The Lute Player with Three Versions
A museum is offered a 112 x 86 cm oil painting of a young man tuning a lute. The reverse bears an old inscription, 'Caravaggio'. The composition exists in three versions: one in a public gallery with secure provenance, one in a private collection, and this one. X-radiography shows a monogram under the ground layer; infrared reflectography reveals extensive changes to the hand and lute, consistent with workshop practice. Pigment analysis finds lead-tin yellow and a copper green; the canvas has a 17th-century Italian stamp. The museum must decide whether to hang the work as 'Caravaggio', 'Follower of Caravaggio' or 'Workshop of Caravaggio'. A donor offers EUR 250,000 for acquisition only if it is labelled 'Caravaggio'. The director asks for a reasoned recommendation before the next acquisitions meeting.
1. Evaluate the evidence and recommend an attribution label. Explain the difference between autograph, workshop and follower.
Read the worked answer
Recommend 'Workshop of Caravaggio'. The old inscription is not provenance; it records a later owner's belief. The 17th-century canvas stamp gives a date range, not authorship. Infrared changes to hand and lute are consistent with a workshop repeating a design, but they do not prove autograph work; a master also makes changes. Three versions, with one securely provenanced public picture, suggest a replicated composition. The monogram under the ground is ambiguous until compared with documented workshop marks.
Apply the hierarchy: autograph requires secure provenance plus technical and stylistic consensus; 'follower' implies a later or independent artist; 'workshop' implies production within the master's studio under his design. The present evidence supports workshop, not autograph. Hang it as 'Workshop of Caravaggio' with a text explaining the evidence and the replication. If further research supports autograph, relabel; do not start at the strongest claim. The label should also note 'formerly inscribed Caravaggio'.
2. How should the museum handle the donor's condition that the painting be labelled 'Caravaggio'?
Read the worked answer
Refuse the conditional gift, or accept only on scholarly terms. A donation that buys an attribution is a conflict of interest and would mislead the public. The museum's ethics code and the donor's own long-term reputation argue for a truthful label. Offer alternatives: the donor may fund conservation, research or the display, with a credit line; the museum can record the donor's attribution in the catalogue as a quoted opinion. If the donor withdraws, that is preferable to a false label. Put the decision in writing to the director and board, with the technical evidence attached. If the acquisition is strategically important, seek a compromise: label 'Workshop of Caravaggio, formerly attributed to the master' and a donor plaque. That preserves the gift relationship without making the label a paid advertisement.