|
1) IMHO, there is a solid trail of paper work showing that the Van Praun
goes back to Michelangelo's time.
2) Past art experts did not examine the paper trail, instead
they compared the models to the statues and looked for
differences.
For example, in the terracotta Michelangelo plaquette in the Santa Barbara,
the art expert Thode in his 1913 article on the the Haehnel Collection
(Von Praun) did not consider this to be by the hand of Michelangelo. Thode
stated that the "muscles were to strong and too
unpleasant - exaggerated
in the manner of the sculptor Bandinelli (1488-1569)."
This is ridiculous cause the model is from the Von Pruan collection
which and has a solid paper trail going back to Michelangelo's time.
The muscles are exaggerated so you can see them. The medallion
is very small scale, and is suppose to represent the two STRONGEST men in the world Altas
and Hercules holding up the world. A artist would understand this
a "art expert" would not.
This model was part of the Von Praun collection and sold at the
Christie's 1938 auction to Mr.Sigmund Morgenroth.
Morgenroth, who collected medieval medallions gave his collection
to the University to start their Art Museum in 1962.
Recently, in September 2009, a painting by Velázquez.
"Portrait of a Man" was rediscovered. Previously
"art experts" had attributed it to his workshop.
The painting is a unfinished self-portrait
The painting was donated to the Met by Jules Bache,
In 1926, Mr Bache paid $1.125 million (now $13 million)
a huge sum in those days, because it was
believed to be a self-portrait. The painting
was also once owned by British royalty.
Despite the "royal provenance" and since
the painting did not look like other
Velázquez paintings the "art experts" attributed it to others.
However, after a recent cleaning has know convinced the "experts"
of their mistake.
"An Old Spanish Master Emerges From Grime", Sept 9, 2009,New York Times
3) The "art experts" are not artists. They are "wanabee" artists.
One critic, I read, said the sketch cannot be my Michelangelo
because it had double lines and Michelangelo being a master
artist would have drawn only one line.
I can find numerous examples where Michelangelo actually drew
double lines. Also, if they were artists, they would know,
that most artist correct their work. For example, when doing a initial sketch for a portrait I usually getting it
95% right. As the drawing progress I correct the drawing.
The same critic claimed the models were not by Michelangelo
because they sometimes include the base that Michelangelo
used in the statues ... Since Michelangelo never included
the bases in his accepted models. Therefore the base using models in
the Von Praun collection are fake. This is ridiculous
since the art critic never considered the paper trail of
the Von Praun Collection is rock solid and goes back to Michelangelo's time.
4) The art critics are experts and cannot admit they are
wrong. If they did they would not be experts. So they
have to continue to say that the models are fakes even
though they know better. For example, only 6 of the 18 models
in the Vancouver collection are considered to be by Michelangelo.
This is ridiculous all the models can be documented to come
from the Von Praun Collection.
5) Art experts become experts, from reading the works of
other experts. going all the way back to Vasari. who
was Michelangelo's biographer and friend. So if you
read Vasari you can get the truth directly instead of reading
it 15th hand.
6) Some of the models could have fingerprints embedded in the clay or
wax these fingerprints could be matched up with the fingerprints
found during the recent cleaning of the Sistine Chapel.
7) "A number of the models in the Von Praun collection have
a small hole in them order that they could be hung by a
string and studied by Michelangelo from all angles.
If these models were copies of the original statues or even
of lost original models, it is very doubtful that the
copyist would have place these holes in them.
8) "The clay models from the Von Praun collection show distinct
differences in tone and color which varies from a light yellow
to ochre and to a reddish dark brown. The reason for the
color variation is that the models were created at different times
and at different places. If the owner of an original Michelangelo model
had wished to produce copies in order to sell them to art dealers,
he would have produced the copies at the same time and in the same
clay material, and the then fired objects would all have been of the same color. Such is
not the case, however, with the models from the Von Praun Collection."
9) "It should not be forgotten the Paul von Praun was a contemporary of
Michelangelo (he was 16 when Michelangelo died) and that he started his
collection in Bologna, which was one of the principles centers of art in
Italy at that time. Praun, being wealthy and well educated, was in a favorable
position to be advised by the best artists of the day, such as his
friend the sculptor Giovanni da Bologna (a former student of Michelangelo's)
who undoubtedly would have known the difference between a copy and an original
model by Michelangelo. Von Praun was one of the greatest art collectors
of his day and he was, in fact an advisor in art to kings and to many
of the nobility of his time."
10) "If anyone had been desirous of faking a model by Michelangelo, it is almost certain
that he would have faked a complete model such as one of the 'Phases of Day'
It is most unlikely that anyone would have faked a study of an individual part of
proposed complete statue, as for example, 'the right hand of dawn'
Studies in wax and clay of individual body parts of the human body not
only fit into the normal pattern of Michelangelo's work method but there also
exist a similar pattern or trend in the drawings by the great Master"