Michelangelo bronzes discovered (ctd.)
February 11 2015
Picture: Fitzwilliam
Further to the news that the Fitzwilliam Museum has put two newly attributed Michelangelo bronzes on display, here is the very interesting view of Martin Kemp, as set out on his blog. As Emeritus Professor of Art History at the University of Oxford, Kemp is some ways the opposite number (if you want to see it like that) to Emeritus Professor Paul Joannides of Cambridge, whose discovery of a key drawing (below) played a role in attributing the bronzes to Michelangelo.
.jpg)
Kemp seems impressed by the male nudes, and though he doesn't explicity say 'yes, they're by Michelangelo'. However, he has reservations about the beasts on which they sit.
Do read his full opinion (which also has some great insights into the need to judge objects 'in the flesh' rather than images). But here's his conclusion:
The men’s’ figures are compelling in themselves, and are based on models that can be reasonably attributed to Michelangelo. The “panthers” seem to have been designed by someone else to accommodate the men. My hypothesis is that the large models of the men, originally intended to hold weapons, were made for an unidentified ensemble, perhaps a tomb (like that sketched in the corner of the Albertina drawing, fig. 31 in the book), in which they straddled or knelt on an architectural feature. Someone has utilised the exisiting models of the men to realise a pair of bronze sculptures that have Bacchic connotations. This is of course very hypothetical.
Is the bronze of the “panthers” the same as that of men? Are the anal rods that are used to insert the men into the backs of the “panthers” cast from the same bronze as the men? There are many questions to resolve.
Of course, the theory that the male nudes were originally astride something else other than 'panthers' renders invalid the discovery of the drawing that showed two nudes astride similar beasts. That said, it was interesting that many readers felt the panthers (or lions, or whatever they are) were the least convincing aspect of the sculptures.
It would be interesting to have the answers to Kemps questions about the basic structure of the sculptures.
I think the take away point here, though, is that is someone like Prof. Kemp isn't immediately persuaded that the bronzes are by Michelangelo, along with the limited documentary evidence in favour of the bronzes, should the Fitzwilliam not have played it safe (at least at this stage) and described the pieces as 'Attributed to Michelangelo'?
Update - a reader writes:
Having read about the two bronzes being attributed to Michelangelo in Cambridge, I thought I’d share my two cents. Leaving aside the funny looking cats for the moment, it seems to me the strength of the attribution to Michelangelo really depends on the dating. It’s claimed neutron scan puts them in the first decade of the sixteenth century, which is remarkably precise for what is really just a powerful x-ray showing how thick the casting is (a case of “the computer says so” connoisseurship). I’m not convinced there’s good data to suggest all bronze sculpture of that thickness are from 1500-1510, and anything else was from before or after. Certainly if it was done then, there really aren’t too many candidates besides Michelangelo, but if you go just a few decades later the number of mannerist sculptors who could fit the bill goes way up. I haven’t seen them at the Fitzwilliam, so I’m still happy to be persuaded, but I’m not yet.
Another reader writes:
Whilst the press have been having a lot of fun and Facebook and other blogs have had lots of comments from naysayers, the catalogue clearly indicates on the title page the uncertainty of the attribution to the great M:
A Michelangelo Discovery: The Rothschild bronzes and the case for their proposed attribution.
