| |
| |
|
In the lecture, the lecturer asserts that the reading’s assertion is groundless. This casts doubt on the reading’s assertion that the Laocoon is not an authentic work but a forgery carried out by Michelangelo.
To begin with, the lecturer argues that Michelangelo did not forge to deceive G. Sangallo. Sangallo was actually close Michelangelo’s friend and he helped Michelangelo with a lot of projects. He also asked Michelangelo to identify the discovery of the Laocoon. Michelangelo did not want to trick his friend. This refutes the reading’s claim that Michelangelo forged to fool his friend.
Second, the speaker contends that the reason of resemblance between the Laocoon and the Last Judgment was not Michelangelo’s forgery. Michelangelo even said that the discovery of the Locoon had affected on his later works. Therefore the similarity of the two works can be explained. This is contradictory to the reading’s insistence that the forgery is supported by the Laocoon’s resemblance to The Last Judgment.
Lastly, the lecturer maintains that forgery was not common and accepted during Michelangelo’s period. Of course, replication of art works was very popular by many art buyers but they knew those works were not real, which was accepted practice. However, forgery was a fraud and the penalty of forgery was up to death in extreme cases. This contradicts the reading’s argument that forgery was a common and accepted artistic practice during the Renaissance.