Interpreting Michelangelo's Drawings
Karl Zipser
on the Michelangelo Drawings exhibition: www.zipser.nl
Bill
"Karl Zipser" <k...@zipser.nl> wrote in message
news:1143972558.6...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> For the viewpoint you won't find at the British Museum, see my essays
> on the Michelangelo Drawings exhibition: www.zipser.nl
I'm totally impressed, Zip. And that's saying something for me. It's
an important look at an important question. I'll stick my neck out and say
I think you may be overly generous in putting a 10% authenticity rating on
the Seated Male drawing. Who ever did it was a lousy artist and knew
nothing about the human body. The entire area including the hip and
buttocks is completely wrong, wrong WRONG ! If I recall correctly,
Michaelangelo was an absolute fanatic about getting the bone structure and
muscle structure of his nudes correct. To the point that he invaded the
morgues and hospitals at night to cut open the bodies of corpses to study
how the human body is put together. No one who did THAT would be guilty of
the "Seated Male" atrocity.
One aspect of the question remains a puzzle for me. Where have these
drawings been for the last 500 years ? Who had them ? Who protected them
from wear and tear. Who kept them dry and insured that the air and the
humidity did not turn them to dust ? Things like this don't just "turn up"
Being a skeptic, I fully expect that in four or five years, after the
present puffery surrounding them has subsided, all these drawings NOT
positively identified as fakes will be up for sale at bloated prices. And
when they're sold. a second batch of Michaelangelo's drawings or etchings or
sketches or paintings or carvings or doodlings will be discovered and the
whole process will begin again. After all, as far as art dealers are
concerned there's a sucker born every minute.
Regards, Bill
Karl Zipser
Thanks for the comments. The original drawing looks good from close up,
but the anatomical problems become more evident when you look at a
small version of the drawing (as on my home-page) where the impressive
pen shading is not evident. Here you can focus on the overall form, and
see how awkward it is. As for the origin of the drawing, it is said to
come from the Casa Buonarroti in Florence. To some art historians (for
example the drawings curator at the Teylers Museum in Haarlem), this is
an important factor to consider for the attribution (he said this in a
newspaper article about my essay). However, not all drawings collected
by Michelangelo's relatives were by Michelangelo. Many drawings left
the Casa Buonarroti in the 18th & 19th centuries. From Hugo Chapman's
book, 'Michelangelo Drawings: Closer to the Master', it seems a bit
vague if the pen and ink drawing in question even came from the Casa
Buonarroti.
-K
Thur
"Bill" <bm...@XpaM.net> wrote in message
news:442fd654$0$3690$470e...@news.pa.net...
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
Karl Zipser
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
sup...@themuseummasters.com
essay on our site www.themuseummasters.com
CB
of the images presented) the work looks rather poor. Maybe it's just the
jpegs; but out of curiosity, are your works hand done from the ground up
(right from the drawing stage), or are they more mechanically oriented - for
example through the use of oil-lithography - with hand finishing? And could
you expand a bit on your claim they are "museum-quality" ?
Thanks.
CB
<sup...@themuseummasters.com> wrote in message
news:1144365389.7...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Ashley Clarke
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Clarke
-------------------------------------------------------
Thur
"Ashley Clarke" <aclar...@toucansurf.com> wrote in message
news:44370...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
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.
--
Thur
Karl Zipser
Could you be more specific about which images you want me to comment
on?
-K
Karl Zipser
the way of scientific analysis of materials is going to distinguish it
from a Michelangelo.
CB
low quality of the work shown on the site of "The Museum Masters". My
apologies! I should have responded in a different thread.
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
"Karl Zipser" <k...@zipser.nl> wrote in message
news:1144581255.1...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Karl Zipser
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