RummyChick, I think you do have an opinion on the Mannopello veil. I spent almost two weeks researching that "relic" several years ago and I am not going to revisit that research to find those letters which were published in a book in the 1930's and the letters were between Dürer and Raphael, no others, discussing painting on diaphanous cloths including Cambric and Byssus AND the fact they were exchanging self portraits done with that technique.
As for the size - we are talking about a miracle. If it is a true miracle (of which I have no opinion ) I wouldn’t expect it to match up to size.
But it matches enough with the Shroud that you can’t possibly explain how Raphael would have been able to match it so closely. Either they both are faked by the same person or people who were in on it.. or someone copied the shroud. How could they do it in the 1500s????
They DON'T match. That's the point. The image on the Shroud has a full mustache and a full forked beard, the Mannopello Veronica has a trace of a mustache and a wispy beard. If we accept the legend of the Veronica, the two images would have been created within three days of each other, ergo, no time to grow more facial hair. As to the differing sizes, I follow logic and science. Once you invoke miracles and claim that can explain away every variance and difference that disproves your thesis, we can not have a rational discussion. You could claim the pink fairies did it by osmosis with a miracle, and stand on that base, regardless of any fact I could produce, and nothing could disprove it!
I am interested in the Shroud of Turin and the well founded science and scholarship surrounding it, not the poor speculation that has been put forward about something that DOES have proof that it is a work of a known artist.. . and respected scientists have looked at photomicrographs taken of it and found obvious pigments in all areas of the image, regardless of your claims that it has been "retouched."
“RummyChick, I think you do have an opinion on the Mannopello veil. I spent almost two weeks researching that “relic” several years ago and I am not going to revisit that research to find those letters which were published in a book in the 1930’s and the letters were between Dürer and Raphael, no others, discussing painting on diaphanous cloths including Cambric and Byssus AND the fact they were exchanging self portraits done with that technique. “
You are wrong about me having an opinion. I am not a very religious person. I am just looking at FACTS to determine possibilities.
You know what comes back when you do a google search about these letters that you claim exist?
YOUR POSTS. There is NOTHING that I can find that backs up this claim. In your post in 2006 you claim
“Raphael, using the same technique and same Byssus cloth, painted his OWN portrait and sent it to Dürer.”
And you use this paragraph to bolster your statement:
“By these and other works the fame of Raphael spread to France and Flanders. Albert Dürer, a remarkable German painter and author of some fine copper engravings, paid him the tribute of his homage and sent him his own portrait, painted in water-colours, on byssus, so fine that it was transparent, without the use of white paint, the white material forming the lights of the picture This appeared marvellous to Raphael, who sent back many drawings of his own which were greatly valued by Albert...”
Giorgio Vasari
He sent drawings. They have notations on them by Durer. NO WHERE..I MEAN NO WHERE ..do I see any claim by Vasari that Raphael sent a transaparent painting to Durer.
I don’t believe it happened. Given what I have read, he would not have sent something like that to Durer. It would have been a very expensive painting to do. He sent Durer drawings from his stock.
I am dubious of your claims because you can’t back them up. When you flat out stated that Raphael sent the Mannopello piece to Durer you quoted from Vasari- WHO SAID NOTHING TO BACK YOU UP.
You cite Roberto Falcinelli work - but he doesn’t even realize that the person in the Expulsion fresco is not Durer- it’s his supposed “enemy” Marcantonio - according to Vasari. It is also NOT Raphael in that painting - according to Vasari.
Falcinelli’s working theory is that it is the veil is Durer’s painting. He then goes on to say that he wonders if Vasari got it wrong. But there is not ANY PROOF that Raphael sent a TRANSPARENT painting to Durer.
The only proof is something you claim you have seen..that no one else talks about.
Not sure what your agenda is..but this I know...Vasari did not say ANYTHING that would indicate that Raphael had made such a painting.
As I have repeatedly said, the Veil could very well be some kind of painting. It does NOT resemble any of Durer’s transparent paintings that are in existance today.
And I still see NO mention of these letters you claim you have seen. I find it VERY ODD that no historian brings them up and no historian other than someone in 1930 claims that Raphael sent a transparent painting to Durer.
I want to see a reference to those letters somewhere other than you.
And I can’t find it.
They may exist. It just seems odd that something of this historical consequence is buried because you are the only one that remembers the 1930’s book.
And NO ONE can explain why the hair lock on the forehead is different on the back from the front. This is impossible on a transparent painting of this nature.