The Italian art world is in a messy "is it or isn't it" debate over a wooden sculpture that may or may not have been made by Michelangelo.Standing just 40cm (16 inches) high, it depicts Christ on the Cross, but leading art experts simply cannot agree who made it.
This is not a tale about fakery or imitation - everyone says the statue is a Renaissance piece of art from around 1495, when Michelangelo would have been 20.
But who actually crafted it? That is the question.
The controversy has been rekindled because of a new exhibition in Naples to display the cross, which incidentally has itself disappeared somewhere in antiquity, leaving the figure of Christ these days hanging mid-air connected to a sheet of transparent plastic.
Dubious provenance
Amid the splendid grandeur of a former cathedral, the cross takes centre stage among a series of paintings, tapestries and other works, including a golden sculpture that is said to contain a splinter of the True Cross, upon which Jesus was said to be crucified.
And for critics, it is the association with religion that is part of the problem.
They say the government has endorsed the wooden cross as a work by Michelangelo to boost its standing with the Catholic Church, and to burnish its credentials with the electorate as a government of conservative beliefs.
In other words, say the doubters, the cross is being used for political, even propaganda, uses by a government intent on spending tax payers money to pursue dubious quasi-artistic ends.
In fact, the bill was just over $4m (£2.5m).
Those who believe it to be by Michelangelo say it is money well spent saving it for the nation.
Those who do not say the money has, at best, been squandered on a piece of dubious provenance.
They add that had it been a genuine Michelangelo it would have sold for 10 times the amount, so rarely do his works come to market.
'Anatomical accuracy'
So, let us examine the positions, if not the evidence, of both sides.
I say "not the evidence" because, frankly, there is none - there are no signatures on the statue nor documentation to support its authorship.
"Even major works of art rarely have supportive documents," said Cristina Acidini Luchinat, the superintendent of Florence's state museum and a renowned expert on Renaissance art.
Mrs Acidini has lent her support and considerable authority to the exhibition.
"These pieces don't come with a written guarantee," she said.
She told me she was impressed by the anatomical accuracy and portrayal of the human body found in the sculpture.
"It is of the highest quality, way above that of other artists at the time," she said.
I pressed Mrs Acidini about this and asked if she believed the work was by Michelangelo.
"You can attribute it to Michelangelo, certainly," she replied.
"Does 'attribute' mean you are sure it's by him?" I asked.
"I am as sure as I can possibly be," she said.
Others go further.
"To survive, a young artist would have had to do small works of this sort," says Giancarlo Gentilini, a Renaissance art expert.
"We can't only associate Michelangelo with masterpieces."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to us or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that we agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Source (BBC)
SV (ED)