The Drawing with Two Curators
A museum owns a 210 x 150 mm pen-and-brown-ink study of a kneeling man, laid down on an 18th-century mount. An old inscription in graphite reads 'Tiziano'. The figure resembles a shepherd in a Titian altarpiece, but the hatching is coarse and the left hand has a pentimento. A watermark fragment is consistent with Venetian paper of the 1550s but also with later paper from similar moulds. The drawing has never been in a catalogue raisonne. One curator argues it is a workshop study; another argues it is a later copy after a lost drawing. The donor's family, who promised a further gift, believes it is autograph Titian. Insurance for the touring exhibition would rise by EUR 300,000 if the label says 'Titian'. The catalogue goes to press in four weeks and the technical lab has a six-week backlog.
1. Recommend attribution language and explain the reasoning that belongs in the catalogue entry.
Read the worked answer
Recommendation. The label should not say 'Titian' on the basis of an 18th-century inscription and a resemblance. Inscriptions are reception history, not authorship. The laid-down mount hides the verso, the watermark gives a terminus post quem rather than a hand, and a pentimento can occur in copies as well as originals. The coarse hatching may indicate a workshop assistant or a later draughtsman; without a secure corpus, 'Workshop of Titian' or 'Circle of Titian' is more defensible than 'Titian'. The catalogue entry should present the competing hypotheses, the comparative drawings, and the condition, and state what would decide the question. Insurance and donor expectations must not drive the attribution; the museum's duty is to describe the object as evidence allows. If the work is included in a touring show, label it with the cautious attribution and explain the uncertainty in the wall text. A lower insurance figure is a consequence, not a reason.
2. How should the museum handle the donor family, given the promised further gift and the financial stakes?
Read the worked answer
Donor handling. Meet the family before the catalogue goes to press, explain the evidence in plain language, and separate their generous intention from market value. Acknowledge that the promised gift is valued, but say that an autograph label cannot be used to secure it. Offer a condition assessment and a technical study plan, and invite them to fund it; that gives them a constructive role. Record the conversation and confirm the outcome in writing. If they withdraw the promised gift, accept that; the museum cannot trade scholarly accuracy for future acquisitions. If they proceed, include their family's history in the interpretation where relevant, but not as proof of authorship. The ethical duty is transparency: the family should not learn from the catalogue that the attribution has changed, and they should understand that the museum's caution protects the collection's credibility as well as their gift.
3. Identify what technical evidence would change your judgement and assess how quickly it could be obtained.
Read the worked answer
Evidence. Reflectography or infrared imaging could reveal underdrawing; if it matches Titian's known graphic structures, the case for the workshop or autograph strengthens. Paper analysis such as beta radiography or watermark imaging could localise the sheet and date it more tightly, but not attribute the hand. XRF or Raman of the ink might distinguish a later iron-gall ink from a 16th-century one, though ink recipes overlap. If the mount can be safely lifted, the verso might show a collector's mark or a sketch, which would be decisive. None of these is guaranteed within four weeks, and lifting the mount carries risk. The judgement should therefore be provisional and state the test that would change it. This is preferable to a confident label that the next technical study would overturn, because the catalogue's credibility depends on showing the reasoning behind the attribution.