Diego Rodríguez de Silva y Velázquez, "Portrait of a Man," ca. 1630, Oil on canvas, 27 x 21 3/4 in. (68.6 x 55.2 cm), Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

BY VICTORIA ROMEO

The Metropolitan Museum of Art is currently  at the tail end of  two exhibitions that examine issues of attribution. What makes these shows special is that they focus on a single work by two  of  the greatest artists of all time: Diego Velazquez and Michelangelo Buonarotti. The stakes becomes when previously anonymous works of art are attached to such acclaimed names. In turn, Velázquez Rediscovered and The Young Archer attributed to Michelangelo gives the viewer an opportunity to consider how their value becomes enhanced.

Velázquez Rediscovered, focuses on the complicated attribution history of “Portrait of a Man,” now a confirmed work by Diego Velázquez (1599–1660).  The painting hangs among other works by the artist and his contemporaries in a one-room show.  Detailed wall texts and information about the restoration process serve to fill the visitors in on all of the details of this fascinating story.

The work’s present determination was made after a restoration and cleaning over the summer in 2009.  The removal of layers of varnish and grime allowed experts to conduct proper technical and stylistic analysis, leading to the conclusion that the Met has a genuine Velázquez on their hands.  The painting has caused considerable controversy over the last 200 years, with several generations of experts offering differing opinions over its authorship.  The Met curators have a timeline installed in the exhibition to help viewers keep the history straight, a necessary feature as the attribution has changed no less than five times (the timeline is also available online at http://www.metmuseum.org/special/velazquez_rediscovered/more.asp).

No reproduction of “Portrait of a Man” captures the intensity of this work viewed in person.  It’s strikingly surreal, which may be due in part to the unfinished nature.  Only the face of this sitter is “finished” whereas the neck, shoulders, hair and brown background are only loosely painted.  The strong contrast of creamy skin tones with the darkness of the subject’s eyes gives the subject’s face a radiant quality that jumps off the canvas.

Diego Rodríguez de Silva y Velázquez, "The Surrender of Breda or Las Lanzas," Before 1635, Oil on canvas, 10' 7/8" x 12' 1/2" (307 x 367 cm), Museo del Prado, Madrid

The arresting qualities of this portrait makes one beg the question: “Who is this guy?” a query the exhibition asks without a conclusive answer.  The work was originally thought to be a self-portrait of the artist, based largely on the fact that it bears a strong resemblance to a figure in another Velázquez painting, Surrender of Breda, housed at the Prado Museum in Madrid .

Supposed self-portrait of Velazquez, from "The Surrender of Breda"

The figure in question at the far right of the painting was historically thought to be Velázquez’s self-portrait.  Scholars today find this determination highly speculative and therefore are reluctant to use this evidence to credit the work as a self-portrait, though without evidence to the contrary, it is certainly plausible.

Workshop of Diego Rodríguez de Silva y Velázquez, "Portrait of a Man, " Oil on canvas, 27 1/4 x 22 1/4 in. (69.2 x 56.5 cm), Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

Interestingly enough, another portrait hanging in this exhibition, now attributed to the workshop of Velázquez, came into the Met’s collection in 1889 as a self-portrait by the artist.  That attribution and title have since been rescinded, and incidentally, the sitter is definitely not the same man depicted in the focal Portrait of a Man. Considering a comparison between the two works leads one to realize the high stakes at play here. On the one hand, the star of the show, Portrait of a Man, has been exalted as a genuine master painting.  The other workshop Portrait of a Man, once considered Velázquez’s self-portrait, now most likely spends a lot of time in storage.  Both are skillfully done, interesting portraits, yet their attribution serves to differentiate them far more than any other factor.

Most museum exhibitions focus on masterworks by well-known artists, allowing the viewer to assume the best works of art were painted by those artists recorded in the history of art.  This show explicitly demonstrates the high value placed on attribution.  Prior to its rediscovery, Portrait of a Man probably did not hang regularly in the galleries at the museum.  Now that its attribution has been restored to a major Old Master painter, the portrait’s importance, value, and face-time in the galleries has increased exponentially.  It is easy to forget about the fate of unknown artists’ works in a museum bursting at the seams with masterpieces.  This exhibition sheds light on the influence of attribution and the value that we all inherently place on identifying art by a masterful, well-known creator.

A “before” image of Portrait of a Man, prior to its restoration, would have been a lovely.  According to the wall texts, the painting took on a dramatically different appearance underneath the excess varnish and dirt.  It would have been really interesting for the viewers to see the transformation, but for the meantime, Keith Christiansen’s (the Met’s curator of European art) word will have to suffice.

The Young Archer, Attributed to Michelangelo, on view in the Vélez Blanco Patio, also focuses on the issue of authorship.    This fragmented sculpture stood for years in the entrance hall of the French embassy across the street from the Met on Fifth Avenue before NYU professor Kathleen Weil-Garris Brandt suggested it should be attributed to Michelangelo (Florence 1475–Rome 1564) in 1997.  She has proposed it to be an early work, dating around 1490, perhaps completed while Michelangelo was training in Florence.

The exhibition invites viewers to make their own judgments, which is a difficult task to say the least.  Other Italian Renaissance era sculptures fill the patio space, but comparing them to the small, fragmented “Young Archer” is a bit like comparing apples to oranges.  Of course, most of Michelangelo’s sculptural works remain in Italy and an exhibition that would allow for better comparisons would be a much more involved undertaking than this spotlight show.  Instead, the curators offer detailed wall texts describing the provenance history, physical state of the sculpture, and information about Michelangelo’s early career.  This information is compelling, but without visual comparisons, it’s hard to make a meaningful assessment. In this case, it seems that not only beauty, but connoisseurship lies in the eye of the beholder.

Definitive attribution decisions aside, the Young Archer does display a grace of form and naturalistic handling of marble seen in only the best examples of sculpture.  The untrained eye can perceive its distinct mastery of form, especially when compared to the other, stiffer looking works in the room.  Such an observation alone doesn’t make or break an attribution- nevertheless it’s an entertaining exercise.  Despite significant losses to the arms and legs, the little figure has considerable charm.  Scholars have suggested he represents either Cupid, Apollo or some conglomerate of mythological characters, another point of speculation offered in the wall texts.

The "Young Archer", attributed to Michelangelo, on view at the Metropolitan Museum of Art

Shows that focus on a single work of art are a rarity for an institution like Met. Exceptions were made in these two cases, however, in which visitors are provoked to question what it means to understand and appreciate a  work of art, in addition to the question of whether it is by a famous hand.  It’s a welcome change of pace to have the opportunity to form one’s own answers to such questions, rather than simply take in the standard curatorial information.  Neither the “Young Archer” nor  “Portrait of a Man” would command the same level of attention in a larger exhibition devoted to their respective masters, which is exactly what made a trip to see them worthwhile. Make sure to get a visit in soon, the Velazquez exhibit closes this Sunday.