 |
|
| Discussion Board (most recent first) |
Part of what makes the Samson and Delilah so interesting as a work of art is the extreme disparity in the response it evokes from people - both those who have seen it perhaps just once, as well as scholars who may have studied it for half a lifetime.
Below you will find comments both for and against the attribution, as well as more general observations that visitors to the site have sent in. Please recommend the comments you find most interesting and let us know how you see it too.
You are viewing comments chronologically with the most recent first; you can also order them by the number of reader recommendations they have recieved.
 |
|
| |
The colors are rather different from the other paintings in the exhibition, with the color purple only present in that painting. The overall painting tecnique is more stiff and the breast of Delilah is very different to the breast of the st. patersburg painting next to it. The lighting in the painting is unlike any other as well. I am impressed that the naked and untrained eye could spot so many differences. I apreciated the painting's presence in the exhibition because it made me think and also observe the exhibits closer.
Cat Myt
|
|
|
| |
FOOTLOVERS OF THE WORLD UNITE AND TAKE OVER
and take down that toeless painting while you're at it!
Jolly convincing argument to me - but I have to admit I am an ignoramus…
Looks like someone messed up seriously in 1980 and it also looks like the NG didn’t do elementary research before such a big investment was approved…
Somehow that is inexplicable – especially if one accepts that the credibility of Christie’s and the NG are probably one of their most advertised qualities.
This is the only discrepancy I can detect in your story. You don’t provide an explanation as to why such hugely obvious problems with the authenticity of the painting were overlooked.
Eleni Tsigarida, Athens, Greece
|
|
|
| |
This is extremely thought-provoking and powerful but I would very much like to hear the NG's response.
I note that David Jaffe who has been curator of 17C paintings at the NG for the last few years is one of the world's leading experts and even when he was at the Getty did not question the picture.
Andrew O'Keeffe, Lawyer, London, England
|
|
|
| |
After eyewitnessing what was discussed some time ago, I have no doubt your argument is solid. My knowledge on the making of paintings of the time, on the issue of copies of master paintings or even on the use of the typology of cabinet d'amateur agree with your comparative formal analysis completely. Best evidence is found on the pictorial material. I support your effort.
Iris Lycourioti, Architect, Athens, Greece
|
|
|
| |
Are there any other examples of it being 'not unlike his other paintings of the period', as the Director of the National asserts?
Can we be sure that that Francken did not use the engraving to fill in the detail of Samson and Delilah in his painting?
Spencer Steadman, London, UK
|
|
|
| |
Cutting off the toes of a hero's foot is a clear sign that this painting is not the work of a master. Rubens was a great respecter of naked feet and I am shocked that the National Gallery can hang a painting by someone who has such contempt for the sensitivities of modern, art-loving, pediphiles.
Terry Gilliam, Filmmaker, London, UK
|
|
|
| |
I've just gone through the case against S&D=R in the flash video, and I think that perhaps it is time to see the other side of the case - what made its authenticity so compelling that the National Gallery was advised to buy this piece of work for ₤2.5m in 1980?
The debate's a little unbalanced, don't you think?
May-Ann, Singapore
|
|
|
| |
The case presented on the website is very convincing, particularly the relatively primitive technique - it simply doesn't look like a master.
But at the same time, I find it hard to conceive that the National Gallery was simply daft enough to buy a work, at such a price, without giving at least as much attention to detail as the authors have here. It seems like too big a mistake for such an institution.
Eleanor
|
|
|
| |
Need more information... my hunch is it's not Rubens.
Mohammad Abdoh, Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei Darussalam
|
|
|
| |
I entirely agree with you that the painting is not by the hand of Rubens: maybe a copy by a student.
David Russell, Compiègne, France
|
|
|
