Arcadia Discussion Zone

(Speaking of a new Michaelangelo! - See the entry on page 3 - Oct. 13, 2010 for the full story.)



"Does the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York have a painting by Michelangelo and not know it?

"Saint John the Baptist Bearing Witness" (about 1510), pictured above, is attributed to the workshop of Francesco Granacci, a noted Renaissance-era painter from Florence. But an article this month in ARTnews magazine suggests that the real creator of the artwork is none other than Michelangelo.

The article's primary source is Everett Fahy, the former head of the Met's European paintings department who stepped down from his position last June. "I am confident that the only artist capable of making this splendid painting was Michelangelo," Fahy told the magazine's editor and publisher, Milton Esterow.

Fahy said he believes Michelangelo created the painting in 1506, two years before he started work on the Sistine Chapel. For his research, Fahy said he was assisted by the Met's paintings conservation department, which made infrared images of the painting to examine the artist's drawings beneath the paint.

"I had long believed it to be by Michelangelo, but exactly when I don't know," Fahy told the magazine. "There wasn't a moment when I suddenly said, 'This is absolutely by Michelangelo.' It was a gradual recognition."


According to the Met's website, the painting was acquired by the museum in 1970 using funds from a variety of donors. The oil painting is approximately 30 inches tall and 7 feet wide. ARTnews reports that the museum bought the painting at Sotheby's in London for $150,000.

Fahy's findings will be published in a 65-page article that is set to appear in the Italian scholarly journal Nuovi Studi.

You can read the entire ARTnews article here.

-- David Ng

Image: courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art

A closer view.

"The latest prize to surface from the ever shifting sea of the attributions of works from the past is the suggestion by Everett Fahy, former Chairman of European Paintings at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, that a painting in the museum’s collection that has been attributed to the circle of Francesco Granacci, Saint John the Baptist Bearing Witness, may in fact be the work of Granacci’s close friend Michelangelo.

There is a good article on ARTnews, in which Fahy describes his “ah-ha” moment in front of the panting, the scholarly article he wrote on it, which took a while to complete, and the fact that he expects critics to “throw brickbats” at his suggestion now that it has been released.

For those of us who are not scholars of the Italian Renaissance, the major interest lies in the possibility that we may now know more about Michelangelo, and at the very least, we can look at this particular painting with fresh eyes."

[Via Jason Kottke]

Here is an example of a Francesco Granacci painting for comparison.

This is "Joseph Presenting His Brothers to the Pharoah".

"The Triumph of Chastity" by Francesco Granacci. His style reminds me

more of Botticelli. (Slide the screen to the right to see the whole painting).

Chastity triumphs over Cupid here, what`s wrong with this symbolism?

Someone untie that kid!

"The Assumption of the Virgin" by Francesco Granacci.

Note style for comparison.

"Adoration of the Christ Child" by Francesco Granacci 1500

Honolulu Museum of Art.

A Sybil from the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel by

Michelangelo (for comparison) 1508 - 1512.

Here`s a beautiful Magdalene to make sure we`re on topic.

A Francesco Granacci in black and white.

Michelangelo - a Sybil from the Sistine Chapel ceiling.

Awesome pictures
It would be so exciting finding a Michelangelo

Ya know its a shame all of these famous painters used their own local area as a backdrop for scenes that should be done in Israel. The effect of having Italy rep Israel or some other place like Egypt is really disturbing. Modern authors finally figured out the only way to depict a place ya write about is to be there.

When UK artists use UK architecture to depict these Biblic themes the effect is really appalling to me. My 1sr thought is how much did Michelangelo, or any artist commissioned to do any painting get paid. The secondary thought is, why did the patron want a local backdrop to depict another locale?

The 3rd thought is, how close or how far from the source of inspiration for a given painting. The Last Supper comes to mind, 'cuz it don't resemble the last meal as minutely described by Sr. Emmerich. For anybody to draw hidden, occult, what have ya, info, from any Renaissance painter boggles my mind.

The artist is just doin' his 'thang' and a historical scene is just an after thought. The 'quality' of the painting is a totally separate category,yes? It is a subjective- objective balance in every instance.

Here`s a Magi painting by Bottecelli which includes the Medici family and friends.

It is set in a Middle Eastern background.

Raphael`s "Marrige of the Virgin" with a background

contemporary to the artist.

This is a close up of the St. John piece. It`s a zoom of the upper left hand corner -

Christ and the diciples. Who is that next to him?

"Scenes from the Life of St. John the Baptist" by Francesco Granacci 1510.

It is also set in a contemporary scene.

Awesome pictures Mary

"St. John the Revelator on the Island of Patmos" by an artist out of

Durer`s workshop. The vision of the woman is similar

to our local Virgin of Guadelupe icon in that she is standing

on the crescent moon.

"The Virgin of Guadelupe with Dragon" - the Christ child and

the dragon were added to this Guadelupe image.

Juan Diego with the icon of the Guadelupe on his cloak with

out-of-season roses.

Another example of a Granacci painting from the life of

St. John the Baptist. Would any art historians out there

like to give an opinion on who painted the painting in the first post?

Was it Granacci or Michelangelo? I know who gets my vote.

Poussin...








Can you see the dagger in the grail cup?

Old World Chalice.



Ceremonial Dagger. I see where you`re coming from Serendipity.
Early American Freemasons carried similar daggers.

Michelangelo close up. His figures are far more robust

than those in the Granacci St. John.

It is said that the weavers wove messages into the items that they made. It was something like a binary code, if memory serves me right.

The size of the original canvas noted above is 7 ft. long. The canvas is huge.

Where did the artists of old get their canvas's? And are there messages encoded in them?

See, in Rome, the sailors that made and opperated the canvas that shaded the coliseum had their own portion in the city of Rome. They were treated like royalty, these sailors. They had to have weavers among them in order to make the sailcloth.

Were the weavers of artistic canvas treated the same somewhere? Did they have their own 'holy' city? or portion of a city?