The image in question is the panel painting to the right titled the Torment of Saint Anthony which the Kimbell purchased in 2009 from a private dealer who was convinced that the item was a lost work by Michelangelo. And in my opinion, it is (though I think other Amy isn't as convinced).According to two biographies of Michelangelo's life written by Vasari and Condivi, a thirteen year-old Michelangelo did a painting by this description while apprenticed to his first teacher, Domenico Ghirlandaio. The image is a copy of
a print done by a German artist, Martin Schongauer in the 1470s (below). It appears that Michelangelo, even at such a young age, was already confident enough to take on other masters such a Schongauer because he modified small elements of the original print's composition in order to tighten the attack circle around Saint Anthony. He also added a landscape background which the original image lacked entirely. So if this painting isn't by Michelangelo who else would have been bold enough to attempt to trump a leading master of his time?
Then there's the question of what it looks like. This, admittedly, doesn't look like the way we expect Michelangelo to paint. Throughout his entire career, Michelangelo grappled with the issue of painting, always considering himself a sculptor. He even signed his greatest triumph in painting, the Sistine Ceiling as, "Michel Angelo scultore" - Michelangelo sculptor. Nevertheless, he began his artistic instruction as a painter and he had to find his way in drawing and painting before he found his most powerful innate talent in sculpture. Scholars have possession of a few sketches which are certifiably by young Michelangelo, but the Torment of Saint Anthony would be the first known panel painting by this artist's hand. It therefore in a way defies comparison with the only confirmed panel painting by him, the Doni Tondo in Florence, which is of a much different nature and was completed at a much later time. Aside from that, Michelangelo's other paintings or frescoes were works where he was given much more creative license as opposed to the Schongauer copy where he was limited by what was provided in the original print.
There are other far more technical reasons in favor of this attribution, and I have a healthy collection of articles and books that discuss this work and their reasons for and against this attribution. But I feel like that's a bit much to put into what I hope will be a casual blog site for those interested in art. What I really intend to do is simply pose the question: do you think Michelangelo could have done this? And how can we prove that? What angles should we try? And better yet, if this is legitimized, how does that change Michelangelo as we know him to be?
Image credits: Kimbell Art Museum, British Museum
First off - the "gang" allusion to McCarthy is wonderfully appropriate.
ReplyDeleteSecond - I'm not entirely convinced YET. I think it's a fascinating idea and am interested in looking further into it. Since I haven't studied this piece enough or seen it in person I can't make a legitimate judgment. I think this piece, like we (Amy A. and I) discussed a few days ago, is similar to M's Entombment and Manchester Madonna. They serve as a stepping stone in M's career. His work is undoubtedly that of a genius, arguably a sort of perfection in the artistic world. But he had to have works that were not "great." In his formative years, he had to have practiced painting and sculpting and had to have failed at some point. Perhaps this was one of his early "failures." Biographical documentation of an early painting of this subject makes it much more believable.