Naples Church treasures: Real or fake?
Dec 22nd, 2006, 05:46 AM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 7,021
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Naples Church treasures: Real or fake?
If you're planning to visit Naples churches in 2007, a word of warning ...
It's been reported this week that all art treasures - pictures, statues, silverware - in Naples churches will be removed and replaced by copies in the New Year.
These plans have been brought forward following the recent thefts from San Nicola alla Carita.
The originals will be transferred and put on display in the Museo Diocesano di Napoli, Largo Donnaregina (- Santa Maria di Donnaregina).
Steve
It's been reported this week that all art treasures - pictures, statues, silverware - in Naples churches will be removed and replaced by copies in the New Year.
These plans have been brought forward following the recent thefts from San Nicola alla Carita.
The originals will be transferred and put on display in the Museo Diocesano di Napoli, Largo Donnaregina (- Santa Maria di Donnaregina).
Steve
Dec 22nd, 2006, 06:26 AM
#2
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi SJ,
Does it really matter to the casual tourist if the artifact is a copy or the original?
Consider all of the people who look at the Ghiberti doors on the Baptistery in Florence without knowing that the originals are in the Opera Museum.
Does it really matter to the casual tourist if the artifact is a copy or the original?
Consider all of the people who look at the Ghiberti doors on the Baptistery in Florence without knowing that the originals are in the Opera Museum.
Dec 22nd, 2006, 06:30 AM
#3
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember a heated discussion here once in which one poster insisted that she WOULD know standing thirty feet away from the Mona Lisa behind glass if it were a fake. She could actually see the true artistry in the original painting that could never be copied, the true magic in the actual original brushstrokes,. . .yada, yada, yada. Unless you have an equally imaginitive expertise, you'll never know.
Dec 22nd, 2006, 07:02 AM
#4
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think there is a real difference between seeing a painting behind glass and a painting without glass. I think it's a shame the Mona Lisa had to be put behind glass. But you can hardly see the painting anymore anyway for all the tourists.
Maybe the Louvre could solve that problem by making a lot of copies and putting them in the Metro. If there is no artistic difference in seeing the real thing, why not stay home with a magazine?
I went to the museum of the duomo in Florence to see the real doors, and they are much more beautiful than the ones on the bapistery covered with grime.
I like it when paintings are removed to preserve them and are replaced with copies so I can see how the church or place must have looked before they were removed. I also like it when they are restoring a building and they put up a picture of the facade so you can get the overall effect of how the squae looks.
I'm surprised people think, however, there is no difference at all between seeing the original and a copy. But then again, I don't think most tourists really care about art or know much about it. They just have a list of "must sees" they follow. But the chances are higher they might actually appreciate why a work of art is famous if they see the original instead of a copy.
Maybe the Louvre could solve that problem by making a lot of copies and putting them in the Metro. If there is no artistic difference in seeing the real thing, why not stay home with a magazine?
I went to the museum of the duomo in Florence to see the real doors, and they are much more beautiful than the ones on the bapistery covered with grime.
I like it when paintings are removed to preserve them and are replaced with copies so I can see how the church or place must have looked before they were removed. I also like it when they are restoring a building and they put up a picture of the facade so you can get the overall effect of how the squae looks.
I'm surprised people think, however, there is no difference at all between seeing the original and a copy. But then again, I don't think most tourists really care about art or know much about it. They just have a list of "must sees" they follow. But the chances are higher they might actually appreciate why a work of art is famous if they see the original instead of a copy.
Dec 22nd, 2006, 07:31 AM
#6
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,860
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure if Layla is joking or not, but I was very surprised that our official day guide in Florence did not mention to our group that the Baptistry doors are not the original ones. Plus, she seemed very annoyed with me for bringing it up. How many people casually visiting Rome have no idea? (Or that the David in the Piazza della Signoria is a copy?)
When you are able to see the originals in the Duomo museum, the difference is breathtaking! There simply is no comparison between a copy (however well done) and the original.
However, I agree with fall06 that I prefer a copy to be kept in the possibly vulnerable place and the original preserved where it can be safeguarded and viewed. I just have a problem with tour guides not telling people that they are viewing a copy and where the original can be seen!
When you are able to see the originals in the Duomo museum, the difference is breathtaking! There simply is no comparison between a copy (however well done) and the original.
However, I agree with fall06 that I prefer a copy to be kept in the possibly vulnerable place and the original preserved where it can be safeguarded and viewed. I just have a problem with tour guides not telling people that they are viewing a copy and where the original can be seen!
Dec 22nd, 2006, 07:55 AM
#7
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It takes fine scrutiny by a team of experts with scientific equipment as well as magnifying glasses to find the difference between a great painting a fine copy. In fact there are many documented records of copies not being discovered as copies for ages.
Of course, I'm not talking about a copy made by a high school art student, but one made by a master copier. The idea that anyone could KNOW the Mona Lisa was a fake from even 15 feet away, glass or no glass -- is a real joke. But if it makes someone appreciate art more by believing they can tell the difference, then more power to them.
There are hundreds of things like this. It gives one a sense of awe to stand on the grave where some famous person is buried, although in many cases no one is really sure if that "person" is really there or not.
Of course, I'm not talking about a copy made by a high school art student, but one made by a master copier. The idea that anyone could KNOW the Mona Lisa was a fake from even 15 feet away, glass or no glass -- is a real joke. But if it makes someone appreciate art more by believing they can tell the difference, then more power to them.
There are hundreds of things like this. It gives one a sense of awe to stand on the grave where some famous person is buried, although in many cases no one is really sure if that "person" is really there or not.
Dec 22nd, 2006, 08:00 AM
#8
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NeoPatrick,
Not to be argumentative, but what you've said simply isn't true. An original has a life that copies don't, not matter how good the mechanicals. Comparing the doors at the bapistery is a good place for people to start if they want a sense of how much of a difference there can be. The copies are near perfect but they are dead, apart from the grime.
An artwork is made up a thousand spontaneous details. Some people will never be able to tell the difference, but most people can learn, just like they can learn the difference between good wine and mass produced wine, or good food or mass produced food.
If you don't care or don't see a difference, that's OK. But please don't imagine there isn't a difference.
Not to be argumentative, but what you've said simply isn't true. An original has a life that copies don't, not matter how good the mechanicals. Comparing the doors at the bapistery is a good place for people to start if they want a sense of how much of a difference there can be. The copies are near perfect but they are dead, apart from the grime.
An artwork is made up a thousand spontaneous details. Some people will never be able to tell the difference, but most people can learn, just like they can learn the difference between good wine and mass produced wine, or good food or mass produced food.
If you don't care or don't see a difference, that's OK. But please don't imagine there isn't a difference.
Dec 22nd, 2006, 08:19 AM
#9
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, glad to know that you would instantly see the "realness" in a copy of the Mona Lisa or any other great work of art from 15 feet, unlike the experts who are often fooled. As I said there are a number of cases where forgeries of great paintings were on display for some time and no one including many experts knew at all.
You should be very proud of your unique talent.
You should be very proud of your unique talent.
Dec 22nd, 2006, 09:27 AM
#10
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think it is a unique talent, and I don't see anything to be proud about. Appreciating painting is something that can be taught and learned by anybody.
I think the Mona Lisa is a very magnetic painting, and if it was that easy to copy, people would have done it a lot. 15 feet actually isn't very far away.
I think the Mona Lisa is a very magnetic painting, and if it was that easy to copy, people would have done it a lot. 15 feet actually isn't very far away.
Dec 22nd, 2006, 09:28 AM
#11
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LCBoniti,
I actually wasn't joking, as pathetic as that might sound LOL! I actually had no idea that they were copies! And I actually do feel stupid....but my excuse will be that I was a 21yr old college student who didn't know anything about Europe until I got off the plane....shhhhh it's our little secret!
Layla
I actually wasn't joking, as pathetic as that might sound LOL! I actually had no idea that they were copies! And I actually do feel stupid....but my excuse will be that I was a 21yr old college student who didn't know anything about Europe until I got off the plane....shhhhh it's our little secret!
Layla
Dec 22nd, 2006, 09:50 AM
#12
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Appreciating art and being able to spot a well forged copy are two VASTLY different things.
Some of the art experts who have spent weeks studying some paintings under microscopes to try to find if they were indeed originals or very fine copies would have been happy to have had a person in their service who could readily tell the difference from 15 feet. You should indeed be proud of that ability and yes, it is certainly unique.
There are stories about when the Mona Lisa was stolen in 1911 how much time and care went into trying to find if indeed what they got back was the original or a forgery. Those experts would have welcomed your expertise with open arms.
Some of the art experts who have spent weeks studying some paintings under microscopes to try to find if they were indeed originals or very fine copies would have been happy to have had a person in their service who could readily tell the difference from 15 feet. You should indeed be proud of that ability and yes, it is certainly unique.
There are stories about when the Mona Lisa was stolen in 1911 how much time and care went into trying to find if indeed what they got back was the original or a forgery. Those experts would have welcomed your expertise with open arms.
Dec 22nd, 2006, 12:39 PM
#13
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fall06,
The idea that a seeing a reproduction of the Mona Lisa is just as good as seeing the real painting is an idee fixe for NeoPatrick, who used to post here as Neopolitan.
You might be interested in seeing the actual exchange that NeoPatrick is obsessing about, where nobody claimed they could tell a forged Mona Lisa from a real one (and NeoPatrick swears up and down that he that the difference between Michaelangelo's actual David and the copy is soooooo important.
http://www.fodors.com/forums/threadselect.jsp?fid=2
Anyway, no matter what you say, NeoPatrick once was in the Louvre and though he can't really remember what he saw in there, his word on it is final.
The idea that a seeing a reproduction of the Mona Lisa is just as good as seeing the real painting is an idee fixe for NeoPatrick, who used to post here as Neopolitan.
You might be interested in seeing the actual exchange that NeoPatrick is obsessing about, where nobody claimed they could tell a forged Mona Lisa from a real one (and NeoPatrick swears up and down that he that the difference between Michaelangelo's actual David and the copy is soooooo important.
http://www.fodors.com/forums/threadselect.jsp?fid=2
Anyway, no matter what you say, NeoPatrick once was in the Louvre and though he can't really remember what he saw in there, his word on it is final.
Dec 22nd, 2006, 12:59 PM
#15
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi fall
>Comparing the doors at the bapistery is a good place for people to start if they want a sense of how much of a difference there can be. The copies are near perfect but they are dead, apart from the grime. <
Since the copies were made from casts of the originals, and both were made in foundries by skilled craftsmen, not by the artist, I find it hard to agree.
I recently visited a home where it took 75 years to discover that two of their 4 Rembrandts were fake - very good fakes, since they had been authenticated several times, but still fakes.
It wasn't until they were subjected to X-ray and spectrometer analyses that the discrepancies were discovered.
>Comparing the doors at the bapistery is a good place for people to start if they want a sense of how much of a difference there can be. The copies are near perfect but they are dead, apart from the grime. <
Since the copies were made from casts of the originals, and both were made in foundries by skilled craftsmen, not by the artist, I find it hard to agree.
I recently visited a home where it took 75 years to discover that two of their 4 Rembrandts were fake - very good fakes, since they had been authenticated several times, but still fakes.
It wasn't until they were subjected to X-ray and spectrometer analyses that the discrepancies were discovered.
Dec 22nd, 2006, 01:31 PM
#16
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amazing! Simply amazing that anyone could turn my post about experts not being able to distinquish a good forgery from the real Mona Lisa at 15 feet into "seeing a reproduction of the Mona Lisa is just as good as seeing the real painting". What a bunch of hogwash.
And the other rants about David are just as silly. Yes, I did once say that seeing the real David in the light under the cupola was awe-inspiring (which Nessundorma seemed to scoff at since it's "only sculpture" not a painting -- at least I believe those were her words in a thread where she basically admitted that sculpture does nothing for her). And in fact I was surprised that the real sculpture could be so moving when I had seen so many imitations. That was my point in that post that must have taken her hours to find so you she could try to discredit me (talk about "obsessing"!)
Yes I will still maintain that this poster who can't even correctly interpret simple comments could not tell if the Mona Lisa had been replaced by a prized forgery. Why on earth could she when the experts took days to figure it out under close scrutiny? If only those experts had Nessundorma on their team, think how much energy and expense could have been spared. But lots of people love living in a dream world.
And the other rants about David are just as silly. Yes, I did once say that seeing the real David in the light under the cupola was awe-inspiring (which Nessundorma seemed to scoff at since it's "only sculpture" not a painting -- at least I believe those were her words in a thread where she basically admitted that sculpture does nothing for her). And in fact I was surprised that the real sculpture could be so moving when I had seen so many imitations. That was my point in that post that must have taken her hours to find so you she could try to discredit me (talk about "obsessing"!)
Yes I will still maintain that this poster who can't even correctly interpret simple comments could not tell if the Mona Lisa had been replaced by a prized forgery. Why on earth could she when the experts took days to figure it out under close scrutiny? If only those experts had Nessundorma on their team, think how much energy and expense could have been spared. But lots of people love living in a dream world.
Dec 22nd, 2006, 01:33 PM
#17
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And ira, too bad that home you visited didn't have nessundorma's phone number. She could have spotted the fakes from 15 feet, even behind glass, and probably with her eyes closed!! She will now probably claim that those people were foolish because anyone who appreciates art could easily have seen the mastery of the artist in the original and would have known instantly if they were fakes.
Dec 22nd, 2006, 01:55 PM
#18
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 23,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See "Parthenon Sculptures Face Removal" on the page linked here from New Yokr Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/22/ar...mp;oref=slogin
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/22/ar...mp;oref=slogin
Dec 24th, 2006, 08:52 AM
#19
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nessundorma,
I can't get your link to work, but it's OK. I'd forgotten about this thread but I hadn't forgotten it had already taken a nutty turn. It reminded me of those discussions with people who've never been in love and want "prove" it's nothng but hormones or delusions.
Ira and Neopatrick, I'm under the impression there is no persuading you that original painting has a life that copies don't, and that you are hostile to having your ideas contradicted. Museums are overcrowded anyway. Master forgeries or unauthenticated art in people's homes isn't really what I was talking about.
ekscrunchy,
Thanks for adding that precision. Did you read the section in the Times article about conservators being unable to repair Munch's "Scream"? Why hasn't it occured to these silly people to just make a copy? I'm glad the Parthenon statues are being protected.
I'll tell you a funny story: I was in Florence once and for a long time I was looking at the David in the piazza and thinking about the history of it being there. (It was supposed to be by the Duomo.) And while I was looking, this middleaged American man came up and said: "You need to know that's not by Michaelangelo. His statue is in the Accademia museum." I told him thanks, and when I kept on looking at it, he asked me, "Don't you know who Michaelangelo is?" I guess he didn't think it was worth anything to see the replica in the piazza.
I can't get your link to work, but it's OK. I'd forgotten about this thread but I hadn't forgotten it had already taken a nutty turn. It reminded me of those discussions with people who've never been in love and want "prove" it's nothng but hormones or delusions.
Ira and Neopatrick, I'm under the impression there is no persuading you that original painting has a life that copies don't, and that you are hostile to having your ideas contradicted. Museums are overcrowded anyway. Master forgeries or unauthenticated art in people's homes isn't really what I was talking about.
ekscrunchy,
Thanks for adding that precision. Did you read the section in the Times article about conservators being unable to repair Munch's "Scream"? Why hasn't it occured to these silly people to just make a copy? I'm glad the Parthenon statues are being protected.
I'll tell you a funny story: I was in Florence once and for a long time I was looking at the David in the piazza and thinking about the history of it being there. (It was supposed to be by the Duomo.) And while I was looking, this middleaged American man came up and said: "You need to know that's not by Michaelangelo. His statue is in the Accademia museum." I told him thanks, and when I kept on looking at it, he asked me, "Don't you know who Michaelangelo is?" I guess he didn't think it was worth anything to see the replica in the piazza.
