Whodunnit? Who cares…


size-thumbnail wp-image-1707" src="http://www.thejackdaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Certificate-of-authenticity-150x150.jpg" alt="Certificate of google_ad_height = 90; authenticity" width="150" height="150" srcset="http://www.thejackdaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Certificate-of-authenticity-150x150.jpg 150w,
http://www.thejackdaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Certificate-of-authenticity-298x300.jpg 298w, http://www.thejackdaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Certificate-of-authenticity-55x55.jpg 55w, http://www.thejackdaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Certificate-of-authenticity.jpg 390w" sizes="(max-width: 150px) 100vw, 150px" />Que barbaridad! google_ad_height = 90; You lend two of your best Boschs to a municipal gallery in a two-horse town in Holland that happens to be the artist’s birthplace, and how do they thank you? By reattributing the works to ‘follower of’ and, furthermore, downgrading a third painting in your collection that you didn’t even lend them.


public spat broke out in November between the Prado and the Noordbrabants Museum in ’s-Hertogenbosch after the Dutch curators of the Bosch quincentenary exhibition, which closes in May, refused to revoke the verdict of their catalogue raisonné that the paintings in question – one of src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> them presciently titled The Cure of Folly – were later works by followers. Having spent nine years on their research, Hieronymus’s Homeboys were not about to back down. Let the Spaniards
Copyright © 1998 - 2015 jb54.com All Rights Reserved
send in the Duke of Alva to recreate Brueghel’s Massacre of

通过金名网(4.cn) 中介交易

the Innocents, the Bosch Research and Conservation Project would be waiting for him. In February, ten days before the google_ad_client = "ca-pub-3967079123942817"; show opened, the Prado withdrew the loans.

If it was any consolation, the Prado wasn’t alone. The directors of Ghent’s Fine Arts Museum and the Municipal Museum of Saint-Germain-en-Laye were also left weeping into their beer after the Dutch researchers’ axe fell on their


‘former’ Boschs. Staff at the Groeningemuseum in Bruges, on the other hand, were popping champagne corks at the BRCP’s judgment that their Last
Judgment, previously ‘workshop’, was the genuine article.

In the game of attributions it’s swings and roundabouts, and scholars sometimes seem to enjoy the ride more than the pictures. The catalogue for the Royal Academy’s current exhibition The Age of Giorgione is largely made up of lists detailing what painting was attributed to whom, by

whom and when, and who has since deattributed and reattributed it. As whodunnits go, it lacks dramatic interest. Reattributions that raise
scholarly temperatures only tend to bore and confuse
the general public. Pity the poor magazine sub who had to email me on Easter Saturday morning to ask why my exhibition review attributed The Goldman Portrait to Titian when the National Gallery of Art in Washington, which owns the picture, says it’s by Cariani.
For the time being, I summarily informed him, it’s by Titian.

Only four works in the RA show are now ‘securely’ attributed to Giorgione; where once connoisseurs counted thousands of Giorgiones, //--> a

few handfuls remain. Rembrandt has /* xin2 */ fared proportionately better. During the Rembrandt

Horst recently scrubbed up google_ad_client = "ca-pub-3967079123942817"; so nice that
Van de Wetering /* xin-1 */ has relabelled it authentic. “It’s now

to ten other Warhol self-portraits. After the case had dragged on for three years and cost $7

be clear,