Michelangelo bronzes discovered (ctd.)
February 17 2015
Picture: Fitzwilliam
From Germany, doubts. Writing in Die Welt, the German art historian and Michelangelo scholar Prof. Frank Zöllner, lists his misgivings on the new attribution. You can read his article here in German, and ArtNet has a summary in English:
Zöllner explains that the total absence of historical documentation detailing Michelangelo's creation of the bronzes is highly problematic. Taking into account the extremely complex and expensive casting process, he argues that it is very unlikely that the artist would have been able to create the sculptures in his studio without leaving behind any documentation, and without assistance.
Moreover, the expert alleges that the Fitzwilliam Museum's authentication was based on a flawed visual and stylistic comparison made between the two sculptures, and a portfolio attributed to Michelangelo's studio which contains a number of sketches, including a small sketch of a naked man riding a panther. He labels this approach "a little tricky, especially with such an adventurous attribution."
Zöllner points out a series of crucial differences between the sketch and the statue including significant discrepancies between the size of the panther and the position of the man's torso. Additionally, he suggests it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the sketch is in fact one of Michelangelo's design concepts.
He then goes on to criticize the "sensationalist" reaction to the news of the attribution of the sculptures to Michelangelo, "especially from the British press."
According to Zöllner, the only person to voice serious concerns over the attribution is Frits Scholten, Curator of Sculpture at the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Scholten, who saw the bronzes at an exhibition in 2003 attributed the sculptures to the Dutch sculptor Willem Danielsz van Tetrode (1525-1588). Zöllner predicts, "this assessment will probably prevail and the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge will suffer significant damage to its image."
Well, boo to the British press. But Prof. Zöllner raises many interesting questions. Given the somewhat limited evidence in favour of the attribution, and the way it was presented, was it inevitable that there would be an element of suprise and doubt amongst some in the wider art historical community? Especially if one authority, the curator of sculpture at the Rijksmuseum, says they're Dutch. Did the Fitzwilliam really need to leave itself vulnerable to such criticism, by saying 'These are undoubtedly by Michelanglo'? There can be few bigger claims to make in art history.
