芭越月毒19.画的作品到底属于谁，相关文章，供大家熟悉单词 - ChaseDream

Composition and Technique观点不是Goya画的
Thecomposition, whose starting point is Goya’s majestic and profound image ofThe Seated Giant, uses conventional formulae that are notconsistent with his work, such as the monotonous and repetitive manner ofdepicting the different spatial planes. The executions of the small figures andanimals, almost none of which is fully defined and whose proportions and scaleare not coherent within the overall perspective, also differentiate thispainting from works certainly by Goya. The X-radiograph of the painting showsthe problems that the artist had in establishing the position and pose of thegiant. It was initiallyplaced frontally, resulting in major changes during the execution of the work,which are unusual in Goya’s oeuvre. The painting does not reveal his direct,transparent technique, which made use (particularly in his late work) of thegenerally warm tone of the preparatory, or ground, layer to model the forms ofthe figures and the landscape with economy and directness. In The Colossus, bycontrast, the manner of painting is dense and opaque; the strokes are appliedin an indecisive manner in successive applications of different colors andwithout visual use of the tone of the ground.

不是Goya画的
Thegiant, fierce figure of The Colossus as he rises above a fleeing crowd ofpeople, carts and animals is one of Spanish artist Francisco de Goya'smost dramatic and famous pictures – at least it was until yesterday, whenMadrid's Prado museum declared he had not painted it.
The museum has said the giant - whose clenched fist is seen as asymbol of Spanish resistance to Napoleon's army during the Peninsular wars - would continue to hang in itsplace but confirmed that a plaque attributing the painting to Goya would bechanged.
Experts at the museum now believe The Colossus was painted byone of Goya's assistants, whose initials may appear in a corner of the canvass.
The final decision toremove Goya's name from the painting followed a lengthy study by the Pradoexpert Manuela Mena, which the museum published yesterday.
It was expected to reignite the controversy that first ragedwhen the museum signalled last year that it had begun to doubt that TheColossus could have been painted by the deaf Spanish genius, who died in 1828.
Mena said X-rays of thepicture had allowed her to spot significant differences between this and otherGoya works.
Not least of these wasthe discovery of the top half of the faded initials "AJ", scribbledin the bottom left-hand corner, which she said may point to it being the workof one of his assistants, Asensio Juliá.
Julia is known to have been Goya's main assistant in the laterpart of his life.
One of Goya's most passionate defenders, British art historianNigel Glendinning, had previously said he thought the marks might not be initialsbut could, instead, form part of the number 18.
The Prado's expert, however, also claimed the quality of TheColossus was far below that of Goya's other masterpieces.
"Seen in the rightlight, the poverty of the technique, of its light and colour, along with theconsiderable difference between The Colossus and his other masterworks, becomeclear," she said in the study.
Mena said doubts aboutthe picture's authenticity began to surface when restoration work began morethan a decade ago. Restorers discovered then that the quality of the materialsused was not up to Goya's normal standards.
She described some of thecolours used as "dull" while the darker colours and blacks had beenmixed with materials that were considerably inferior to those Goya typicallyused.
Mistakes in theproportions of the giant's body and in the perspective used also showed that itcould not have been painted by Goya's skilled and assured hand, she said.
The brushstrokes in TheColossus were deemed "slow and insecure". They revealed an insecurityin the artist which did not match the bold, direct approach normally taken byGoya himself, she said.
是Goya画的

This month, Carlos Foradada,published a paper in the Asociación Aragonesade Críticos de Arte (the Association of Aragonese Art Critics) arguing that thework is by Goya. Foradada’s doctoral dissertation on the subject was assessedby the late Nigel Glendinning, a formidable Goya scholar who died in February.He addresses a number of points raised in a 2008 report by Manuela Mena, aleading curator at the Prado, which led to The Colossus,around 1808-18 (date disputed), being attributed to a follower of Goya.

The Prado’s report analysed the pigments, techniqueand style of the painting, and found considerable differences with other worksconfirmed to be by Goya. A controversy over the painting’s authorship ensued,polarising art historians and Goya experts. Mark McDonald, the curator of OldMaster prints and Spanish drawings at the British Museum, explains that theproblem lies in the fact that “either side will provide compelling evidence tosupport their own claims”.

A keydispute about the attribution lies in the quality of the painter’s technique.Contrary to Mena’s conclusions that the handling of the paint and compositionis slow, uncertain and excessive, Foradada argues that fragments are innovative and elegant, evenforeshadowing some of Picasso’s techniques.

Thenew report is unlikely to set the debate to rest. In 2009, Glendinning wasamong the many who argued against the Prado’s conclusions. Several scholars andprofessors in various Spanish institutions publicly defended Glendinning’sscientific and art historical method against the Prado’s.

SarahSymmons, of the University of Essex and the author of GoyaArt & Ideas (Phaidon, 1998), supports Glendinning’s researchand considers Foradada’s recent study “technical and solid”. Symmons believesthat part of the strength of the paper is the detailed comparison with otherworks by Goya of that time, such as the General José de Palafox, 1814. Shesays comparing a late work with earlier paintings is not helpful because“artists don’t stand still, they progress, develop, experiment”.

Whenasked about the study, a spokeswoman for the Prado said: “The museum publishedeverything about the work and its conclusions about its study of the paintingin 2008.”