Comments on Whose Bubbles?

This is Seattle; we're lucky to have a fake.

I love this kind of detective story and deep, deep scholarship. I'd like to hear more about the specifics of what made them make the attribution -- not "we compared the photographs" but specifically which brushstrokes, characterizations, pigments, whatever. I also think that with something like this a simple attribution isn't enough -- they need to list all of the previous attributions, and why they were discarded, and mention any still-existing controversy or doubt.

True story- I actually came this close to buying that painting out of the back of a van downtown for, like, 10 bucks... then I saw that it was signed "Goyo", so I had to pass.

Fnarf, I totally agree. I love this kind of stuff, too, and I'd like more specifics. The curator is out of town for most of July, but I might be able to ask her again. Part of the problem in this particular case is that she hasn't seen the originals in person. As for the labeling, I completely agree with you -- and I asked her about that -- but museums generally seem to think they'll "confuse" the public unless the label is short and about content. By contrast, if you follow the National Gallery of London link, the information on that painting and another one in their collection describes the attribution problems associated with Jacob van Oost. For instance, I'd have loved it if SAM had marked that painting originally with a question mark, but the curator didn't think it had been marked that way. The Tiepolo is another case: this curator always felt the ceiling painting was maligned because of its poor condition, and that it was actually by the father. It might have been interesting to get that into a label or onto the museum's web site somewhere.

Whew. That was so much nicer than "shut the fuck up!"

Jen Graves, THIS is what I'm talkin' 'bout. Nice post!!!