution has been argued for over a century! Why not mention that? This is sad commercialism not worthy of a public institution.

This is NOT a MICHELANGELO ! Michelangelo was a perfectionist, view his sculpture and paintings as well as the sketch he drew with the same theme and you should clearly see that Michelangelo is innocent of this monstrosity! Beauty for Michelangelo was as essential as water and air and life itself! Unfortunately today corruption is running wild! This painting is not a new discovery, simply that the past honest and qualified experts justifiably did not credit this horrible copy attempt as a Michelangelo for I am certain that if Michelangelo had even accidentally created this horrible piece that he would have 100 percent destroyed it. Look at all his beautiful figures of the Madonna and cherubs and you would know how much Michelangelo loved the Madonna and children! Thank you for reading my remark.

This is a copy by Marcello Venusti: 
 
 
 
http://www.artnet.com/Artists/LotDetailPage.aspx?lot_id=F3A584ED617EABA18950F5A79A1AD432 
 
 
 
Experise is not entirely hocus pocus, but as with any valid science should be held up to peer review (which was the point behind my earlier posts). I'm sure you and I can easily tell the difference between a John Lennon song and a cover. Art is not much different. But sensationalized "tabliod" discoveries must be taken with skepticism until other accredited scholars weigh in. I believe they have not supported Forcellino on this (but I do not know for sure). 
 
 
 
Forensics have a place, specifically in proving a work as not authentic, though cannot in genereal prove a piece was by a specific author. 
 
 
 
One intersting thing about this Venusti painting (see link) is that it includes motifs not included in this one. Usually it works the other way -- motifs get dropped by copiests, and when comparing multiple copies the painting with the most commonality is often (not always) proven to be the original. It would be interesting for a scholar interested in this to analyze the drawing and the known copies to identify the "family tree" of versions.

Lowell and Orlando, 
My heartfelt (and belated) thanks for this most informative dialogue.  
 
Has anyone heard or read feedback from the Met or Dr. Fahy about this being a Venusti attribution? I've checked the Met's website and there's nothing mentioned in their "Ongoing Research" section... 
 
Susan Benford 
President, Masterpiece Cards

My "Venusti" suggestion carries less weight than Forcellino, as I am not an expert on either artist and even then one cannot make an attribution without seeing the original anyway. Years of overpaint and restoration can obscure elements. I only found the Venusti copy while writing my last post (verifying my original claim that he may have painted copies from the indisputable Michelangelo drawing now in Boston). But beyond the fact that Venusti was a friend and accomplished copyist of Michelangelo (see his copy of the last judgement in Naples), I don't know if there is a living expert on his work that can testify (or willing to testify) either way. 
 
 
 
In my view, the drawing is far far superior to either painting. The drawing has a naturalism (and as Stetler pointed out, bone structure) not found (in my opinion) in the other two paintings and is typical of a copy. I also think the drawing is so "finished" that it was meant to stand on its own and never painted by M himself. But I think Forcellino may have found research supporting a claim that an original painting did exist. 
 
 
 
Venusti was not the only copiest in M's circle -- Clovio is another -- but only the one I am most familiar with. 
 
 
 
As far as Fahy, he is no longer with the Met (a loss indeed). I am unaware he ever weighed in on this, though I'm sure we'd all like to know. (His "discovery" was entirely different than this one, or the one in the Kimball). He should remain silent, though, until he inspects it in person and double-checks the research. 
 
 
 
I must correct myself btw in an earlier post: the 1M GBP price paid for the Kimball (ahem) "Michelangelo" was paid by a dealer, who cleaned it up and resold it to the Kimball for an undisclosed sum. I believe it entirely irresponsible for them to publicize or display it as by Michelangelo without using the "attributed" nomenclature or making it clear that his authorship is in dispute. 
 
 
 
- Lowell 
 

I apologize for all of my posts, I certainly did not intend to monopolize the blog. But I would like to share another observation, though minor, which must be explained. 
 
 
 
I was reading about Michelangelo's "Young Archer" exhibited at the Met. Kathleen Weil-Garris Brandt's epiphany came when she was studying the youth's hair. Here is the tie in: 
 
 
 
If you note Christ's hair in the original drawing, it is whispy and curly. There are loose strands (even split ends!) In fact, you find this attention in all of his (autograph and finished) sculptures and paintings. However, in this painting (as well as in the Venusti copy), Christ's hair is flat and pleated. Could this be overpaint or thinning? I do not know. But Forcellino must explain this poor passage as well as the "good" passages. This seems atypical of his work, and cannot be explained (as in the Kimball or the Archer) as a "youthful" mistake. Especially when the drawing clearly shows attention to even this minor detail. While there may be some good attributes to this painting, as Stetler originally pointed out there are too many "flaws" and anomalies atypical of a mature Michelangelo who paid attention to every detail. 
 
 
 
I think this would also be one of the very few paintings he would have done in oil. Did he not prefer fresco and tempera?

Lowell, 
First off, please don't deem yourself a monopolist in these comments! Each one is enormously informative, including the different appearance of Christ's hair in the drawing versus painting.  
 
Again, my thanks. 
 
Susan Benford, Editor

no, this is not Michelangelo. The colors are poor, the structure in the anatomy is poor, and the virgin mary does not fit the normal for Michelangelo's faces. From the original drawing for Vittoria Colonna. Everything has been slightly adjusted. Other original drawings to paint look pretty much the same. This is probably a student of Michelangelo or some other follower.