Allgemeines
Architekturarchive
Archivbau
Archivbibliotheken
Archive in der Zukunft
Archive von unten
Archivgeschichte
Archivpaedagogik
Archivrecht
Archivsoftware
Ausbildungsfragen
Bestandserhaltung
Bewertung
Bibliothekswesen
Bildquellen
Datenschutz
... weitere
Profil
Abmelden
Weblog abonnieren
null

 
Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 67, No. 4 (Winter 2014), pp. 1337-1340
//www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/679809 (toll access)

Excerpts:

"Most revealing is Bredekamp’s contribution: his refusal to recognize his own methodological failure is not only saddening, but also counterproductive. To put it bluntly, as has been done in the German press: if one of the world’s foremost art historians is incapable of seeing the difference between a 1610 drawing by Galileo and a 2005 forgery, what does that say about art history (or art historians)? [...]

Are we, then, at a methodological impasse, where forgeries are unidentifiable?

The answer is a definite no. As the volume shows, what matters is the right approach. Nicholas Pickwoad, a new addition to the group, shows in his illuminating and characteristically brilliant chapter on the book’s structure that this analysis alone would have been sufficient to cast deep doubt on SNML’s authenticity. We now have a clear methodological directive: analyze bindings first, as this is where mistakes are most visible to the trained eye. It’s a short-term solution, though, that will disappear once the knowledge gap between binders and Pickwoad diminishes."

See also
//archiv.twoday.net/search?q=galileo
 

twoday.net AGB

xml version of this page

powered by Antville powered by Helma