Art, brands and eye of the beholder
A detail from "Philip IV'' by Diego Velazquez Credit: Metropolitan Museum of Art
If the Taj Mahal had been built by slave laborers, would it be as beautiful? Does it matter, in other words, who created a work of art?
We might like to think it shouldn't, but of course it does - which is why it was such big news that a nearly 400-year-old painting in the Metropolitan Museum of Art actually was by Velazquez.
The life-sized painting, of a young King Philip IV, had been attributed to the 17th century Spanish master for decades. Then, in 1973, the Met decided that it was was not by the master himself but rather from his studio, perhaps by one of his minions.
The latest flip-flop on the painting - that it was by Velazquez after all - is partly the result of technological advances. Using X-rays and other sleuthing techniques, conservators were able to zero in on the original image obscured beneath years of repainting and varnish.
The result is a somewhat different painting - and one no doubt quite a bit more valuable, since there are only around 110 known paintings by Velazquez. The change is also of great interest to art historians.
Yet the name on the placard shouldn't have much to do with the aesthetic experience for viewers - just as controversy over the authorship of Shakespeare's plays needn't diminish our pleasure in them. As someone or other once said, "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." hN
