Posted on 04/19/2005 12:08:30 AM PDT by nickcarraway
A scholar has suggested that "Laocoön," a fabled sculpture whose unearthing in 1506 has deeply influenced thinking about the ancient Greeks and the nature of the visual arts, may well be a Renaissance forgery - possibly by Michelangelo himself.
Her contention has stirred some excitement and considerable exasperation among art historians in the Classical and Renaissance fields. Many other challenges to accepted attributions have faded quickly into oblivion.
The scholar advancing the theory, Lynn Catterson, a summer lecturer in art history at Columbia University, presented her argument in a talk at the university's Italian Academy for Advanced Studies in America on April 6. Maneuvering through a wealth of material - including Michelangelo's drawings, records of his banking activity and his acknowledged reputation as an avid seeker of renown and wealth - she said, "He had the motives and the means."
The strikingly naturalistic sculpture, 951/2 inches tall, depicts a deadly attack on the Trojan priest Laocoön and his two sons by writhing sea snakes dispatched by Athena - or, some say, Poseidon - after Laocoön warned against admitting the Trojan horse during the siege of Troy. It resides in the Vatican Museums in Rome.
In a telephone interview, Dr. Catterson cited a pen study by Michelangelo dating from 1501 depicting the rear of a male torso that resembles the back of the "Laocoön" - and Michelangelo's documented finesse at copying.
"That the Laocoön was carved by Michelangelo explains why then, and why now, its effect is mesmerizing," she said.
Richard Brilliant, Anna S. Garbedian emeritus professor of the humanities at Columbia and an authority on classical antiquities - his works include "My Laocoön: Alternative Claims in the Interpretation of Artworks" (University of California Press, 2000) - said that Dr. Catterson's contention was "noncredible on any count."
For one thing, he said, "she made absolutely no reference to ancient sculptures that could be related to the 'Laocoön,' " including a large body of ancient fragments found just before World War II at Sperlonga, a site near Rome where Tiberius had a luxurious villa, that refer specifically to episodes of the Trojan war.
Some scholars have also found fault in relating the "Laocoön" to the Michelangelo drawing of a torso, now at the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford.
"To my eye, the Michelangelo drawing does not bear a close resemblance to the torso of the Vatican Laocoön," said Katherine E. Welch, an associate professor at New York University's Institute of Fine Arts and an expert in Hellenistic and Roman imperial antiquities, in an e-mail message. "The latter is distinguished by a vigorous torsion or twist, which is lacking in the drawing."
The "Laocoön" was placed at the Vatican Museums by Pope Julius II not long after it was discovered on Jan. 14, 1506, on the Esquiline Hill. Upon hearing the news, the pope immediately dispatched the architect Giuliano da Sangallo to view it; Sangallo brought along his colleague Michelangelo Buonarroti. The men identified the statue as that described by the first-century Roman encyclopedist Pliny the Elder in his "Natural History," who called it "a work superior to any painting and any bronze," one "carved from a single block in accordance with an agreed plan by those eminent craftsmen Hagesander, Polydorus and Athenodorus, all of Rhodes."
Dr. Catterson, 48, said she did not set out to debunk scholarship on the "Laocoön" when she settled on a dissertation topic seven years ago: "How come Michelangelo was a sculptor? Who trained him?"
Her curiosity was soon aroused. As a young artist under the patronage of Lorenzo the Magnificent, Michelangelo had witnessed the Medici family's willingness to spend considerable sums on ancient Greek or Roman objects, which he would have had ample opportunity to study and perhaps try to recreate, she said.
He was an astute forger who earned his Bacchus commission after a carved sleeping Cupid that he had buried in the ground to "age" had been sold to a wealthy cardinal in 1495.
Then there was recent scholarship on bank withdrawals and deposits between 1498 and 1501 that suggests that the sculptor was buying chunks of marble while accumulating substantial income that could not be accounted for, Dr. Catterson said, and several letters from Michelangelo to his father that spoke of some marbles but failed to explain how he was using the others.
Dr. Catterson suggests that Michelangelo, a manic worker who carved on as few as three hours of sleep a night, would have had the time to create the "Laocoön" while working simultaneously on the "Pietà," for which he signed a contract in 1498 and which he completed by July 1500.
He had his own house, which included ample work space, and a trusted assistant, Piero d'Argenta, she said. He also had access to Greek marble, found in excavations around Rome.
That the "Laocoön" is made of seven pieces of marble may suggest that Michelangelo needed to transport the finished work unnoticed to its point of discovery, where it could have been assembled and joined on the spot, Dr. Catterson added.
William E. Wallace, a professor of art history at Washington University in St. Louis and the author of several books on Michelangelo, was not as quick as other art historians to dismiss Dr. Catterson's claims.
"Until I read the full argument in a reputable academic publication, I'm going to reserve a final judgment," he said, noting that since 1996, 17 discoveries of or attributions to Michelangelo have made national news - and then been discredited or forgotten. "My first reaction was: 'Oh, come on. Not another.' However, the more I thought about it, the more intrigued I became. I think this one has the greatest lasting power."
For Dr. Catterson everything was just a little too perfect about the discovery of the "Laocoön," which was in fairly good shape after presumably some 1,500 years when it was found by a farmer more or less where Pliny had predicted.
"It's almost as though it was discovered to order," she said.
But to Leo Steinberg, a prominent Michelangelo scholar, the evidence simply does not add up - neither the time nor the bank receipts nor the secretiveness. "We know that at least a dozen different people would have been involved in the process," he said. "And we know that Michelangelo made many enemies who would have been delighted to accuse him of a forgery of that scale. All of this strains credulity that in an Italian community at that time in the 1490's, there was no gossip, no squealing."
Professor Wallace agreed that hard proof was lacking but said he was willing to consider Dr. Catterson's argument. "We'll never have the certitude a scientist gets," he said. "It can only be tested by the weight of scholarly opinion and time.
"But Lynn is an excellent scholar and well trained. And the intriguing thing is that nobody who studies classical art in a way wants the 'Laocoön.' They find it kind of a Hellenistic embarrassment, maybe because it really doesn't look like anything else comparable in the history of classical art."
"And besides," he added, "we can never prove that Shakespeare really wrote 'Hamlet' at this point. They're still arguing about it."
Let me be the first to ask: Who cares?
The sculpture is fake but accurate.
I don't care very much, because it's a pretty bad work of sculpture. However, I also think it's genuine. Look at the feet of the three figures. They all show a wide separation between big toe and second toe. That's typical of Antique sculpture, because people wore sandals with a thong between the toes, which shaped the gap, and the sculptors copied the feature they saw in real life.
Me either, but not because of its esthetic qualities, or the lack thereof.
I just cannot get worked up about a debate of whether an "antique" sculpture is a fake done in the 1500's. Even if it is a "fake", isn't it still an antique?
What are they gonna do: dig up Michaelangelo and sue him?
Come on. Don't the academics have anything better to do?
Memories ... I guess I will just have to go back to Rome to see te new Pope and the sites again ;)
Believe it or not....:)
I am stunned. I had just changed my tag line in the last couple of weeks, the one I have used since I started this ride in Freeper land ... but I guess this is a ... ahem ... warning to me.
Funny ...... not one single word about the motive behind why Laocoon and his sons were killed.
Well, after all this time, I thought my tag line was useless, and so I had changed it. And then, you thoughtfully posted this gem ....
What on earth possesed you to post this article (and thanks for the 'warning'! - tag line is back to its orginal!)
So, who cares? I care. Mostly because there is something perfectly accurate about what the story of this Priest says about the human mind and heart. I care also for this reason: I had to be years in corp america, long after college before someone recommended to me the book the "march of folly" by Tuchman. It was there I read about Laocoon. Tuchman, a standard secularist, rationalist, liberal, makes a good review of what 'folly' is through history. But I had never heard of this character in school. And after reading that book, a flaw, a bona fide flaw in the American Character I care about revealing at every chance I get.
This scene depicts the death of Laocoon and his sons. Laocoon was a Trojan priest of Apollo but was praying to Poseidon at the time of his demise. He was the one who coined the phrase "I fear the Greeks even bearing gifts."
Laocoon came into the light at the end of the Trojan War when there was a disagreement about what to do with the wooden horse. The priest bravely attempted to remind the Trojans about the cunning Greeks and how they wouldn't be the type of people to give up. He even threw a spear into the horse which gave a hollow sound.
Poor Laocoon met his demise when he was praying to Poseidon and two snakes (ironically sent by Poseidon) from the island of Tenedos (again ironically where the Greek ships were hidden) came and squeezed him and his two sons to death.
from: http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/laocoon.htm
Laocoon failed to get the attention of the Trojans. He really tried, (some say he even threw a spear at that wooden horse) but he and his two sons paid with their lives for their efforts. The Greeks of course won this particular fight. But, it doesn't always have to turn out this way.
Why did I pick a messenger that was ignored, a messenger whose warnings did nothing to stave off the destruction of Troy? Why pick him - he got himself killed along w/ his sons? Because, although publik skhools taught me about Helen of Troy, they didn't say a word about Laocoon. They should have, for there is a bigger lesson than the fact that a pretty woman can make men behave irrationally. That lesson is that people seem WIRED to ignore warnings ... and destroy the warner.
Despite that reality, warnings sometimes do indeed help; even though its really uncomfortable, some folks do actually listen and a few even heed. I sort of felt sympathy for the Trojans, in the same way I feel sympathy for us here in the USA. Still, too many of us are just too comfortable to listen. But after 9-11, times are changing I think.
From "gobucks" freeper home page.
Well, I care. So do a lot of other people who are interested in history, art, and the development of our Western culture. It's worthwhile to know what Michelangelo achieved.
What are they gonna do: dig up Michaelangelo and sue him?
That's not the point. The point is to better understand the life and work of one of the greatest artists our species has ever produced.
Come on. Don't the academics have anything better to do?
No. That's what academics do. And studying art, expanding our knowledge of art and its history, is not a bad thing to do with one's life. I think that what this scholar has done is valuable.
I think what this "scholar" has done is shameless self-promotion and whose hypothesis will never be proven to everyones satisfaction.
ping
By that logic no academic could ever publish a new idea.
Since you say you do not care, why are you reading such a thread, posting about it, and arguing the concept?
Good point. Good day. :)
NO!
Liz, you already posted this on the other thread, but we may as well exercise our new art ping list.
Anyone who wants on or off the art ping list, let me know.
Also, I am trying to form a freeper art gallery thread, on which artistic freepers can exhibit and discuss their artwork. Please let me know if you'd like to be on that ping list or would like to exhibit.
Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.