A wonderful read, Ann, and a truly great bit of reporting. Thank you. I remember when this whole thing hit the Times and I was so excited. Stupid me. Later, when I heard more about it, I felt manipulated and deceived. So similar to so many things in the news...
In any event, I deeply admired scholarly connoisseurship until I read a book about Bernard Berenson and learned how much ego, politics, and money got in the way of judging. Not merely because one ends up with scholars battling one another, as in the case of this Cupid (like you, I find it doesn't match what I think of as Michelangelo, but I admit to knowing far less than even you modestly claim to know), but because the whole matter of according attribution by style rests on a bed of subjectivity.
Remember the Rembrandt project, where a group of scholars de-attributed an enormous number of Rembrandt paintings? Museums all over the world had to redo their labels to say "School of Rembrandt," or "Attributed to Rembrandt." Later, a good number if not most of these ostracized Rembrandts were reattributed to him. What caused the mess I don't really know.
It's strange to think that if any of us were told this Cupid is definitely, without question, a work by Michelangelo, we'd look at it differently if we're told it's by some B-list artist. Now that the poor thing has been verbally torn to shreds by a gazillion judges, for me to find in it whatever bit of aesthetic virtue it might have is impossible.
Thanks, Laurie. I think it is shameful of the Met to claim a secure attribution when there's been so much controversy around this sculpture. Former director Tom Hoving once claimed that about 40 percent of the works in the museum were fakes. It all gives you pause....I'm guessing you read Meryle Secrest's bio of Berenson. According to her, he was an opportunistic slimeball, lending his name to dubious works to pocket the proceeds.
Fascinating! I trust your judgment, Ann, over that of the woman looking to make a name for herself. Some people will do anything for their 15 minutes of fame.
A wonderful read, Ann, and a truly great bit of reporting. Thank you. I remember when this whole thing hit the Times and I was so excited. Stupid me. Later, when I heard more about it, I felt manipulated and deceived. So similar to so many things in the news...
In any event, I deeply admired scholarly connoisseurship until I read a book about Bernard Berenson and learned how much ego, politics, and money got in the way of judging. Not merely because one ends up with scholars battling one another, as in the case of this Cupid (like you, I find it doesn't match what I think of as Michelangelo, but I admit to knowing far less than even you modestly claim to know), but because the whole matter of according attribution by style rests on a bed of subjectivity.
Remember the Rembrandt project, where a group of scholars de-attributed an enormous number of Rembrandt paintings? Museums all over the world had to redo their labels to say "School of Rembrandt," or "Attributed to Rembrandt." Later, a good number if not most of these ostracized Rembrandts were reattributed to him. What caused the mess I don't really know.
It's strange to think that if any of us were told this Cupid is definitely, without question, a work by Michelangelo, we'd look at it differently if we're told it's by some B-list artist. Now that the poor thing has been verbally torn to shreds by a gazillion judges, for me to find in it whatever bit of aesthetic virtue it might have is impossible.
Thanks, Laurie. I think it is shameful of the Met to claim a secure attribution when there's been so much controversy around this sculpture. Former director Tom Hoving once claimed that about 40 percent of the works in the museum were fakes. It all gives you pause....I'm guessing you read Meryle Secrest's bio of Berenson. According to her, he was an opportunistic slimeball, lending his name to dubious works to pocket the proceeds.
Yup, good guess!
A great summary of the pitfalls of "scholarship" and the desire to make an object belong to a big name!
What an ugly, strange too large head. Doesn't seem like a cupid at all.
Fascinating! I trust your judgment, Ann, over that of the woman looking to make a name for herself. Some people will do anything for their 15 minutes of fame.
I read this carefully with much interest, inclined to agree, with you.
A very cool and odd story! Great reporting.