Just woke up to do some early paperwork and saw this item by Tyler Green on the RSS. Apparently the Prado is opening the exhibition, Goya In Times Of War, and have pulled El Coloso from the exhibition, claiming that “doubts over the attribution of El Coloso are widely accepted by the museum’s scientific team.” That quote is from a really thorough and excellent article in The Independent on the controversy. Apparently the attribution of this painting has been in debate for some time, but there is a tremendous amount of evidence to support that it is a Goya, and outside of “We don’t think it’s a Goya”, the Prado really hasn’t said anything substantial to support its case.
I’m not inclined to buy this, and if it’s not a Goya, then it’s really difficult for me to imagine who else it could be by. El Coloso seems such a natural extension of Goya’s body of work and style, that I cannot imagine it otherwise. Again, it’s one of my favourite paintings by one of my favorite artists, so this whole concept goes against my inclinations and bias.
Technorati Tags: Francisco Goya, Goya, Prado, Goya In Times Of War, painting, art, attribution, El Coloso, The Colossus, art, attribution, Spanish art
Have you ever read Blink? There is a great discussion in there about how the Getty was fooled by a fake kouros, which an expert saw and said instantly “That’s not real.” Later on, it DID turn out to be a fake, even though the Getty had been presented with a lot of substantiatve “proof” of its authenticity. Now the fake kouros is on display, with an explanation, which I think was a great way out for the Getty.
That’s the Malcom Gladwell book? I haven’t read it yet. I’m certain that they’re are a fair number of works out there in museums that are of much, much more dubious provenance than we are led to believe.
Yes, Malcolm Gladwell. It’s fascinating. Pick it up sometime.He uses the Getty example as a way of illustrating how we unconsciously tap into our store of knowledge and make instant assessments of things.I’m sure you are right about the dubious provenance issue, but that speaks to the whole valuation of art thing. Let’s say El Coloso is done by, say a student of Goya, rather than the master himself. Does that make it a less compelling image?
More then anything with war I see in this picture the frustration of time when it’s runing out or when realising that it’s not the right time yet.
Regarding km’s contribution on April 16, 2008 “Let’s say El Coloso is done by … a student of Goya … Does that make it a less compelling image?”
One manner in we assess the quality of an artist’s work is by a work in isolation and a work as part of an artist’s ouvre. Say we go to an exhibition and see the work of an artist, and the exhibition contains one cracking work and the rest is mediocre. Our valuing of the cracking work will be diminished to a degree by the mediocre works, because we rightly assess the good work as resulting from good fortune rather than from an expertly applied set of skills. This is why we value a weaker work by a stronger artist over a stronger work by a weaker artist.
So will El Coloso have as much going for it if the attribution to Goya is proven incorrect? Surely no. The image would have to be less compelling.
I say this as one who does find the image enthralling, but part of that comes from its association with Goya and his series of black paintings. So while I’m with you in regard to enthusiasm for the image, I can’t agree with the content.