Authorship and the dangers of consensus

July 11, 2011

The Connoisseurs. 1783. David Allen. National Gallery Scotland*

He who wishes to be rich in a day will be hanged in a year.
Leonardo da Vinci

In reviewing evidence pertinent to the authenticity of an artwork, a definition of authorship is required, particularly with regards to pieces created in workshops under the direction of a master or group of masters, as notably occurred during the Renaissance. 

With scientific methods increasingly used to contribute data to attributions, it is necessary to create a definition that satisfies the requirements of art historians applying traditional stylistic criteria, as well as the scientists contributing information on surfaces and pigments.

Before examining what considerations are necessary to define authorship, a brief overview of the constituents of an oil on panel painting are worth revising. For the purposes of this illustration, the focus will first be on Raphael. In describing the process of reporting evidence, a second part looking at works now attributed to Leonardo has been included.  Readers can explore each section separately if they wish, although there is an intended unifying theme across both.

I. The anatomy of a Renaissance panel
It is worth noting the absolute majority of Raphael's works were on wood panel. Panels were prepared with a ground substance which can be confirmed by chemical analysis. As noted by the late Joyce Plesters, a pioneer in scientific examination of artworks:

Of the rather limited number of analyses...of gesso grounds of Italian panel paintings, gypsum has occurred more frequently as the white inert of Venetian School paintings, whereas Florentine and Sienese School paintings tend to have either pure anhydrite, or a mixture of anhydrite with gypsum. Results are insufficient to be of statistical significance as of yet, but it would clearly be of interest to have more identifications of the grounds of other paintings...

This observation, published in a 1990 symposium volume nicely describes the importance of  investigating the chemical characteristics of materials used. This type of detail supplies information about artists' processes, and may also provide important points of comparison in determining authenticity of an artwork. It has been interesting to note that chemical analysis of artworks has continued to improve since this report, with an increasingly impressive array of technologies being deployed to determine the physical properties of great works of art.

Underdrawing in various media such as chalk, pencil or silverpoint can be observed, sometimes with the naked eye, but also with methods of photography and scanning that penetrates surface layers. Layered on top of this are pigment layers, including glazes and finishing substances. The surface layer may also contain overpainting and other finishing substances applied by restorers at different points in time.

Analysis of Raphael's technique is a fascinating subject that is only starting to be explored in a degree of detail. There is a sense of evolution in Raphael's work, as his exposure to different artists and workshops enhanced his understanding of his craft, and gave him the confidence to add his own variations.

Traditional descriptions of artists technique use variable, imprecise terms which have a place as terms of historical reference, but are not predisposed to finite measurements or comparisons. For the purposes of understanding the language used in attributions, the following diagram shows the key phases of a work where Raphael or his collaborators may have had a hand.

A consideration of the terminology of attributions must first consider the language used in galleries, sales catalogues and art history texts. The following is taken from the National Gallery London (NGL) online glossary. It is a succinct summation of how this terminology is applied to their labelling of their works on public display. Conveniently, NGL has chosen Raphael as their example. The entry states:

This definition may be suitable for public labelling purposes, but does raise questions - what constitutes a "reasonable certainty" and "degree of doubt"? These arbitrary terms are not suitable for use by analysts tasked with verifying the authenticity of a piece, as well as those interested in researching the artistic processes of a given period or school.

Hence, to tease this out further, the following set of parameters outlined by the late Professor James Beck creates a more complete picture. This outline was described within his exploration of the evidence behind the attribution of Madonna of The Pinks, but is remarkably appropriate for consideration of any Renaissance artists working within a workshop system:

1. The picture is entirely by Raphael, the pictorial surface as well as the preparatory drawing beneath it and everything in between.

2. The surface layers are by Raphael based upon preparation and underdrawing by a workshop assistant, that is, what is visible is by Raphael himself. 

3. The surface layer is by a workshop assistant based upon Raphael's original preparations, including the underdrawing and layers immediately over them.

4. Raphael prepared a fully developed cartoon from which an assistant or collaborator executed the painting from start to finish.

5. Raphael made one or more compositional sketches which he passed on to someone in his workshop. From the sketches a modello or cartoon was prepared and then transferred to the wood panel(or painted surface).

6. The entire painting, the surface and everything beneath it is a copy of uncertain authorship and uncertain date, produced at an undetermined period...

Satisfaction of the conditions outlined in the first two descriptors are sufficient for the work to be listed as an autograph work by Raphael. Even in instances where Raphael did not complete the work, such as is widely believed to be the case in the famous Louvre piece known as La Belle Jardiniere.

As can be seen, the degree to which a particular artist may have been involved is quite variable. As artists became more popular, and their workshops more busy, the extent to which their hand was involved in design or execution of a work becomes more difficult to discern. Whilst understanding this from an historical viewpoint is useful, it presents great challenges to elements of the art market and museum sector that look to assign works autograph status.

The traditional task of the analyst has involved the inspection of a work to look for evidence consistent with known pieces by that artist. There will of course be variations - as noted by John Shearman, commenting specifically on Raphael, it is "a mistake to assume a consistency in preparatory technique."

This however should not stop analysts from being methodical in examining any piece presented as a potential Raphael, even what more likely appears to be a copy. Examining copies can reveal valuable information about processes used to recreate a Raphael piece. This is often dismissed by some who see copies as an impediment, tarnishing an artists oeuvre.

Any analytical task is always strengthened by a broader spectrum of data. Hence, if 19th century copyists only used certain types of pigments and wood surface, a thorough knowledge of this will not only tell us more about 19th century techniques, but make detecting Raphael copies easier.

In the case of Madonna of The Pinks, it was published that the author executed the work on a hardwood species known as Yew. The analysis offered by NGL gave little explanation to account for this - particularly given that most of Raphael's known pieces are executed on Poplar, and to a lesser extent Linden Wood.

It should be clarified that an accurate determination of the species of wood panel is best achieved by microscopical analysis. At this stage, there is no definitive assay of all of Raphael's known works establishing the species of wood panels via microscopy. Even the most recent and complete of Raphael catalogues, the three volume work by Jürg Meyer zur Capellen is limited in this respect as these analyses simply have not been conducted by all owners of the respective pieces.  This being said, the use of Yew for The Pinks is notably unique, and demands to be further explored to establish its relevance to techniques used by Raphael working in the early 16th Century.

Going beyond the physical characteristics of a piece, attribution also rests on establishing the documentation surrounding the work - particularly whether it has been noted in contemporary accounts, including diary entries, contracts  and receipts. Raphael scholars are remarkably fortunate to have a comprehensive resource to simplify this process - John Shearman's astounding two-volume Raphael in Early Modern Sources traces documents written by and about the artist for the periods between 1483 and 1602. It of course goes without saying that there is a tremendous amount of archival material in Italy that has yet to be explored or translated, but Shearman's resource is an essential tool for Raphael scholars examining the documentary history of any particular work and making it fit into Raphael's known movements and interactions with patrons and collaborators.

From an analysis perspective, documentary evidence can be categorised as follows:

Primary Sources
Direct correspondence with Raphael, workshop members of documentation of contract or transaction with a patron or collaborator.
Secondary Sources
Contemporary or later descriptions of the work in a collection, stated to be by Raphael or his school. The best known example of this is Vasari - who never met Raphael.  This also includes inventory entries, allowing the tracking of pieces through collections. Among of the most commonly cited sources are the Borghese and Medici Collection Inventories, which also incorporated works from other collections over the centuries, such as the Ducal Collection from Urbino.

The greatest challenge is assembling all the visual observations, scientific and documentary findings into a unified construct. Whilst museum curators and the art market demand a conclusive answer, it must be stated that from a logical perspective, a conclusive statement sometimes may not be possible.

This is one of the great blind spots to be found in literature dealing with attributions. Comprehensive descriptions of provenance, physical and stylistic features ultimately end with what in any other discipline would be seen as leaps of faith. Scholars of varying experience and repute will lend the weight of their name or experience to give the final nudge towards a credible answer, where one simply may not be logically possible.

II. Consensus decisions and long lost Leonardos
In his examination of the drawing known as La Bella Principessa, Professor Martin Kemp provides a telling summary as an epilogue to the slew of evidence presented. This section, titled What Constitutes Proof? provides a unique moment of realisation within art historical discourse:

No single piece of evidence proves conclusively that the portrait of the woman in profile in coloured chalks...was executed by Leonardo da Vinci in the mid 1490s or that the sitter is Bianca Sforza. Similarly, no single piece of evidence proves that the Mona Lisa in the Louvre is a portrait of Lisa Gheradini...commenced in 1503 and finished a good deal later.... The now secure position of the portrait of  Mona Lisa del Giocondo in Leonardo's body of autograph paintings depends on an accumulation of interlocking reasons, and, not least, on the way that the painting participates in how we actively see Leonardo as a whole.

The investigation into La Bella Principessa will be explored in more detail in an upcoming post. However, it was important to include this quote here to demonstrate a point in art historical scholarship where a step towards a more complete, rationalised presentation of facts has accompanied a reading. The summary provided by Kemp et al is by no means  a flawless scientific document. It does however very clearly elucidate the increasing need for attributions to be made by the accumulation of a broader spectrum of data, often involving interdisciplinary collaboration.

Some mention must be made here of consensus decisions. When a number of experts are invited to examine an artwork for its authenticity, a group decision is often invited by institutions or auction houses. This may sound like a fair system, but the potential for abuse is apparent if there is no transparency in decision making processes, and findings have not been shared with other scholars for peer review.  This occurred in the NGLs cajoling of some 30 experts, to confirm their attribution of Madonna of the Pinks. Among this 30, not one has since gone on the record to express doubt over the attribution due to the nature of the wood panel used or the lack of provenance data from before the 19th Century.

In a more recent example, a 'new' Leonardo has been announced by the NGL. The painting is a depiction of Christ in a pose of blessing, described as Salvator Mundi, derived from Coptic/Byzantine depictions and popularised by Northern artists such as Jan van Eyck and Hans Memling.

Photo Credits: Robert Simon, Tim Nighswander ⓒ2011 Salvator Mundi LLC

The discovery was first reported by ARTNews, which noted that Leonardo experts had been invited to view the piece at the NGL:

It was also brought to the National Gallery in London about 18 months ago. Nicholas Penny, director of the museum, and Luke Syson, curator of the forthcoming exhibition, invited four Leonardo scholars to see the work in the museum's conservation studio. "We have something interesting to show you," Penny told them. The scholars were Carmen C. Bambach, curator of drawings and paintings at the Metropolitan Museum of Art; Pietro Marani, who directed the restoration of Leonardo's Last Supper in Milan; Maria Teresa Fiorio, author of many books on the Renaissance, including a biography of Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio, considered by many to be Leonardo's best student; and Martin Kemp, professor emeritus of art history at Oxford University, who has spent more than 40 years studying Leonardo.

Being familiar with the degree of detail Professor Kemp applied in his analysis of La Bella Principessa, I made a query to him via email whether Salvator Mundi had been subjected to the same type of analysis - such as tests to date the panel or Lumiere scanning technology of the painted surface. My query to him was not framed with regards to his opinion on the authenticity of the work, but to clarify when more detailed results would be published than is presently available.

Professor Kemp's response highlighted that he was not responsible for the scientific tests performed on Salvator Mundi. He also made some comment on the disparity of the testing methods used between different institutions not being ideal.

From subsequent reports that have been released, the identity of scholars involved, and the details of their tests is not reported.

Edit: an extended press release is now available highlighting the identities of some of the individuals and processes involved. A Yale University Press publication is forthcoming which will feature a more complete summary of the documentary, stylistic and scientific findings. The inclusion of this data in the upcoming publication was also confirmed by Professor Kemp in a recent correspondence.

It is somewhat frustrating to note that the ability to make pronouncements on attribution is such a guarded process. This likely is related to the immense potential market value this work has, as it is still owned by a group of private owners. As reported at Artdaily:

After an extensive conservation treatment, the painting was examined by a series of international scholars. An unequivocal consensus was reached that the Salvator Mundi was the original by Leonardo da Vinci. Opinions vary slightly in the matter of dating, with some assigning the work to the late 1490's, and others placing it after 1500.

Scholars were convinced of Leonardo's authorship due to the painting's adherence in style to the artist's known paintings; the quality of execution; the relationship of the painting to the two preparatory drawings; its correspondence to Wenceslaus Hollar's etching; its superiority to the numerous versions of the known composition; and the presence of pentimenti, or changes by the artist not found in copies.

Some very important questions need to be asked here:
*Who were these scholars?
*Who paid for their time?
*What manner of testing was involved?
*Has the panel been dated?
*What other testing has been performed on wood, pigments?
*Have other, independent scholars been invited to look at the findings?
*What factors rule out that is not a Leonardo studio piece, even in part?
*Has anyone expressed any doubt with any of the findings?

I would like to make this very clear: raising these points is not made with the purpose of offering any opinion on the assessment of these scholars. What is being queried is the mode of reporting. To date, neither the NGL, nor the owners have published a detailed assay of these findings for peer review. Some results will likely be included in the documentation accompanying the upcoming NGL exhibition where this work will be displayed. Admittedly, this is a somewhat underhanded way of being transparent and sharing data for peer review.

Apart from the aforementioned etching by Hollar, existence of a Leonardo Salvator Mundi has been known from surviving drapery studies in the Royal Collection at Windsor. How these drawings, dated c.1504-8 are related to a panel now attributed to 1500 or earlier is not made clear in the reports.

click for more information

There have been other candidates submitted as Leonardo's Salvator Mundi in the past, the most notable being the version in the collection of Jan Louis de Ganay in Paris. It too has been subjected to a degree of restoration that may obscure its original appearance. A thorough comparison of all known copies would best demonstrate the strength of one version over another. Presently, we have very little to go on save for the fact that the experts involved have named one version 'superior' but not exactly why it is superior.

the de Ganay Salvator Mundi

The timing of the attribution announcement and the NGL's exhibition is also to be frowned upon. This approach to attributions has as much to do with marketing and PR strategy than being in line with an ethical process allowing the fullest examination of evidence by the widest range of experts.

The most complete presentation of attribution information must hence also include an exploration of possible factors affecting the efficacy of readings. In a scientific document these are included around the discussion of validity of measures and confounding factors. Even in more nebulous matters such as commonly seen in the legal system, case notes present summaries of all aspects of the matter supporting and refuting the issue contested.

It is an unfortunate reality that it presently does not suit the art market or museum sector to present as complete a set of findings as possible. It is important to stress that these pros and cons not be presented in an emotive or adversarial manner, but simply as acknowledgements of matters which are subjective in nature and hence difficult to gain conclusive proof of. Those qualified to do so should be encouraged to examine the same evidence in detail and be allowed to critically respond in the same manner of detail. Much of the disagreement over attributions often comes down to opinions presented with very little supportive evidence.

As analytic techniques improve, the language and mode or reporting of attributions must also improve. This is done in the interests of transparency and promoting a collaborative, not adversarial approach to debate surrounding attribution of artworks. This has a significant bearing on education, where the need for professionals well-versed in the scientific and visual traditions associated with attributions will benefit from a standardised syllabus and mode of training. The path to this type of expertise is presently entangled within other aspects of art history and conservation science, and hence the number of qualified individuals to make such judgements is presently very low.

A combined arts/science qualification specialising in verifications of artworks would be valuable across many roles across in the art market, museum sector and law enforcement. Until then, we can only hope the published reports of attributions provide as much data, and as little bias as possible.

Beck, J. From Duccio to Raphael - Connoisseurship in Crisis. European Press Academic Publishing. 2007. p.55

Colleti, G., Scozzafava, R.,Vantaggi, B. A Bridge between Probability and Possibility in a Comparative Framework. Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. Liu, W (ed.). Springer-Verlag. Berlin 2011. pp.557-568

Da Vinci discovered. 10 July 2011. Accessed July 11 2011 link

Esterow, M. Granek, A. Updated: A Long Lost Leonardo. Accessed July 11 2011 link

Kemp, M, Cotte, P. La Bella Principessa: The Story of the New Masterpiece by Leonardo da Vinci. Hodder & Stoughton. 2010. pp.187-188

Klein, P., Bauch, J. Analyses of Wood from Italian Paintings with Special Reference to Raphael. Princeton Raphael Symposium. Hall, M. B. & Shearman, J.(eds). Princeton University Press. 1990. pp.85-91

Plesters, J. Technical Aspects of Some Paintings by Raphael in the National Gallery London. Princeton Raphael Symposium. Hall, M. B. & Shearman, J.(eds). Princeton University Press. 1990. p.33

Royal Collection website. Studies for a Salvator Mundi attributed to Leonardo da Vinci Accessed July 11 2011 link1 link2

Shearman, J. A Drawing for Raphael's Saint George. The Burlington Magazine. Issue 125. 1983. p.25

Shearman, J. The Historian and the Conservator. Princeton Raphael Symposium. Hall, M.B, Shearman, J. (eds.) Princeton University Press. 1990. pp.7-13

*This charming piece by David Allen is a group portrait of four art 'connoisseurs'. Three are present in the flesh and one is memorialised in the portrait on the wall. Curiously, they appear to be looking at an engraved image of St John the Baptist in the Desert, a work attributed to Raphael/his workshop during his Roman Period info


Dr. F said...


Is it me or is there something wrong with the eyes in the "Salvator Mundi." Could Leonard have done such work?


Unknown said...

Cheers Frank.

The proponents of this picture were quick to demonstrate that the degree of restoration done to this work may have degraded much of the finer detail of the original work. Is this sufficient to explain the ghostly appearance of the face and lack of definition in the neck region.

Preparatory drawings and scans of any underdrawing in all known versions would aid this comparison, a level of detail presently not offered save for the statement that this one is 'superior'

Kind Regards

David Packwood said...

Excellent post H- very topical and relevant.

As somebody trained in the “visual tradition”, I rely very much on my eye for a picture, before I even start to consider the kinds of factors that you’ve enumerated here. And to my eye, there’s something not quite right about this Salvator Mundi. I agree with Frank: the eyes seem crude, not really characteristic of the psychological depth that Leonardo can evoke in his paintings. Obviously most of this is subjective, but in the absence of transparency, not to mention misreporting about the technical examination of this picture, what more can you do.

I take your point about phrases such as “degree of doubt”, but a large amount of art history, not only in determining authorship of a painting but the meaning of individual pictures, is overwhelmingly subjective and heavily dependent on the art historian’s viewpoint. It’s not an exact science nor can it ever be. If we took the approach you’re advocating, nearly every picture in the National Gallery would have the label “attributed to” attached to it. As you obviously know, a lot of those paintings are in certain sections because important people in the gallery’s history like Eastlake believed they were by such and such a painter. Actually, I think Eastlake was right most of the time, in the days before the sophisticated scientific techniques that we have today. I don’t think science can ever take the place of the art historical expertise of pioneers like Eastlake and Mundler.

Having said that, I don’t disparage scientific testing in the service of deciding authorship, so long as it’s aligned with traditional connoisseurship. Unfortunately- but not in my case as I’m first and last a teacher- connoisseurship is tied up with the art market, large sums of money and the ambitions of art historians keen to make their mark. Until we actually find a way to reconcile scientific methodology and “traditional connoisseurship”, like Martin Kemp demonstrates in his and Pascal Cotte’s book on La Bella Principessa, then we’re always going to have these problems.
Excellent point about the consensus, which in the case of the Pinks Madonna should have been more transparent because public funds were involved.

I could say more, but I’ll save it for a post on my own blog I’m formulating on aspects of connoisseurship.
PS. Love the Leonardo quote!

Unknown said...

Cheers for the fabulously detailed response David.

I think we are in a very interesting time. The sciences had to adjust their terminology and precision of reporting for developments such as microscopy and the periodic table. Something similar is happening in this section of art history.

What a painting can show under a microscope or multi-spectral scanner can aid those trained in the visual tradition. Blink assessments must be replaced with looking long and hard and trying to understand characteristics particular to one artist over another, marrying this of course with documentary evidence. The most recently published catalogue raisonnes are a mixture of visual, documentary technical evidence. It is already happening!

Science is not 'meant to take the place' of anything that involves a human factor. However, it can definitely enhance a visual assay. Saying one thing takes the place of another, or that a reconciliation needs to occur are concepts that persist simply because current practitioners are largely versed in this older tradition, with little desire to shift out of it barring the likes of Kemp et al. It is for similar reasons that art historians do not populate the web as prevalently as other disciplines. What can be said with certainty though, is that things are changing, as students and the public are more curious about this level of detail.

At one point in time having an expert tell us they think it is a Leonardo was enough, now people want to know why. This is why books like Kemp's was so important, as are volumes such as the Technical Bulletins and Symposia publications. The Devil is in the details!

Kind Regards


thanks thanks thanks

Anonymous said...

The Salvator Mundi that was hanging in the Ganay collection in Paris was sold through Sotheby's in 1999. Does anyone know who bought the Ganay piece, and where it has been since 1999?

I am suggesting that the Gamay image may indeed be the image that is now being shown as a "newly discovered" original. If you place the image of the Ganay painting next to the image of the "newly discovered" copy, they are identical in many ways in terms of "line". Several aspects of the Ganay piece had seemed to be authenticated and x-rays showed layers of paint and an underpainting existing.

The wording is carefully placed in the news releases: ‎"It had been heavily overpainted, which makes it look like a copy. It was a wreck, dark and gloomy. It had been cleaned many times in the past by people who didn't know better. Once a restorer put artificial resin on it, which had turned gray and had to be removed painstakingly. When they took off the overpaint, what was revealed was the original paint. You saw incredibly delicate painting. All agree it was painted by Leonardo."

Is it possible that the consortium that purchased the "newly discovered" piece actually got their hands on the Ganay, either through the 1999 sale itself or from that buyer, and based on the prior tests felt it fruitful to conduct further testing and remove the clumsy over painting, revealing the original delicate sfumato painting of da Vinci? This seems the most likely explanation I can construct at this point. The painting would have indeed been "lost" and "newly discovered" only once non da Vinci overpainting was removed. I do wonder, if it is the Ganay piece, how much of the original Leonardo may have been removed.

Alberti's Window said...

Yay! I'm so glad that you posted about the Salvator Mundi piece. I was especially interested to know what Kemp had to say on the attribution.

I'm glad that you raised those questions about the scholars who authenticated this painting, too. I think it is so, so important to think critically in the realm of connoisseurship and attribution. Your questions do a good job of promoting critical thinking (and also suggesting to others how political the process of consensus/attribution can be!).

If the art world doesn't think critically (and move forward to embrace scientific means of attribution), we might end up with a bigillion "authentic" paintings on our hands.

Unknown said...

Thank you for the comments!

@MCGuilmet - Great points. I was thinking along the same lines when I was doing this post and will be doing a follow up shortly. Sotheby's sold this in New York in 1999. The sale to Alex Parish (US art dealer) is said to have occurred about 2004-5, but I am still chasing up the details on this.

If this is the case, it is not right that the owners, NGL so deliberately omit mention that this was the de Ganay piece, and instead flaunt it as a 'Long Lost' Leonardo.

@M - many thanks for your comments. Taking the politics out of it will be very hard, especially when there is so much money involved! Maybe its just because I'm paying more attention to it, but does the art market seem obsessed with digging up long lost old masters. Now we have another Caravaggio floating about too.... very worrying when these 'attributions' are assigned and published before a peer review process can occur.

Kind Regards

Unknown said...

Update: digging around a bit more one can find that the provenance of this current piece and the de Ganay variant are divergent. More info:

PR release from current owners - including more detailed provenance information link

Sothebys listing for the sale of the de Ganay version in 1999 - a cached version available here: link

A Yale Press publication is scheduled outlining the findings. We can only hope it provides a sufficient level of detail to satisfy a range of experts beyond the consensus group amassed by the owners and the NGL.


David Packwood said...

The art market is obsessed with finding "new discoveries". I've woken up today and I'm reading about a "new" Michelangelo found in Oxford. This is getting ridiculous. Not a week, or even a day goes day, without this nonsense.

Unknown said...

Yes, I saw that! It is actually tucked into Forcellino's new book - alongside the more prominent NY discovery. I have that book and will be reviewing its processes in a few weeks.

Kind Regards

Anonymous said...

Thank you H, the links were very helpful! Happy to have discovered your blog.



Unknown said...

Cheers Michael!

Another update: Professor Kemp has now gone on record in lending his support to the attribution, as quoted from this piece at The Telegraph link


Michael W. Domoretsky said...

I am concerened my opinnion will not be shown, there for I have documented this as I did on my last post put in three weeks ago, and is not not shown.
The da Vinci Project, Research Group
Founder, Michael W. Domoretsky

Unknown said...

Hello Michael.

If you have read enough entries on this blog, you will find I have no stated opinion on who did what. I am reporting the findings of the scholars and technicians in this instance who viewed and restored the work.

I am happy to publish your above comment - and encourage you to present your views in detail within your own blog. Comment spaces are not the place for detailed counter theories. This is best presented at one's own webspace. Leaving a link to it elsewhere is fine, but trying to demonstrate a complex viewpoint at length within comments sections is a less practical use of everyone's time.

Please keep this in mind for future submissions.

Kind Regards

Alexandra said...

impressive, H.

Unknown said...

Cheers Alexandra! I'm honoured you stopped by - I know how very busy you are these days.

Kind Regards

acke said...

Michael have you ever been to Paris? What makes you an expert in art what Galleries have you shown in .What books are you in ? who has ever bought one of your paintings? Let's talk about sexting and the real story are you bisexual or not?

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...