Where is the Science?

I’m killing two birds with one stone in this short post.

Firstly, I feel compelled to reassure readers, particularly Three Pipe Problem who is demanding technical data on the painting right now, that scientific data, technical results about the Malmesbury Judgement of Paris will be forthcoming, in the last part of this series, as I stated on the blog. This will consist of reports on major subsurface compositional development pentimenti, as this is arguably the greatest factor of Raphael's "Inventiveness" present in this composition, which outweighs many of the other points, apart from the specific Physiognomies.This is in no way to disparage technical scans or the like over other approaches- it’s just appropriate for the structure of presentation that I’ve chosen. And incidentally, I don’t consider what I posted a few days ago irrelevant, digressive or not “useful” to understanding this attribution.

Secondly, Graeme Cameron has asked me to note certain points, which weren’t made in yesterday’s post. I’m happy to do this as I’m trying to give a fully rounded presentation of the case.

1. Some of Raphael’s most famous paintings like the "Madonna of the Chair" and "The Fornarina" compositions had no records and were unknown before they later emerged long after Raphael's death, in the late 1580/90's as did the J o P several decades later.

2. One of Raphael’s assistants, Luca Penni also created a J o P " Hybrid" composition based on Raimondi's engraving, significantly, with the same main focal group of figures, but the cluttered background etc. made subsidiary to them.

3. Pignati cited an early Drawing claimed to be a representation of a lost Giorgione. It was titled "Zorzon", for "Giorgione", and was a very basic group, but more importantly, it was in reverse to Raphael's J o P.

4. I'm informed that “there is another significant link involving one of the copies, which leads directly back to the Malmesvbury composition's Raphael origins and to Rome, which has been withheld, which will be revealed in coming Volume II."

Comments

[H Niyazi]

Many thanks for the update David. Anyone interested in the fullest picture will want to have as much information to sort through as possible. It has never been a question of weighting one factor over another, but simply that a more likely attribution will have more points of comparison beyond "thematic"

Kemp/Cotte did it for La Bella Principessa, and the group that looked at Salvator Mundi used the same technique. As a humble reporter, I'm a small fish in a much larger ocean of people interested in Raphael.. none of whom have registered a blip of concern publicly on this piece. Meyer zur Capellen commented on the Frankfurt Julius II within days of its public announcement, which made news globally.

Beyond our esoteric corners of the net, there has been no response to this piece - you would think a new Raphael would deserve such a response? We are both fond of James Beck's book on the 'Pinks' - even he stressed the need for consensus, as long as it was transparently reported.

GC could produce findings of a ground and pigment analysis that may at least be consistent with materials used in Raphael's workshop in Rome (and known extant pieces). Even these would not guarantee an attribution on their own.

Quite simply, it's *never* all about the science, it's about the *combination* of factors, and whether other qualified persons agree. This absence of cumulative factors, and the lack of critical response is a cause for concern, surely?

As points of comparison, the Fornarina and Madonna della Sedia have been put through much scrutiny as Raphael pieces for centuries. Perhaps a more viable analogy would be Giorgione's Judith, long given to Raphael on stylistic grounds.

Kind Regards
H

[dzone]

What a great site this. I love the neat layout? Thanks for the comments too.
http://xiangchun.allmyblog.com/
http://banli.blog.cz/
http://nen360.nenonline.org/blog/jushu
http://www.sibir.ro/blog/goushu/