[Тютчев]

big mystery "Little Archer»

ARTinvestment.RU - 26.12.2009, 09:04

In November of this year, the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art presented a new exhibit - a marble sculpture titled "The Little Archer". A small (only about a meter tall) figure with a broken hand and feet, whose deadpan frames mop of curly hair for decades graced the foyer of the mansion on Fifth Avenue, where the cultural department of the French Embassy, and the special attention of the visitors did not enjoy - until art historian Kathleen Weil-Garris Brandt (Kathleen Weil-Garris Brandt) not stated that it is a creation of Michelangelo himself. This assumption made a splash: articles on the marble boy appeared on the front pages of major newspapers and in professional circles a heated debate that periodically flares up today.

Читать дальше... 

Press first reported on the opening Brandt in January 1996. Since "Little Archer" had time to visit the best museums in Europe. He was the main exhibit of an exhibition at the Florentine Palazzo Vecchio, as well as spending some time in the Louvre Museum, whose curator, Jean-Rene Gabor (Jean-René Gaborit), does not agree with the attribution Brandt, told the state that the sculpture is "a work of anonymous artists of the late XVI century . Colleagues from the Metropolitan Museum, however, it is not supported: they have the statue is exhibited as the work of Michelangelo. Of course, this solution found and opponents and supporters.

Kathleen Weil-Garris Brandt, a professor at the Institute of Arts and College of Arts and Sciences at New York University. Creative artists of the Renaissance is its specialization. For many years she went to work past that the building on Fifth Avenue, but on the marble boy was not paying attention. Once, Brandt went there at the reception and saw the statue in bright light - it was then that she thought about Michelangelo. Some time later, she returned to photograph the product from all angles. His guesses Brandt presented in two articles published in 1996 and 1997 in the journal Burlington Magazine.

Curator of European Sculpture and Decorative Arts Metropolitan Museum of Art, James Draper (James Draper) had earlier expressed belief that the work created by Michelangelo teacher Bertoldo di Giovanni (Bertoldo di Giovanni), but communicated with Brandt, he was convinced that "The Little Archer" is a product of titanium Renaissance. Draper recalls how at a reception at the mansion researcher said: "My God, this is really it." She invited me to look at [Sculpture], and in doing so, I realized that she had in mind. In normal lighting has become much easier to see how well the boy's hair is cut, as referred to bend his body and the subtle movement of the snake, and I immediately agreed with [Brandt].

According to Draper, at the time of the sculpture by Michelangelo was only about 15 years. This is evidenced by the similarity of item "The Little Archer" and a bronze statue of Apollo or Orpheus, performed Bertoldi (now this work is a collection of the Bargello Museum of Florence).

In the late Columbia University professor James Beck (James Beck), famous for his knowledge of Renaissance art, was quite different opinion. In April 1996, he told ARTnews, that the proportions of the figure - "a big head, wide neck and thin body" - cast doubt on the authorship of Michelangelo. He also did not like the boy's hair. Even the famous "David", he said, his hair "grows from their heads. They are not fastened to the head. "

Some scholars argue that a powerful argument in favor of the hypothesis Brandt is the formal complexity of the sculpture. "The figure is in motion, it rotates - [boy] is about to pull an arrow from the quiver, - says Alexander Nagel (Alexander Nagel), Professor of the Institute of Art, New York University. - But at the same time, it seems to be frozen in eternity. Movement figures into something more. This work not only tells us about some kind of action, it is an image, ready for independent life as a work of art - I think, is the distinguishing feature of the art of Michelangelo. "

Independent researcher John T. Spike (John T. Spike), whose book "The Young Michelangelo: The path to the Sistine Chapel will be published next year, said he believed in the authorship of the artist, when I saw" The Little Archer "in Florence. "External contours of the figures are flexible, as in the drawings by Michelangelo - he managed to make this effect persisted when examining the work from all sides. Sculptors smaller sizes have focused mainly on solid volumes, and the contours of their uninteresting.

About where the sculpture was before the twentieth century, virtually nothing is known. In 1902 she appeared at London auctioneers Christie's, but the buyer is not found. After some time dealer named John Bardeen, Stefano (Stefano Bardini) sold it to the American architect Stanford Whyte (Stanford White). The statue was intended to decorate the New York mansion Payne Whitney (Payne Whitney), which later housed the cultural department of the French Embassy.

Brandt and Draper believes that one of the previous owners of the figures was Jacopo Galli (Jacopo Galli), a Florentine banker, who lived in Rome in the XVI century (although Draper argues that Michelangelo created the work is in Florence, during his apprenticeship). Contemporaries were told that the collection was stored Galli sculpture of Cupid and Apollo, with a vase at her feet. According to Draper, the latter explains the fact that the left leg, the boy is there "a projection". Researchers also think that the sculpture was a time in the gardens of Villa Borghese, where it is noticeably affected, in no way protected from the wind, precipitation, temperature, etc.

"In general provenance rather puny, especially when you consider that [art dealer] Bardeen was a man of dubious reputation - says Lynn Katterson (Lynn Catterson), a specialist in Renaissance art and lecturer at Columbia University. - Also, have domyslivat relationship between a collection of the Borghese and Jacopo Galli - not the fact that this will bring us closer to the truth. "

In 1998, James Beck wrote about "The Little Archer", a long article for the journal Artibus et Historiae, where he asks the question, would sell the statue of John Bardeen on such a tiny price - 2,5 thousand dollars, converted at today's money. "If you have ... it was a work that, in your opinion, created by Michelangelo Buonarroti (or even an artist of his" school "that our case is obviously not suitable as a sculptor or painter, aged 18-20 could hardly be a proper "school"), then would you sell it for 2 500 dollars, or more precisely, for 1 500, given that the amount of sales necessary to subtract the cost base, which is about a thousand dollars? And still have to pay the mediator. So Bardin for his statue, along with stand rescued by today's money of one thousand. Common sense tells me that you (and me too) would have waited until the opportunity to sell the work for a much more substantial sum, or left to its own, rather than sell it as an ordinary, just found a cheap antique trinket.

Beck also remembered another attempt to write "The Little Archer" by Michelangelo, which undertook in 1968 a Florentine art historian Parronki Alessandro (Alessandro Parronchi). Then the scientific community has ignored its arguments. Professor Parronki thirty years, defended his point of view - said Beck. - But it is contrary to scientific consensus. "

Shortly after publication Brandt, James Draper and a researcher at the University of Cambridge Paul Ioannides (Paul Joannides) pointed to the drawings, which they believe can serve as proof of authorship of Michelangelo. In an article that appeared in 1997, in Burlington Magazine, Draper mentioned two drawings of "The Little Archer", performed by the French copyist Jean-Robert Ango (Jean-Robert Ango) in Rome (in the period from 1759 to 1773). The curator said that Ango probably saw the statue in the gardens of Villa Borghese and thought that it was a piece of ancient sculpture. Ioannides found the sketch, the author of which, presumably, was one of the companions of Michelangelo. The picture you can see figure standing in the same position as the "Little Archer". However, they have two differences: first, the boys have painted their hands and feet, and, secondly, his torso and thighs are too muscular, which resembles the shapes of shade on the Sistine Chapel. The figures do not indicate that they represent the image of sculpture by Michelangelo, but Ioannides said that there is nothing unusual. "There are many copies of Renaissance paintings, as careless sketches and carefully executed works, and I can not think of any where it would be written the name of the artist or the name of the image work.

One of the most unexpected of hypotheses put forward a professor at the Institute of Art, New York University Aysler Colin (Colin Eisler). In an article published in October 1996 in the magazine Apollo, he argues that "The Little Archer" is performed by a young Michelangelo forgery of ancient statues.

According to Lynn Katterson (which recently announced that the famous sculpture "Laocoon" - is also by Michelangelo), the artist "it produced many imitations, as well as ancient statues were sold at ten times more expensive works by contemporary artists. For a young sculptor, it was a great way to earn.

Indeed. Even Giorgio Vasari (Giorgio Vasari), wrote that Michelangelo once created a statue of a sleeping Cupid, and then buried it in the acid-soaked earth, to give it "ancient" look. The artist has sold a fake (with the help of a mediator) Cardinal Riario of San Giorgio.

"This is probably one of the most popular stories of fraud", - said William Wallace, professor of art history at Washington University in St. Louis. Wallace is one of the most authoritative experts on Michelangelo. He recently published a biography of the artist. Thirteen years ago, Wallace, as James Beck, refused to recognize the "Little Archer" work of Michelangelo. His opinion does not change. "We are trying to convince [his authorship], using only circumstantial evidence, but for the connoisseur must be convincing in the first place the work itself - he said. - And in this case, the product failed to convince me. "

"Over time, the attribution of themselves, find their level - continues to Wallace (keeping in mind the fact that many works originally attributed to the great artists, later works are less important authors. - AI.). - As the water. It begins with the highest level, then this level is reduced. But I am pleased that this sculpture was in the public domain and that the next ten years, it will be displayed in a public museum, but not the French cultural attache - in fact before it could see only a limited number of people. That is what should be borne in mind connoisseurs of art. It was not always what is now a consensus, and then, as the consensus changes over time. And the time - it usually mercilessly, but it puts everything on its places ».

Material prepared by Julia Maksimova, AI

Source: artnews.com, artinvestment.ru

http://artinvestment.ru/news/artnews...ng_archer.html