MICROSTORY OF ART ONLINE JOURNAL FOR ART, CONNOISSEURSHIP AND CULTURAL JOURNALISM A Titian Questionnaire

(28.3.2023) The case of the alleged Titian in the Kunsthaus Zürich is remarkable. Is it a farce? Probably, yes. A remarkable farce (which Gottfried Keller would have turned into a satire). A painting that, in 2019, had been presented as a work by Titian to the general public, got questioned, already in 2019 by a Zurich based art dealer/art historian (Karim Khan) and a journalist (Christoph Heim; see reference below). Now, in 2023, the museum has to face, since a second version of the work has shown up (which was bought by the museum), the possibility that the alleged Titian might be, in fact, only a copy after this work, of which it is not even known if it belongs to the 16th century. From the point of view of the art establishment it probably could not come worse (if this will become true, which it probably will). But the case is telling, symptomatic, and below we gather some observations on its structures, observations and notes which we assemble, as usual, in terms of a questionnaire, which might serve also as a tool, because many structures reappear in other, equally embarrassing cases.

(Picture: kunsthaus.com)

1) The Limiting of Hypotheses

It is obvious that a coalition of interests (of those people who wanted the work in question to be a work by Titian; one has to think of the art market, but also of the museum) in the past managed to limit the number of hypotheses to just one, the Titian hypothesis, which got also turned into an alleged fact. If one does look into the details of the case, it is however becoming obvious that there had been actually quite a number of hypotheses: one had thought of Giorgione (and the classic opposition of Giorgione and Titian in the history of connoisseurship comes to mind); one had thought of the ›circle of Giorgione‹, and one does wonder already here, on what basis today experts might be able to solve the secular problems that experts of the past had not been able to solve convincingly, and on what basis artificial intelligence might be able to contribute something meaningful, if there is nothing reliable from which the artificial intelligence can actually learn. Because there is neither a consensus on anything, nor is there really a reliable Giorgione oeuvre catalogue anywhere near in sight.
But the range of hypotheses, due to influence, power, authority, willful blindness, naiveté etc., got successfully limited to just one, in terms of the question if the Evening Landscape with a Pair of Figures it a Titian or not, and it is telling that even journalist Christoph Heim, who yet assembles the other hypotheses, seems to be inclined to focus on Titian almost exclusively. Instead of asking: by whom might this painting be, and where are the Giorgione specialists (if there are any), or the ›circle of Giorgione‹ people (if there are any)? It seems that Titian (or Venetian painting) had been successful in monopolizing the athmosphere of evening (with the stripe of evening reds or oranges, above the horizon), because it seems to be a reflex, especially if mysterious figures appear in such atmospheres, to think of the masters of Venetian painting (or their followers). But to the range of hypotheses the ›circle of Poussin‹ has now been added, and the range of hypotheses is as wide as it could be.

2) The Question for the Other, the Real Experts

Journalist Christoph Heim, in his 2019 article, had pointed to the fact that the attribution had not been based on expertises by the luminaries of Titian scholarship. A silent assumption might be that these luminaries, the real experts (and not the art historian on whose ›writings‹, or on which ›report‹ the Titian hypothesis was mainly based), that these luminaries could know better or would know better. But, judging from many other cases, this might also be called just an assumption. Because one also has to raise the question of why a Titian luminary should be, by definition, also an expert for questions of attribution. Usually such experts do mainly other things, and if, once in a lifetime, a new find comes up, such experts are not necessarily prepared to avoid the dangers, the fallacies that, in the field of attribution, do exist (often is just the luminaries who become victims of such fallacies, because these luminaries are inclined, very often, to want something to be true). And it seems that also the expert, the English professor, who had been asked, did not avoid these fallacies. It might become true that the work in question is not even a work of the 16th century. And the art establishment has now, in face of a possible disaster and as it was to be expected, turned to the experts of technical art history, and one does wonder, why on earth, this has not happened before. But the truth is: it had happened before.

3) The Field Opening Wide

In truth and as the Jahresbericht of 2019 of the Kunsthaus Zürich makes clear: technical investigations had been conducted in 2018 in London. And one has to raise the question: are these investigations to be regarded as being unreliable? Superficial? Questionable? Did one fail to determine the date of a work on paper (it is painted in oil on paper). And if yes, why so and how so?
At any rate: the field of hypotheses, if the circle of Poussin has become a reasonable possibility, has widened. And actually one would not only have to ask for the Titian experts now, but for art historians able to discern a 16th painting from a 17th century painting. Lack of reliable dating, it is actually the art establishment, with experts for all periods, that might be seen as being responsible for contributing something meaningful as to the authorship of this painting, but it seems that only few people, primarily a Zurich based dealer and a journalist, have shown to be really dedicated to raise the problem and now to solve the problem being raised (even if the problem is perhaps not, as the aforementioned article of 2019 is suggesting, that the ›Titian‹ could be a fake – it might, in fact, just not be by Titian, and still be an old, authentic painting by another painter of evening landscapes).

4) Not One Wrong Attribution, but Many Unrecognized Painters

As Max J. Friedländer, long ago, has pointed out: a wrong attribution actually does mean that two mistakes have been made at the same time, because two authors have not been recognised. Here, possibly, Titian has not been recognized as not being the author of the painting in question, and the actual, real author of that painting who has not been recognized or been identified as the author. As long as this painting on paper is not convincingly dated, the art establishment probably will remain silent as to possible authorship, due to the risk of suggesting and supporting another hypothesis that also might turn out to be wrong. But the question is now, in 2023, not only a Titian problem. The question ›Titian or not?‹ does reflect, as we have seen, already a narrowed and simplified view (no one is usually interested in the ›or not‹ part), and this view has now been opened due to individuals challenging the alleged truth. One would need now probably someone able to find a drawing of the two figures, a drawing that might convincingly been attributed to a name. And it might show here that the problem is perhaps not actually recognizing something (as the work of someone), but identifying something as something (that can be associated with something else, which already is identified), after which this something might be seen, as a consequence, as a work by someone. Hence it is perhaps not a problem of seeing, but rather of investigating and combining, and seeing will be perhaps a result of insight, and not be at the origin of insight. Surprises are to be expected. It will not be able to cover something up. The art establishment is alerted, and it seems to be the hour of technical art history now. One day a modern-day Gottfried Keller will turn this farce into a work of literature.

Reference:
Christoph Heim, Verdacht: Im Kunsthaus Zürich hängt ein falscher Tizian, in: Tages-Anzeiger (13 July, 2019)

MICROSTORY OF ART
ONLINE JOURNAL FOR ART, CONNOISSEURSHIP AND CULTURAL JOURNALISM
HOME

Top of the page

Microstory of Art Main Index

Dietrich Seybold Homepage

© DS