I have been looking at Jeanne Marchig's testimony to the New York court on 17 Jan 2012.
She testified that "I had inherited the drawing from my late husband, Giannino Marchig (1897-1983), who was an art restorer and artist, and an expert in Italian Renaissance art. At that time the Drawing was in an antique ornate Florentine wooden frame, which it had been before I married him in 1955".
François Borne of Christie's, rejecting the idea that it came from the Renaissance, as her husband and she firmly believed (though no mention by anyone of Leonardo), said that "your superb German drawing in the taste of the Italian Renaissance fascinates me. I think it is an object of great taste". He advised her "to change the frame in order to make it seem an amateur object of the 19th century not an Italian pastiche". The old frame (now disappeared), which looked like an Italianate mock-up from the 19th, was removed and replaced against Jeanne's wishes, and she did not approve of its cataloguing as German, but she felt she "no choice but to accede".
The date of 1955 rules out Greenhalgh (as do many other things), and works strongly against any other forgery theory, since the scientific examinations reveal features of which no forger could have been aware at that time. This applies to the scurrilous and unsupported identification of Marchig as the forger and to any other pre. 1955 forgery.
All that is left is for opponents to divert the argument into claiming that Jeanne Marchig lied profusely. She seemed to me to be a person of great credibility. I wish she were still with us to confirm the truth, which is evident to anyone who looks at the evidence with an open mind.
Friday, 4 December 2015
Wednesday, 2 December 2015
More on La Bella Principessa forgery
Having changed my email and password, I can now get into my own blog. This is a revised version of the comment I posted:
More on the forgery daftness.
The motivation for the absurd claims is clear. Greenhalgh and the writer / filmmaker Waldemar Januszczak are promoting their book and film. It is difficult to think that Waldemar really believes the claims to be sustainable. We have to believe that a 17-year old in 1978 knew more than anyone in the world about Leonardo, about his techniques, about the Sforza court and its art, about costumes and hairstyles at the court and about techniques of scientific examination then unknown.
Michael Daley of Artwatch spoke at the attribution conference he has just organised and continued to repeat his errors as fact. He is reported as saying that Leonardo only used parallel shading inside forms not outside them. This is wonderfully ignorant. In Popham's The Drawings of Leonardo da Vinci (only a selection) I counted 24 drawing with parallel hatching being used to create a background for the drawn forms, including No 215, the Vitruvian Man and 210-11 the Leda heads! He used it when he want to create a special degree of “rilievo” (relief), with the object standing out against its background.
One of the problems with much of the debate that is has been conducted by people using only online sources and not looking in details at the books written by Pascal Cotte and myself. The level of debate has been disappointingly poor.
More on the forgery daftness.
The motivation for the absurd claims is clear. Greenhalgh and the writer / filmmaker Waldemar Januszczak are promoting their book and film. It is difficult to think that Waldemar really believes the claims to be sustainable. We have to believe that a 17-year old in 1978 knew more than anyone in the world about Leonardo, about his techniques, about the Sforza court and its art, about costumes and hairstyles at the court and about techniques of scientific examination then unknown.
Michael Daley of Artwatch spoke at the attribution conference he has just organised and continued to repeat his errors as fact. He is reported as saying that Leonardo only used parallel shading inside forms not outside them. This is wonderfully ignorant. In Popham's The Drawings of Leonardo da Vinci (only a selection) I counted 24 drawing with parallel hatching being used to create a background for the drawn forms, including No 215, the Vitruvian Man and 210-11 the Leda heads! He used it when he want to create a special degree of “rilievo” (relief), with the object standing out against its background.
One of the problems with much of the debate that is has been conducted by people using only online sources and not looking in details at the books written by Pascal Cotte and myself. The level of debate has been disappointingly poor.
Sunday, 29 November 2015
Bombing Syria
Why do we never learn?
Obviously it is difficult to argue that we do nothing in the face of the slaughter of innocent people by ISIS. But we should ask how we got here - by repeating massive mistakes. The history of major interventions in non-European countries in my lifetime is disastrous.
I can as a child remember the Korean War. The North Korean regime testifies the failure of that enterprise. Then Vietnam. Then Afghanistan, where we failed to learn from Russia's failure. Then Iraq, followed by the Arab spring, which has left a chaos of instability across North Africa.
Intervening militarily in complex, factionalised, hierarchical cultures that we do not properly understand is a terrible idea. Not least, the "experts" who are paraded to advise and pontificate in the media on what we should do are discredited. This applies to the civilian pundits as much as the military men.
What should we do? We could try diverting the huge costs of military adventures into diplomacy, education, intelligence and above all investing in the poor communities in which young people are vulnerable to perverted promises of glory.
We should also remember that the perpetrators of monstrosities are someone's son or daughter, probably someone's brother or sister, maybe someone's husband or wife, father or mother. It is said that they are "animals" or "inhuman". We need to assert or core of mutual humanity with them (and everyone in the world) before they plunge into nihilism.
Obviously it is difficult to argue that we do nothing in the face of the slaughter of innocent people by ISIS. But we should ask how we got here - by repeating massive mistakes. The history of major interventions in non-European countries in my lifetime is disastrous.
I can as a child remember the Korean War. The North Korean regime testifies the failure of that enterprise. Then Vietnam. Then Afghanistan, where we failed to learn from Russia's failure. Then Iraq, followed by the Arab spring, which has left a chaos of instability across North Africa.
Intervening militarily in complex, factionalised, hierarchical cultures that we do not properly understand is a terrible idea. Not least, the "experts" who are paraded to advise and pontificate in the media on what we should do are discredited. This applies to the civilian pundits as much as the military men.
What should we do? We could try diverting the huge costs of military adventures into diplomacy, education, intelligence and above all investing in the poor communities in which young people are vulnerable to perverted promises of glory.
We should also remember that the perpetrators of monstrosities are someone's son or daughter, probably someone's brother or sister, maybe someone's husband or wife, father or mother. It is said that they are "animals" or "inhuman". We need to assert or core of mutual humanity with them (and everyone in the world) before they plunge into nihilism.
La Bella Principessa is a "forgery"!!!
The silly season for Leonardo never stops. This now applies as much to the profile portrait on vellum, the portrait of Bianca Sforza known as La Bella Principessa, as it does to the Mona Lisa.
The latest in the Sunday Times is the hilarious claim from the convicted forger Shaun Greenhalgh that he forged the portrait in 1978. He is effectively promoting his forthcoming book.
There are many reasons why the story is ridiculous. I give just three for the moment.
The latest in the Sunday Times is the hilarious claim from the convicted forger Shaun Greenhalgh that he forged the portrait in 1978. He is effectively promoting his forthcoming book.
There are many reasons why the story is ridiculous. I give just three for the moment.
1) We have lead isotope dating undertaken by the University of Pavia that shows the white pigment in the sitter’s cheek to be a minimum age of 250 years old. This means that it is not a recent forgery;
2) If someone fakes a Leonardo why do they not promote it as a Leonardo? There was no suggestion from 1978 to 2007 that it was by Leonardo.
3) Obviously anyone with a decent level of technical knowledge can read what Pascal Cotte, myself and other scholars have published and say, “that’s how I did this or that”. But many of the “thises" and “thats" were not known in 1978. A nice case in point is the hand-print technique in the flesh tones as revealed by Pascal's multi-spectral analysis, a technique that we did not know about until the 1980s.
Faced with the pigment dating, Greenhalgh then claims that he used "organic" materials of appropriate age, including "iron-rich clays" he dug up. You cannot obtain lead-based pigments (non-organic) this way so as to pass the isotope test. No forger in 1978 could have anticipated the recent high-tech tests against which he would have to protect his creation.
2) If someone fakes a Leonardo why do they not promote it as a Leonardo? There was no suggestion from 1978 to 2007 that it was by Leonardo.
3) Obviously anyone with a decent level of technical knowledge can read what Pascal Cotte, myself and other scholars have published and say, “that’s how I did this or that”. But many of the “thises" and “thats" were not known in 1978. A nice case in point is the hand-print technique in the flesh tones as revealed by Pascal's multi-spectral analysis, a technique that we did not know about until the 1980s.
Faced with the pigment dating, Greenhalgh then claims that he used "organic" materials of appropriate age, including "iron-rich clays" he dug up. You cannot obtain lead-based pigments (non-organic) this way so as to pass the isotope test. No forger in 1978 could have anticipated the recent high-tech tests against which he would have to protect his creation.
The plus side of all this is that it provides another picturesque story for the book I am writing called Living with Leonardo, to be published by Thames and Hudson. Ha Ha!
Sunday, 16 August 2015
Labour Party election, Jeremy Corbin
It is notable that prominent figures in the Labour Party, most notably the leadership candidates, simply do not understand why members are deserting them for someone who believes what he says. No-one wants yet another central party office political technocrat who has risen integrally through a discredited system. The repeated claims that the party must appoint a leader who makes the party electable indicates that being electable is the priority, not a set of ideals or radical policies. Burnham has belatedly scattered some radical star dust over his middling policies, but his radicalism is opportunistic and shallow. The candidates' ganging up to denounce the election of Corbin as tantamount to the annihilation of the party is similar to the negative bullying that almost buried the "no" campaign in the Scottish referendum. People do not like being bullied, and it is counter-productive.
The Labour Party have bought into the system of international finance and multi-national companies that operate outside international control. Saying, as senior figures do, that the party lost the election because they were too "anti-business" tells us that it has lost its heart and soul.
The other day The Guardian, without apparent irony, covered on following pages the degrading conditions in the refugee camp at Calais and the lush life in the Hamptons in the USA, where the indulgent rich grow fat on money that makes money. Such inequalities become steeper by the year. Where is the political will to do something about this on a national and global basis? Perhaps Corbin has such a will, but I doubt he can do anything about it if he has to grapple with leading such a soulless party.
The Labour Party have bought into the system of international finance and multi-national companies that operate outside international control. Saying, as senior figures do, that the party lost the election because they were too "anti-business" tells us that it has lost its heart and soul.
The other day The Guardian, without apparent irony, covered on following pages the degrading conditions in the refugee camp at Calais and the lush life in the Hamptons in the USA, where the indulgent rich grow fat on money that makes money. Such inequalities become steeper by the year. Where is the political will to do something about this on a national and global basis? Perhaps Corbin has such a will, but I doubt he can do anything about it if he has to grapple with leading such a soulless party.
Tuesday, 11 August 2015
Art in History Animations
Since the animated version of the e-book of Art in History (Profile Books) has effectively been suppressed by Google, as explained previously, I am now attaching links to them for anyone interested. Two (space and colour) are didactic and cover foundational aspects that were largely left out of the text, while the others are just meant to be fun and aid memory. They are by Andrew Park of Cognitive Media.
Profile have now aborted what was meant to be an series of enhanced e-books. Amazon the bully triumphs again.
Profile have now aborted what was meant to be an series of enhanced e-books. Amazon the bully triumphs again.
Spacehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsDAD1wopLU
Colour
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqUxJdYMDhg
Greece to Mediaeval
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOiaEDrqVLQ
Renaissance
www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHxLBiPQlfg
Art Institutions
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S1yN3omdlk
Early 20th Century
www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5diJLRUu2k
Friday, 8 May 2015
election
Ugh!
The worst electoral result since the election of the Churchill Tories after the Attlee government!
A campaign dominated by negativity and fuelling fears has resulted in the favouring of corrupt bankers, unaccountable multi-nationals, rapacious utility companies and the sordid gang of the wealthy, privileged and powerful who run our lives and live beyond political and financial control.
Worst of all the Tories jingoistic (English) playing on fears of tartan wreckers ensured that the vast majority of Scots could only vote one way. It was amazing to see the Scots replacing immigrants as the bogeywomen and men. Scottish political and social instincts are diametrically opposed to those of the Conservatives. The desire for separation is understandable.
I feel sorry for the Lib Dems. The stepped in to avoid potentially disastrous instability at the peak of the financial crisis. The were seduced by power, to be sure, and did not use it consistently well, but they did not deserve this butchery.
The two glimpses of light are the non-election of the pub bore Farage and the defeat of Ed Balls, whose muddled policies and delivery played strongly to claims of Labour's economic incompetence.
The Labour party seem likely to move even further right. This leaves the Greens as the only radical alternative, but they need a change in the system.
It now looks as if necessary electoral reforms are further away than ever.
I'm to hear the silvery Iestin Davies singing Bach this evening, which will remind me that humans can still aspire to great things - after a debasing election.
The worst electoral result since the election of the Churchill Tories after the Attlee government!
A campaign dominated by negativity and fuelling fears has resulted in the favouring of corrupt bankers, unaccountable multi-nationals, rapacious utility companies and the sordid gang of the wealthy, privileged and powerful who run our lives and live beyond political and financial control.
Worst of all the Tories jingoistic (English) playing on fears of tartan wreckers ensured that the vast majority of Scots could only vote one way. It was amazing to see the Scots replacing immigrants as the bogeywomen and men. Scottish political and social instincts are diametrically opposed to those of the Conservatives. The desire for separation is understandable.
I feel sorry for the Lib Dems. The stepped in to avoid potentially disastrous instability at the peak of the financial crisis. The were seduced by power, to be sure, and did not use it consistently well, but they did not deserve this butchery.
The two glimpses of light are the non-election of the pub bore Farage and the defeat of Ed Balls, whose muddled policies and delivery played strongly to claims of Labour's economic incompetence.
The Labour party seem likely to move even further right. This leaves the Greens as the only radical alternative, but they need a change in the system.
It now looks as if necessary electoral reforms are further away than ever.
I'm to hear the silvery Iestin Davies singing Bach this evening, which will remind me that humans can still aspire to great things - after a debasing election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)