The article does not make it clear why they think the portrait depicts Shakespeare. I guess you have to watch the tv show for that information?
It talks about comparison to other portraits of Shakespeare, but as far as I know there are no depictions of Shakespeare confirmed to have been made in his lifetime.
Yeah that was my thought exactly. It certainly looks like a lot of other so-called depictions of Shakespeare, which are all based on images we know are not images of him but of other people.
a starting place to help in determining any and all of these sorts of paintings, would be a complete catelog of evererything in existence related including tools, note books,church records,genetic evidence,clothing,
all of it.
And have at it, a grand and worthy quest, and as has happened many times, the tinyest details can make or break a theory, and it is the fleshing out of those minutia that brings the past back to life, and that imediatecy is what facinates people
And to think of the lovely absurdity of this bloke, growing up, with the bard,himeself, looming
just there by the telly.,.
I've never been a fan of classic portraits of people, but by way of watching a lot of Baumgartner restoration videos it's become an interest.
A lot apparently goes into establishing the authenticity of portraits. As a conservator, he does a lot of work in the background that isn't always conveyed in the videos.
Sometimes the outcome of his restoration efforts is to communicate to the client that the painting is either a copy, or may have history but the subject isn't who they thought it was.
No actual comment on this particular story, but the little bit I've learned of the art community is that they put a huge amount of effort into confirming provenance. The history of the painting.
So if a lot of experts in the field are raising doubts, it's probably worth examining their statements.
Like archaeologists, most want to make a major find. It's career making. But that also requires being highly sceptical of new claims.
Oh, come on. “Priceless” is never not hyperbole. Everything has a price. But for an average person, 100 million pounds is an unimaginable amount of money. Any object worth that much is essentially priceless.
The Crown Jewels are genuinely priceless. Yes, “priceless” is common hyperbole, but the BBC claim to integrity and quality reporting just made me think that they might consider a more accurate title.
We’ve come so far in normalising casual mis-reporting that this argument even needs to be backed up.
Readit News
It talks about comparison to other portraits of Shakespeare, but as far as I know there are no depictions of Shakespeare confirmed to have been made in his lifetime.
> It is one of only two works of art definitively identifiable as a depiction of the poet
> ... commentators have used the Droeshout print as a standard by which to judge other portraits alleged to depict Shakespeare.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droeshout_portrait
Deleted Comment
A lot apparently goes into establishing the authenticity of portraits. As a conservator, he does a lot of work in the background that isn't always conveyed in the videos.
Sometimes the outcome of his restoration efforts is to communicate to the client that the painting is either a copy, or may have history but the subject isn't who they thought it was.
No actual comment on this particular story, but the little bit I've learned of the art community is that they put a huge amount of effort into confirming provenance. The history of the painting.
So if a lot of experts in the field are raising doubts, it's probably worth examining their statements.
Like archaeologists, most want to make a major find. It's career making. But that also requires being highly sceptical of new claims.
Other conservators are less than complimentary of him and he deleted the PVA video along with a bunch of others.
Deleted Comment
Later in article:
> if it were proven to be the prolific playwright, it could be worth "anywhere from £100m to £200m".
Well done BBC. I still remember when you were different.
The Crown Jewels are genuinely priceless. Yes, “priceless” is common hyperbole, but the BBC claim to integrity and quality reporting just made me think that they might consider a more accurate title.
We’ve come so far in normalising casual mis-reporting that this argument even needs to be backed up.