This is British journalistic writing at its worst. Dry, self-important, full of colonialist superiority undertones, and lacking content. Other than that, the bloke was lucky to have seen that masterpiece up close.
His dismissal of the artist's drawing multiple images on
the page or the use of both sides of a sheet, show his lack
of knowledge about the era. Paper was not available by the
ream then, and was a valuable commodity.
How I would have loved to see them myself!
Actually, I think it incredibly good writing. It takes great talent to write an opening sentence that catches your eye and forces you to read what is, in fact, a well-written article. It is packed with humor and irony, and most of it very good illuminating fact. That we learn that Michaelangelo was as easy to put up with as a modern prima donna - well, such is the way of genius.
Also, I don't know what colonialist superiority undertones are. Usually cononials are not accused of having superior airs, except perhaps boorish overbearing Americans. It is an awfully difficult crime to charge a Pole with in any case.