3 ms·
Whoever painted the work, the picture is clearly too ugly to bother including a decent photo of it in the article. No-one cares what it looks like, and everyone
by joosters 4y ago
Whoever painted the work, the picture is clearly too ugly to bother including a decent photo of it in the article. No-one cares what it looks like, and everyone cares about what name they can attach to it.
[edit: I might be too harsh, I'm reading through the archive.ph link and maybe that is dropping some of the images?]
- bretpiatt 4y agoHere's another source with better quality image, WSJ did fancy stuff putting it in the vault which doesn't give you a great look at the artwork itself. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/a-cabinetmaker-spent-30-years-trying-to-prove-a-painting-he-bought-at-an-antique-shop-is-a-raphael-a-i-may-have-just-done-it-for-him-2259018 https://news.artnet.com/art-world/a-cabinetmaker-spent-30-ye...
- ksherlock 4y agoThat's how it looks today but this: https://images.wsj.net/im-687788 https://images.wsj.net/im-687788 is how it looked 30 years ago. With this or Salvator Mundi, it seems like a Ship of Theseus to me.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jwilk 4y agoThe archived copy is indeed missing most of the images. Direct links to images from the original article: https://images.wsj.net/im-687788 https://images.wsj.net/im-687788 https://images.wsj.net/im-725753 https://images.wsj.net/im-725753 https://images.wsj.net/im-725755 https://images.wsj.net/im-725755 https://images.wsj.net/im-719540 https://images.wsj.net/im-719540 https://images.wsj.net/im-719542 https://images.wsj.net/im-719542 https://images.wsj.net/im-721673 https://images.wsj.net/im-721673 https://images.wsj.net/im-719532 https://images.wsj.net/im-719532 https://images.wsj.net/im-719537 https://images.wsj.net/im-719537 https://images.wsj.net/im-722308 https://images.wsj.net/im-722308