A Question of Attribution.

Michael Savage mentions on his splendid new blog- Grumpy Art Historian that word has reached him that the Director of the NG, Nicholas Penny, doesn't like the word "attribution." So, as well as not being able to use the c word- conoissuership obviously- we can't use the a word.

I don't know the context for Penny's misgivings, but he isn't the first to think about the word itself. When I was reading a lot of Berenson last year, I came across this quote and jotted it down.

"I have had it for some time on my mind to write down, for once, what is implied in the verb, “I attribute,” “he attributes.” I have neither the leisure nor the patience to spin it out into the minutest threads. That kind of systematic treatise must be left to the Benedictine industry, who flatters themselves that because they are exhaustive they are also scientific. My aim is a humbler one. It is to tell younger men what an old explorer like myself has to do when he starts out to find the author of a work of art.” 1924, From “Nine Pictures in Search of a Method.”

And surely that is what attribution is all about isn't it....? Identifying who painted what.

As for that new "Titian" I haven't seen it in the flesh so to speak, but that seems like an attribution too far. The face doesn't seem very well modelled, just for starters. I just don't buy it as a Titian, which is based upon me looking at lots of Titian in galleries, teaching him and poring over catalogues of Titian exhibitions. Still, we'll wait and see how this atrribution, or whatever Penny wants to call it, fares in the months ahead.

 

Comments

[Graeme Cameron]

David,

For what it's worth David, I likewise feel it lacks 'Titian's' essence, however my original 5 sec instant innate response upon first seeing the image of it, Connoiseurship once again if you like; felt perhaps "Moroni" would be the area to further research for its origins. KIeep up the excellent work.

Graeme

[Graeme Cameron]

Further,

It probably also should have been mentioned there is a considerable influence of Titian present upon its author, both in its features and composition, which has obviously had a strong influence on the 'Titian' attribution/s of others, but on as effective view this low res image allows, is not apparent in its execution.

Graeme

[Boro]

Penny says that what is surprising in this painting is not the face, but rather the lynx fur. That is, the face may have been painted by the workshop. What master would be Tiziano, if let paint the face to an assistant, and he paint the clothes? Customers pay for the master painted his face and hands no clothes.

[David Packwood]

Yes, that seems to be the general feeling. Nice fur, shame about the face.

[James Mulraine]

Dr Penny's objection - as I understand it - wasn't to the word 'attributed' in its pure sense, 'definitely by' someone. It was to the technical use of 'Attributed to' meaning 'Very probably by.' In that sense I see where he's coming from.

The National Gallery's 'Drunken Silenus supported by Satyrs' was possibly painted by Van Dyck in Rubens's studio, but it's not certain so it's catalogued as 'Attributed to Van Dyck'. If further evidence emerges of his authorship it could be promoted and fully attributed to Van Dyck. Til then it's only 'Attributed To'. In this sense it is a peculiar term and it might be time for 'Probably by' or '?Van Dyck.'

[David Packwood]

Thanks for the clarification- yes, you're right- it's a sort of twilight term, not exactly yes, not exactly no.

[Michael Savage]

I think the most salient feature is the condition - it's really very bad. The face looks like it was cleaned with sandpaper (much worse than the Giacomo Doria at the Ashmolean, which is also quite skinned). That makes it hard to sustain any attribution with confidence. The quality of the fur is more apparent only because it's less damaged. I think it just might be a Titian, although I don't say that with much confidence. I certainly don't see Moroni (they'd be very disappointed if it were Moroni - there are thousands of them in store at the NG!).

I think the difference in apparent quality between face and fur is down to preservation rather than studio participation, although Henry and Joannides speculate in the Late Raphael catalogue that Raphael did sometimes personally participate in peripheral areas, leaving the important bits to the studio.

[David Packwood]

Thanks Michael,

If its condition is worse than the Doria in Oxford, then that is bad news. There's supposed to be another version of the Doria- wonder what condition that's in.

Moroni? Again, the same problem applies with the modelling of the face, here pretty lackluster, though I've not had the privilege of seeing the work in the flesh. Hoping I can cram it in when I'm next at the NG, probably for the Barocci show.

[Lida Daidaihua]

A Question of Attribution. - Art History Today