Newly-discovered portrait of a middle-aged Mozart
Daniel Levenstein
rkhalona
famous Lange portrait of late Mozart (unfinished, IIRC) that shows his
profile. See first portrait on left, bottom row at
http://www.mozartitalia.org/uk/galleria/galleria_1.html
RK
Andrej Kluge
http://www.diepresse.com/Artikel.aspx?channel=k&ressort=k&id=460343
(if you can read German - the authenticy of the painting is doubted)
Ciao
A.
Matthew B. Tepper
be typed in news:bshdu09hrdi2vmgos...@4ax.com:
> - He looks taller on the painting than he was in real life.
Really? I don't see no feet.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Take THAT, Daniel Lin, Mark Sadek, James Lin & Christopher Chung!
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:1105635361.320797.206350
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4154043.stm
I wonder how this matches up with the controversial skull?
Speaking of which, has that DNA analysis of the skull actually been done
now, or was the flurry of publicity a couple of months ago merely smoke and
mirrors on a slow news day?
long_ter...@yahoo.com
Daniel Levenstein wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4154043.stm
Perhaps there is a Mozart expert on the group who can comment on this.
>From what I remember, of all images supposed to picture Mozart, there
is only one which is reliably known to be authentic.
>From this BBC article it is unclear whether this new portrait is of any
significance. The "computer expert" testimony is worthless, as far as I
can tell.
EG
Johannes Roehl
I do not know where I got this info, but I remember having read that the
supposedly most authentic portrait is the one where he is wearing his
favorite red frock coat, rather pensive looking with a somewhat
prominent nose. This here:
http://peoples.ru/art/music/composer/mozart/
Johannes
Margaret Mikulska
the
> supposedly most authentic portrait is the one where he is wearing his
favorite red frock coat, rather pensive looking with a somewhat
prominent nose. This here:
http://peoples.ru/art/music/composer/mozart/
Johannes
========
This is a painting by Barbara Krafft, made many years after Mozart's
death. Krafft was asked to make a painting of Mozart based on a
portrait from Mozart's lifetime. Mozart's sister chose the painting of
the Mozart family, the one with the mother being present only on a
portrait on the wall. So on the one hand Krafft's painting is
posthumous and therefore inauthentic in a way, but based on an
authentic portrait.
Many contemporaries regarded the Lange portrait as a particularly good
one.
There are some 12 portraits of Mozart which are reliably authenticated.
See:
http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/mozart/images.htm
which is as authoritative as it gets since it was prepared at Cornell
U. with Neal Zaslaw as the spiritus movens of the "web exhibition" and
the conference.
-MM
Margaret Mikulska
basically smoke and mirrors, as far as one can tell. When the painting
was bought in 1934 by the Gemäldegalerie in Berlin, there were no
claims about it representing Mozart -- it was bought as a "portrait of
a man". In 1999 the computer professional W. Seiller and one of the
people from the management of the Gem.galerie published an article in
Mozart-Jahrbuch, presenting a great lot of wishful thinking and no
solid evidence. The article was appropriately disregarded by Mozart
scholars.
Now we are approaching the Mozart Year 2006. What's a better time to
warm that old dish all over again and claim the discovery of a new,
unknown portrait of Mozart. Let the media announce the discovery --
newspapers are printed in more copies than scholarly journals and
nobody will read scholars' objections.
I agree that the computer "testimony" is worthless. First, the computer
program was designed by the above mentioned Seiller and the
"authentication" performed by him. Since he very much wants the
painting to by a portrait of Mozart, the whole procedure is eo ipso
biased (at the very best subconsiously). Second, he compared the
current painting with one authentic portrait of Mozart. This is
worthless -- he would have to compare it not only with several
paintings of Mozart, but also with several painting of other subjects.
(Creating a control group, as it were.) Only then one could judge
whether his method can detect features characteristic for Mozart only
or else features characteristic for a certain group of people. Some
faces are, after all, similar to others.
The provenience of the painting is also in doubt: AFAIK, it is not even
certain if it was really painted by Edlinger, a court painter at the
Bavarian court in Munich.
So it's much ado about almost certainly nothing, well timed for the
2006 Mozart bash.
-MM
Paul Kintzele
34 is middle age? Ouch.
Paul
Mad Dan
Paul Kintzele wrote:
> 34 is middle age? Ouch.
>
> Paul
And, judging by that picture, 34 year olds certainly used to look a lot
ropier than they do these days (I hope!)
MD (Aged 34)
chez_toscanini
was 35 and therefore at middle age.
Ezio (prehistoric: 48 y)
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:1105714012.543004.180120
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
> Dante Alighieri wrote his whole Commedia starting from the fact that it
> was 35 and therefore at middle age.
Hence the very opening line, sometimes rendered into English as "Midway in
our life's journey." (Yes, I'm sure you read it in the original Italian.)
> Ezio (prehistoric: 48 y)
Guus
"Paul Kintzele" <kint...@english.upenn.edu> schreef in bericht
news:cs77e7$2mk9$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
>
> 34 is middle age? Ouch.
>
Until the beginning of the 20th century the average age at which people died
was around 38, in Europe.
Ivailo Partchev
then read: the average age at which people died was around 48, provided
they survived infancy
Ivailo Partchev
Police Department for one of the summer opera festivals. I might have it
on paper but I don't know whether I can post a picture on this thread
Guus
"Ivailo Partchev" <Ivailo....@uni-jena.de> schreef in bericht
news:cs8uf0$lqb$2...@fsuj29.rz.uni-jena.de...
Many people did not survive infancy, and children are people as well.
So I would say around 38.
Ivailo Partchev
in a way acceptable to you.
If one were born in Europe before the mid-18oo's and did not die of an
infection before reaching the age of 1, one had a fairly good chance of
getting 45 or 48. At that time, one would have few teeth (we do, with a
lot of help...), and would generally be a bit of a wreck. But the
average of 38 is biased downwards by a peak in mortality in ages between
0 and 1.
Then there is the Feldmarschallin in Rosenkavalier, a really nice older
lady of... 32.
I did not notice anyone saying babies were not people
Frank Berger
"Mad Dan" <mad...@keepitloud.com> wrote in message
news:1105687406....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Average life expectancy in Mozart's time was probably less than 50.
Guus
> I don't quite know how to discuss the properties of statistical averages
> in a way acceptable to you.
>
> If one were born in Europe before the mid-18oo's and did not die of an
> infection before reaching the age of 1, one had a fairly good chance of
> getting 45 or 48. At that time, one would have few teeth (we do, with a
> lot of help...), and would generally be a bit of a wreck. But the
> average of 38 is biased downwards by a peak in mortality in ages between
> 0 and 1.
>
That's why it is an average.
There's no reason to exclude people dieing before reaching the age of 1. Why
not 2? Or 5, or 10?
An average is an average including everybody.
Robert Briggs
>
> There was an amusing phantom portrait of Mozart prepared by the Munich
> Police Department for one of the summer opera festivals. I might have it
> on paper but I don't know whether I can post a picture on this thread
This is not a "binaries" newsgroup, so you should NOT post it here.
If you do then you are likely to get flamed, but some of us (including
me) will not even see it because our newsservers simply do not accept
such mis-postted binaries.
If you have a website of your own (or legitimate access to that of
someone else) then by all means post it there and post the URL here.
It is also okay to post it in an appropriate binaries newsgroup
(alt.binaries.music seems as good as any) and post the Message-ID here.
The website option assumes that readers have web access, which is
probably a safer assumption than that they have access to binary NGs. I
would suggest that there is a good case for posting it in both ways, and
giving the URL and the Message-ID here in a single article.
Gareth Williams
Depends on the view of the data. If there are two distinct statistical
distributions, i.e. those susceptible to infant death and those that
aren't, it may be legitimate to treat them as separate populations,
especially if different conditions (e.g. poverty, disease) apply. For
instance, the same data could also be used to demonstrate separate
averages for the life-expectancy of aristocrats versus that of the poor.
Sometimes adopting the "single population" average can hide some
very real statistical effects.
--
Regards,
Gareth Williams
Gareth Williams
> Dante Alighieri wrote his whole Commedia starting from the fact that it
> was 35 and therefore at middle age.
But that was surely based on a belief in the Biblical tenet that "the
days of our years are three score years and ten", rather than based on
Dante's knowledge of actuarial science?
--
Regards,
Gareth Williams
Matthew B. Tepper
> "Mad Dan" <mad...@keepitloud.com> wrote in message
> news:1105687406....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Paul Kintzele wrote:
>> > 34 is middle age? Ouch.
>>
>> And, judging by that picture, 34 year olds certainly used to look a lot
>> ropier than they do these days (I hope!)
>>
>> MD (Aged 34)
>
> Average life expectancy in Mozart's time was probably less than 50.
Which made it all the more remarkable that Salieri, for example, lived to
be 75.
Robert Briggs
> Depends on the view of the data. If there are two distinct statistical
> distributions, i.e. those susceptible to infant death and those that
> aren't, it may be legitimate to treat them as separate populations,
> especially if different conditions (e.g. poverty, disease) apply. For
> instance, the same data could also be used to demonstrate separate
> averages for the life-expectancy of aristocrats versus that of the poor.
> Sometimes adopting the "single population" average can hide some
> very real statistical effects.
Indeed.
It is perfectly reasonable to give *both* an *overall* average (38
or whatever, in this case) *and* a (necessarily higher) average of
those who survive the high-risk period of "infancy" or "childhood".
If we are dealing specifically with people *known to have composed
music in adult life* then quoting *only* an overall average which is
a decade or so lower than that of *those who reached adulthood* is,
IMO, downright misleading.
If the "average age of death" is 38 then it seems bizarre to think
that a guy who died at 35 "died young".
OTOH, if the "average age of death of adults" is 50ish then it makes
much more sense to think that Mozart "died young".
It is, of course, right and proper to ensure that you state any
assumptions you make about initial survival quite clearly, so that
you do not mislead.
Guus
"Matthew B. Tepper" <oy兀earthlink.net> schreef in bericht
news:Xns95DE8044E51...@207.217.125.201...
> "Frank Berger" <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> appears to have caused the
> following letters to be typed in
> news:1105732437.730bd1765e9e02dd5b26b61c9e07f127@teranews:
>
> > "Mad Dan" <mad...@keepitloud.com> wrote in message
> > news:1105687406....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> Paul Kintzele wrote:
> >> > 34 is middle age? Ouch.
> >>
> >> And, judging by that picture, 34 year olds certainly used to look a lot
> >> ropier than they do these days (I hope!)
> >>
> >> MD (Aged 34)
> >
> > Average life expectancy in Mozart's time was probably less than 50.
>
> Which made it all the more remarkable that Salieri, for example, lived to
> be 75.
>
Without (guys like) him the average of life could have been 32 or less.
Frank Berger
"Matthew B. Tepper" <oy兀earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95DE8044E51...@207.217.125.201...
> "Frank Berger" <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> appears to have caused the
> following letters to be typed in
> news:1105732437.730bd1765e9e02dd5b26b61c9e07f127@teranews:
>
> > "Mad Dan" <mad...@keepitloud.com> wrote in message
> > news:1105687406....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> Paul Kintzele wrote:
> >> > 34 is middle age? Ouch.
> >>
> >> And, judging by that picture, 34 year olds certainly used to look a lot
> >> ropier than they do these days (I hope!)
> >>
> >> MD (Aged 34)
> >
> > Average life expectancy in Mozart's time was probably less than 50.
>
> Which made it all the more remarkable that Salieri, for example, lived to
> be 75.
>
Better that Mozart had lived to 75.
Guus
"Frank Berger" <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> schreef in bericht
news:1105736995.820a0d4bfc255c8d953a130d766b11cb@teranews...
>
>
> Better that Mozart had lived to 75.
>
>
But who could afford buying recordings of all his symphonies?
Andy Evans
=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.
Wayne Brown
Because an average alone can be very misleading. For instance,
suppose I showed you a group of people and told you their average
annual income is 100,990 Euros. You'd probably conclude that they
were a fairly prosperous group. But it might well be that one of them
earns 1,000,000 Euros per year and the other 99 earn only 1000 each.
They wouldn't be nearly as well off as the average might indicate.
For an average to be meaningful you need also to know the standard
deviation, i.e., how much variation there is within the sample group.
If a small portion of the sample is wildly different from the rest,
then eliminating that small portion will give a much more representative
average, just as eliminating the high-wage-earner from my example above
would give a better picture of the true income of the group.
--
Wayne Brown (HPCC #1104) | "When your tail's in a crack, you improvise
fwb...@bellsouth.net | if you're good enough. Otherwise you give
| your pelt to the trapper."
"e^(i*pi) = -1" -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, "Silverlock"
Gareth Williams
>> > Average life expectancy in Mozart's time was probably less than 50.
>>
>> Which made it all the more remarkable that Salieri, for example, lived to
>> be 75.
>>
>
> Without (guys like) him the average of life could have been 32 or less.
It's fitting, if not ironic, that Salieri was such an average composer.
BTW, lest anyone misconstrue my use of the word "average" as a slur, my
opinion of Salieri is *not* tainted by the Schaffer Distortion Effect ;o)
--
Regards,
Gareth Williams
jeffc
"Ivailo Partchev" <Ivailo....@uni-jena.de> wrote in message
news:cs94rd$ovv$1...@fsuj29.rz.uni-jena.de...
> I don't quite know how to discuss the properties of statistical averages
> in a way acceptable to you.
Median or mode might very well be more appropriate than mean.
Thomas Wood
"Frank Berger" <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote in message
news:1105732437.730bd1765e9e02dd5b26b61c9e07f127@teranews...
Life expectancy at BIRTH was less than 50, perhaps, for 18th century
Europeans, but a person who had reached adulthood in that era could
reasonably expect to live into old age. Mozart's mother died at 58, his
father at 68, and his sister at 78, for example. Constanze lived to be 80.
The death rate for infants and children was extremely high back then -- and
lowered the overall life-expectancy rate considerably.
Tom Wood
Johannes Roehl
True (Haydn 77, Handel 74 and he had suffered a stroke in his early
fifties, but apparently recovered quite well).
And we do know that W.A. Mozart's death was considered premature by his
contemporaries.
But more to the point: A much shorter life expectancy does not mean that
people aged so much faster (they did age somewhat faster, especially
women, but not so much). The Mozart from the family picture doesn't look
*old* for a 25-year-old, the (unknown) man on the picture in question
does look more like 44 than 34 to me.
Johannes
Margaret Mikulska
Much less. The following gives life expectancy at birth in selected
epochs and countries:
http://www.fte.org/capitalism/introduction/02.php
Around 1800 it was 30-36 in more developped European countries.
-MM
Margaret Mikulska
During his 11 years in Vienna he wrote only 6 symphonies, and one of
them was for Salzburg. He would have probably composed symphonies at
the same rate had he lived longer. Only in Mozart's case are the early
and very early works still recorded in such numbers that his image as
composer is skewed.
-MM
Andrej Kluge
> In the bottom left picture he looks exactly like Margaret Thatcher.
In what "bottom left" picture?
Ciao
A.
Norman M. Schwartz
"Gareth Williams" <gar...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.01.14....@nospam.com...
Gareth Williams
Now there's a funny thing - I actually think that Hulce in Amadeus looked
more like the Mozart in the recently-discovered portrait than in any other
painting of him I've seen. Hulce doesn't ever look quite so old or jowly
in the film, but I can imagine his "Mozart" growing to resemble the one in
Edlinger's portrait.
--
Regards,
Gareth Williams
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:91xGd.7947$1t3....@fe09.lga:
Neither did Mark Hamill when I saw him in "Amadeus" on Broadway. But I
think it's called "acting." ;--)
James Kahn
>There are some 12 portraits of Mozart which are reliably authenticated.
>See:
>http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/mozart/images.htm
>which is as authoritative as it gets since it was prepared at Cornell
>U. with Neal Zaslaw as the spiritus movens of the "web exhibition" and
>the conference.
There is a portrait, attributed to Greuze, of Mozart as a child in Einstein's
book. Whether it's authentic or not, it's magnificent (to me, it looks
like Lange's Mozart as a 7-year-old). I never see it any more in
collections of Mozart images--even inauthentic ones. Anyone know about
this one--where it is, what's the latest scholarly view of it?
--
Jim
New York, NY
(Please remove "nospam." to get my e-mail address)
http://www.panix.com/~kahn
Andrej Kluge
> There is a portrait, attributed to Greuze, of Mozart as a child in
> Einstein's book. Whether it's authentic or not, it's magnificent
> (to me, it looks like Lange's Mozart as a 7-year-old). I never see
> it any more in collections of Mozart images--even inauthentic ones.
> Anyone know about this one--where it is, what's the latest
> scholarly view of it? --
You mean this one (on the 2nd page)?
http://www.angeledubeau.com/siteange2/popup/pdf/3076.pdf
To me, this could be anyone (including me :-). As for it's whereabouts:
It says "Courtesy of: Carlos Leresche-Nussbaum", so I assume it's in
private possession.
Or do you mean this one?
http://www.amadeusmozart.de/MozartGalerie.htm
(top left)
Ciao
A.
Robert Briggs
Let's see, now ... didn't he write most of his piano concertos
during that period?
If he was winding down his output of symphonies in favour of piano
concertos then just imagine how much work he might have left for
Lang Lang ...
James Kahn
>Hi James,
>> There is a portrait, attributed to Greuze, of Mozart as a child in
>> Einstein's book. Whether it's authentic or not, it's magnificent
>> (to me, it looks like Lange's Mozart as a 7-year-old). I never see
>> it any more in collections of Mozart images--even inauthentic ones.
>> Anyone know about this one--where it is, what's the latest
>> scholarly view of it? --
>You mean this one (on the 2nd page)?
>http://www.angeledubeau.com/siteange2/popup/pdf/3076.pdf
>To me, this could be anyone (including me :-). As for it's whereabouts:
>It says "Courtesy of: Carlos Leresche-Nussbaum", so I assume it's in
>private possession.
No, not that one (which I'd never seen before).
>Or do you mean this one?
>http://www.amadeusmozart.de/MozartGalerie.htm
>(top left)
Yes, that's the one! Put it side by side with the Lange--to my eyes it's
the same face.
Johannes Roehl
> Margaret Mikulska wrote:
>
>>>But who could afford buying recordings of all his symphonies?
>>
>>During his 11 years in Vienna he wrote only 6 symphonies, and one of
>>them was for Salzburg. He would have probably composed symphonies at
>>the same rate had he lived longer. Only in Mozart's case are the early
>>and very early works still recorded in such numbers that his image as
>>composer is skewed.
>
> Let's see, now ... didn't he write most of his piano concertos
> during that period?
Yes, he wrote about 13 concerti from 1783-86 (K 413 - K 503), only two
afterwards.- As for the symphonies, the "Haffner" was for Salzburg 1782,
the "Linz" one year later, the "Prague" 1787, the last three 1788,
roughly before and after the main concerto output.
> If he was winding down his output of symphonies in favour of piano
> concertos then just imagine how much work he might have left for
> Lang Lang ...
He was willing to wind down everything in favor of opera, if he got a
commission to write one.
Johannes
Margaret Mikulska
James Kahn wrote:
> In <1105664299....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> "Margaret
Mikulska" <musics...@netscape.net> writes:
>
> >There are some 12 portraits of Mozart which are reliably
authenticated.
> >See:
> >http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/mozart/images.htm
> >which is as authoritative as it gets since it was prepared at
Cornell
> >U. with Neal Zaslaw as the spiritus movens of the "web exhibition"
and
> >the conference.
>
> There is a portrait, attributed to Greuze, of Mozart as a child in
Einstein's
> book. Whether it's authentic or not, it's magnificent (to me, it
looks
> like Lange's Mozart as a 7-year-old). I never see it any more in
> collections of Mozart images--even inauthentic ones. Anyone know
about
> this one--where it is, what's the latest scholarly view of it?
The only authentic portraits of Mozart are the ones listed on the
Cornell site. I don't think the one attributed to Greuze was ever
seriously considered to be a portrait of Mozart.
-MM
James Kahn
>James Kahn wrote:
>>
>> There is a portrait, attributed to Greuze, of Mozart as a child in
>Einstein's
>> book. Whether it's authentic or not, it's magnificent (to me, it
>looks
>> like Lange's Mozart as a 7-year-old). I never see it any more in
>> collections of Mozart images--even inauthentic ones. Anyone know
>about
>> this one--where it is, what's the latest scholarly view of it?
>The only authentic portraits of Mozart are the ones listed on the
>Cornell site. I don't think the one attributed to Greuze was ever
>seriously considered to be a portrait of Mozart.
Perhaps, but Einstein did include it in his book, so I presume he
considered it authentic. The Cornell site doesn't mention it
in its list of inauthentic ones either, so I'm just curious about
how it fell from grace, so to speak, if that's what happened.
Margaret Mikulska
James Kahn wrote:
> In <1106263376.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "Margaret
Mikulska" <musics...@netscape.net> writes:
>
> >The only authentic portraits of Mozart are the ones listed on the
> >Cornell site. I don't think the one attributed to Greuze was ever
> >seriously considered to be a portrait of Mozart.
>
> Perhaps, but Einstein did include it in his book, so I presume he
> considered it authentic.
Did he really? I have the first English edition of his book ("wartime
edition" 1945) and it contains only a few genuine portraits plus the
one by Helbling which turned out to be a portrait of Count Firmian, not
of Mozart (but that was not known in 1945, I think). I also have a
later German edition which has no illustrations. Einstein died in 1952,
so the choice of illustrations for any edition published after his
death comes from the publisher, not the dead author. How can you tell
that Einstein himself decided to include this portrait? (I don't recall
if he mentions any portraits in the text.)
> The Cornell site doesn't mention it
> in its list of inauthentic ones either, so I'm just curious about
> how it fell from grace, so to speak, if that's what happened.
I don't think it was ever "in grace", so to speak. What edition of
Einstein do you have?
There are so many inauthentic "Mozart portraits" that the Cornell site
couldn't mention all of them. Their fall from grace is usually very
simple: somebody discovers good evidence that the portrait represents
somebody else.
-MM
James Kahn
>James Kahn wrote:
>> In <1106263376.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "Margaret
>Mikulska" <musics...@netscape.net> writes:
>>
>> >The only authentic portraits of Mozart are the ones listed on the
>> >Cornell site. I don't think the one attributed to Greuze was ever
>> >seriously considered to be a portrait of Mozart.
>>
>> Perhaps, but Einstein did include it in his book, so I presume he
>> considered it authentic.
>Did he really? I have the first English edition of his book ("wartime
>edition" 1945) and it contains only a few genuine portraits plus the
>one by Helbling which turned out to be a portrait of Count Firmian, not
>of Mozart (but that was not known in 1945, I think). I also have a
>later German edition which has no illustrations. Einstein died in 1952,
>so the choice of illustrations for any edition published after his
>death comes from the publisher, not the dead author. How can you tell
>that Einstein himself decided to include this portrait? (I don't recall
>if he mentions any portraits in the text.)
>> The Cornell site doesn't mention it
>> in its list of inauthentic ones either, so I'm just curious about
>> how it fell from grace, so to speak, if that's what happened.
>I don't think it was ever "in grace", so to speak. What edition of
>Einstein do you have?
I have the English edition (paperback) copyright 1945 Oxford University
Press, "first issued as paperback, 1962, this reprint 1972." The
publisher's note says "This English language edition . . . incorporates
not only two new plates, but also all the corrections which [Einstein]
made for the German edition published in 1953...." This is ambiguous
regarding who chose the plates, so you're right that the publisher
might have added them at the last minute, so to speak. The plate
in question has the caption "_Mozart as a Child_ by (?) J. B. Greuze,
Courtesy, Yale School of Music." Anyway, I'm not insisting on its
authenticity, just curious about it, e.g. whether it's known to
be inauthentic (like the Helbling you mentioned), or just not known
to be authentic. Whatever it is, it's a striking piece, at least
to my eyes.
Margaret Mikulska
James Kahn wrote:
> I have the English edition (paperback) copyright 1945 Oxford
University
> Press, "first issued as paperback, 1962, this reprint 1972." The
> publisher's note says "This English language edition . . .
incorporates
> not only two new plates, but also all the corrections which
[Einstein]
> made for the German edition published in 1953...." This is ambiguous
> regarding who chose the plates, so you're right that the publisher
> might have added them at the last minute, so to speak. The plate
> in question has the caption "_Mozart as a Child_ by (?) J. B. Greuze,
> Courtesy, Yale School of Music." Anyway, I'm not insisting on its
> authenticity, just curious about it, e.g. whether it's known to
> be inauthentic (like the Helbling you mentioned), or just not known
> to be authentic.
While Helbling's painting is known to represent the young Firmian, the
kid painted by Greuze is not identified and there is no reason to think
that he has anything to do with Mozart. One might classify that as "not
known to be authentic", but by the same token you can take any portrait
of an unidentified boy painted when Mozart was a kid -- this too could
be called "not known to be [an] authentic" [portrait of Mozart].
Misattributions are often extreme cases of wishful thinking.
> Whatever it is, it's a striking piece, at least
> to my eyes.
Well, Greuze was a very good painter.
-MM
Sam
<musics...@netscape.net> wrote:
> -- this too could
>be called "not known to be [an] authentic" [portrait of Mozart].
>Misattributions are often extreme cases of wishful thinking.
This reminds me of the painting Tal and Groethuysen use in their
Schubert Piano Duo series. Although they give no convincing evidence
that it is Schubert, they say something like, "If that isn't Schubert,
then who is it?".
Margaret Mikulska
A short update about the "Mozart portrait". The painting pretty much
got the kiss of death, since Mozarteum finally decided to issue a
statement. In a nutshell, they are extremely sceptical and do not
intend to try to buy the painting from the Berliner Gemäldegalerie.
There is no link connecting Mozart with this portrait and although they
intend to show the portrait in Salzburg in 2006, they say that nothing
can be concluded without further investigation (which will probably
never happen anyway).
-MM