File:Studies in pictures; an introduction to the famous galleries (1907) (14776381855).jpg

Identifier: studiesinpicture00vand (find matches)
Title: Studies in pictures; an introduction to the famous galleries
Year: 1907 (1900s)
Authors: Van Dyke, John Charles, 1856-1932
Subjects: Painting -- Study and teaching Painting
Publisher: New York : C. Scribner's sons
Contributing Library: University of California Libraries
Digitizing Sponsor: MSN

View Book Page: Book Viewer
About This Book: Catalog Entry
View All Images: All Images From Book
Click here to view book online to see this illustration in context in a browseable online version of this book.

Text Appearing Before Image:
ot. That is one reasonwhy it does not bear Sebastianos name, as it should.Raphael never painted the picture, and you, whenyou are studying the picture as a Raphael, are gain-ing a false impression of that painter. The Louvre has upon its catalogue no less thanthirteen pictures set down under the name of Ra-phael. Of these there is a boyish St. C.eorge, asmall and early St. Michael, La Belle Jardi-niere, the Holy Family of Francis I, and aportrait—five in all—that are genuine enough. Butnot one of the five is an important example of thepainter. The other eight pictures attributed to himare by pupils, imitators, or painters who painted ina style somewhat similar to his. That the directionof the Louvre should mend its catalogue by crossingoff eight Raphaels is, of course, expecting too much.It would lower the importance of the collection inthe eyes of Europe. The truth must be suppressedand false art history continue to be taught. Howmisleading and provocative of harm all this is may
Text Appearing After Image:
IX.—VELASQUEZ (), Unknown Man. Berlin Gallery. FALSE ATTRIBUTIONS, COPIES, FORGERIES 31 be suggested by considering one more of these allegedKaphaels in the Louvre. The catalogue calls for a portrait of Raphael byhimself. When found it proves to be the likeness ofa stupid young boy, with eyes and nose ill-drawn,leaning his head upon a dropsical hand, and tryinghis very best to fall out of the picture-frame. Ar-tistically, it is next to worthless, no matter whopainted it. There is hardly a commendable qualityabout it. And yet it is astonishing how people gatherin front of that picture and praise its wonderfulqualities, thinking it a Eaphael. Even art students,who should know something about drawing, copy thepicture; and every art shop in Paris has a reproduc-tion of it for sale. Poor Eaphael! No wonder somemodern artists are beginning to question his title tofame! If he has to father such pictures as this noth-ing can keep him in the empyrean. But he is mis-represented. The picture i

Note About Images