注册 登录
美国中文网首页 博客首页 美食专栏

纽约陈儒斌 //www.sinovision.net/?4093 [收藏] [复制] [分享] [RSS] 身边风景 艺术情趣

分享到微信朋友圈 ×
打开微信,点击底部的“发现”,
使用“扫一扫”即可将网页分享至朋友圈。

博文

来自中世纪的温情

(/0)
浏览次数:8555       查看原图









鲜花

握手

雷人

路过

鸡蛋

发表评论 评论 (5 个评论)

回复 gongxiaoyu12 2011-1-27 22:34
圣母子给人的感觉很有母爱的温暖
回复 rubin 2010-12-13 00:13
To: yzfoto 你曾经说:
很好的介绍,学习了。
“该画被哥伦比亚大学美术史教授James Beck质疑。”
他质疑什么?

质疑为伪作。已补充,谢谢。
回复 rubin 2010-12-12 23:27
James Beck在伦敦The Times发表的质疑报道全文:
From The Times
July 6, 2006
$50m ‘masterpiece‘ is poor forgery, says arts professor
Graphic: is this painting by Duccio?
By Dalya Alberge, Arts Correspondent
A PAINTING that was hailed as a 14th-century masterpiece when it was bought last year by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York for a reported $50 million is a 19th-century fake in the view of a leading American scholar.

James Beck, Professor of Art History at Columbia University in New York, believes that Duccio’s Madonna and Child, which the Met dates to 1300, is the work of a much later hand. He says that it could never have come from the hand of a towering genius considered, with Giotto, to have been a principal founder of Western European painting.

“It is a fake based upon indications found in works by or associated with Duccio,” he said. “It is not even a good forgery.”

Barely a dozen of Duccio’s works survive. They include his Maestà (Madonna with Angels and Saints) altarpiece, which dates from 1308-11, in the museum of Siena Cathedral; it is considered a milestone of Western art.

Professor Beck pointed to the “low quality” of the Met’s painting — notably the Child’s raised arm and hand, “which appears like a stump”, and its “gourd-like head, which is quite at odds with confirmed and documented paintings by Duccio”.

That the painting shows the Madonna and Child behind a parapet is the most compelling proof that the painting “cannot be genuine”, he believes, dismissing the claim by Keith Christiansen, the Met’s curator, that it is “the first illusionistic parapet in European art”.

Professor Beck said: “We are asked to believe that the modest little picture represents a leap into the future of Western painting by establishing a plane in front of Mary and the Child. This feature, a characteristic of Renaissance not Medieval pictures, occurs only a hundred years after the presumptive date of the picture . . .

“Devastating to the Met’s claims is the fact that no other examples with the combination of elements — Madonna and Child with a space-defining parapet — are found among the confirmed works by Duccio or his followers, or in all of Tuscany, for that matter.”

Whoever produced the painting, Professor Beck suggested, knew the Renaissance system of depicting space and planes. “The artist or forger must have worked up this idea from hindsight rather than foresight.”

In September he will be publishing his conclusions in a book, The Crisis of Connoisseurship: from Duccio to Raphael.

Mr Christiansen said that leading scholars had confirmed the attribution and that Professor Beck was wrong. “What everyone else sees as a sign of quality and innovation, he sees as weakness. There is no reason to doubt the period and authenticity of the picture.”

Professor Beck has never been afraid to voice his opinion. As president of ArtWatch International, which campaigns for the welfare of works of art, he has also dismissed The Madonna of the Pinks, the £35 million Raphael at the National Gallery, as a copy.
回复 yzfoto 2010-12-12 18:03
很好的介绍,学习了。
“该画被哥伦比亚大学美术史教授James Beck质疑。”
他质疑什么?
回复 听雨潇潇 2010-12-12 01:48
喜欢《圣母子》!

facelist

您需要登录后才可以评论 登录 | 注册

 留言请遵守道德与有关法律,请勿发表与本文章无关的内容(包括告状信、上访信、广告等)。
 所有留言均为网友自行发布,仅代表网友个人意见,不代表本网观点。

关于我们| 节目信息| 反馈意见 | 联系我们| 招聘信息| 返回手机版| 美国中文网

©2024  美国中文网 Sinovision,Inc.  All Rights Reserved. TOP

回顶部