This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles
According to this news article [1], the Bosch Research and Conservation Project had concluded that the painting is not made by Hieronymus Bosch himself, but by a someone from his workshop. – Editør (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Modernist: I am going to undo most of your undoings. I will change the museum's opinion slightly, since there is a discrepancy between the site of the museum at this moment and what the director has said in the media (something like: "OK, but if it is not by Bosch than by a genious even greater than Bosch"). For political reasons the attribution will not change untill at least the forthcoming exhibition in Feb. 2016 and probably not even then. The painting has been rejected by Fischer in the recent large Taschen Verlag Bosch edition as well, but I need to go to a library for the proper reference. Koreny on the other hand has maintained the attribution to Bosch (in 'Die Zeichnungen', 2012), but he thinks half the other works attributed to Bosch are not by him (Pedlar+Miser+Ship of Fools, Rotterdam/Washington/Louvre; Anthony triptych, Lisbon; both Venice triptychs; Haywain, Prado), to put it in the right perspective. Please check the site of the Bosch Research and Conservation Project and especially its team (http://boschproject.org/team.html) before you call my changes speculative again. And let's discuss here how we can make the text accaptable to both of us.Bosch2016 (talk) 02:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did as promised. Please note that I changed "formerly attributed to" into "formerly generally attributed to", thus leaving an attribution to Bosch possible.Bosch2016 (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for the opinion of the museum: they have issued a press release stating 'Het MSK betreurt dat deze boodschap nu al wordt verspreid, zonder alle onderzoeksresultaten in rekening te kunnen brengen en ten gronde te bekijken. Het was waarschijnlijk ook nog niet de bedoeling van de onderzoekers om hun conclusies nu al publiek te maken'. [The MSK regrets that this message has come out already, before all research results have been taken into account and thoroughly studied. It was probably not yet the intention of the researchers to make their conclusions public already]. (See http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20151031_01948594). All results will be published in January, but this conclusion was already confirmed however on Dutch television by the leader of the research team on, after it was mentioned in a press release of the Noordbrabants Museum. I do not know if internet allows you to watch Dutch TV items, but if it does here it is: http://nos.nl/uitzending/9888-uitzending.html (from 9:30 onwards).Bosch2016 (talk) 04:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A new newspaper article (Trouw, 2 Nov., not on line) says "Het werk in Gent zou na de dood van Bosch zijn gemaakt" ("The work in Gent would have been made after the death of Bosch"). This seems to indicate that one finally succeeded to make a dendrochronological dating of the panel, since that is the only possible way to get a terminus postquem. Hope to know more after viewing the film at IDFA on 20 november. (https://www.idfa.nl/industry/tags/project.aspx?id=A16844DE-CD35-4A64-A71C-246589087711&tab=idfa). Bosch2016 (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A new article, inDutch newspaper NRC of 3/11 (http://www.nrc.nl/next/2015/11/02/1554470) specifically states: "Het museum zal wel de datering moeten veranderen in ca. 1530-1540. Dus na de dood van Bosch". (The Museum will have to change the date into ca. 1530-1540. So after the death of Bosch). So apparently there is indeed a dendrochronological dating now, but I haven't found it in so many words. I will have to wait till nov. 20. Bosch2016 (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seen the documentary. It does not go into any details about attributions. Only towards the end Koldeweij says something like this: “Seven Deadly Sins was described by De Guevara already in a somewhat ambiguous text as not by Bosch himself. Is it workshop or follower? A dendrochronological dating of Ghent was not possible (“lukt niet”). But all paintings related to it have been rejected as dating from the '30's. And yet this one has remained an icon of how a Bosch painting is supposed to look like.” Context and intonation brought some journalists to the conclusion that the BRCP rejected the Ghent painting, but strictly speaking the words of Koldeweij were not even sufficient for that conclusion, since they do not exclude a possible U-turn in a next sentence. However, apparently there was no U-turn, since the Noordbrabants Museum confirmed the rejection of the Carrying in a press release two days later. All in all there was a lot of fuss about absolutely nothing. Koldeweij simply repeated what was already said in the 2001 catalogue.Very old news and I think the present wiki text is in accordance with the present state of opinions.Bosch2016 (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
