'It Has Nothing To Do With Michelangelo': Expert Wades In On Painting Newly Attributed To Renaissance Master The Art Newspaper International Art News And Events

(MENAFN- USA Art News) A Disputed Michelangelo Attribution Puts Monograms, Documentation, and Art-Historical Logic on Trial

A set of small marks on a painted surface - monograms and what may be the partial numbers“1-5-4” - has become the fulcrum of a new claim about one of the most scrutinized names in Western art: Michelangelo.

Belgian art historian Michel Draguet, a member of the Royal Academy of Sciences, Letters and Fine Arts of Belgium and a professor at the Université Libre de Bruxelles, has proposed that a painting depicting Christ supported by the Virgin Mary should be attributed to Michelangelo. Draguet's argument, as he has presented it, begins with the monograms themselves. He maintains that they were made contemporaneously with the painting, rather than added later, and that they align with monogram signatures associated with the artist in standard reference literature, including Emmanuel Bénézit's Dictionnaire critique et documentaire des peintres, sculpteurs, dessinateurs & graveurs (1924).

The numbers that appear beside one of the monograms - read by Draguet as“1-5-4” - are treated as potentially significant, too. If they represent an incomplete date, they could be intended to anchor the work in time, though the fragmentary nature of the figures leaves room for interpretation.

Beyond the surface marks, Draguet points to stylistic evidence. He cites reddish highlights that trace the edges of forms and brushwork that moves in multiple directions across both flesh and fabric. In his view, these painterly decisions indicate a master's hand rather than a later follower.

He also emphasizes the composition: Christ's body, supported by the Virgin Mary, is arranged in a sculptural pose with outstretched arms. Draguet argues that this configuration became a widely repeated invention of the Cinquecento, and that the painting in question can now be positioned as the originating work - and therefore as Michelangelo's.

Not everyone is persuaded. Art historian David Ekserdjian has challenged the attribution on grounds that go beyond the close reading of brushwork and monograms. For Ekserdjian, the central problem is the premise itself: Michelangelo, he argues, was“incredibly famous for not liking to paint.” While Michelangelo's early paintings are acknowledged, and his major fresco cycles are indisputable - the Sistine Chapel ceiling and the two frescoes in the Cappella Paolina in the Vatican Palace - Ekserdjian contends that the artist's painted output is limited and unusually well known.

Ekserdjian also disputes the logic of the monograms. Michelangelo, he notes, was“not a signer” and was“legendary for not signing in a monogram.” He points to the best-known exception: the sculpted“Pietà” in Saint Peter's Basilica in the Vatican, which Giorgio Vasari recounts Michelangelo inscribed after overhearing visitors credit the work to Cristoforo Solari, known as“il Gobbo.” The inscription, as Vasari records it, reads:“Michelangelo Buonarroti, Florentine, made this.”

A further obstacle, Ekserdjian argues, is the density of documentation surrounding Michelangelo's life and work. He cites the early biographies by Vasari (first published in 1550 and expanded in 1568) and by Ascanio Condivi (1553), suggesting that a painting of this kind - especially one proposed as the source for a heavily copied composition - would likely have left some trace in the historical record. While Ekserdjian acknowledges the risks of“arguing from silence,” he maintains that Michelangelo is“epically and fully documented,” making the absence of evidence harder to dismiss.

Draguet, however, has framed his proposal as an invitation rather than a verdict. He has said he is open to being disproven and has called for transparency and“a real public debate,” pointing to recent high-profile re-attribution controversies, including Leonardo da Vinci's“Salvator Mundi” and Caravaggio works that have surfaced in Spain.

The dispute lands in a familiar landscape. Claims of newly identified Michelangelos recur with some regularity, and Ekserdjian says he receives three to four inquiries a week from private collectors convinced they have found something major. On rare occasions, he notes, they have. In this case, he has dismissed the claim as“a non-event.”

For now, the painting's authorship remains contested - a reminder that in the art world, the smallest marks can trigger the largest arguments, and that the burden of proof rises sharply when the name at stake is Michelangelo's.

MENAFN12032026005694012507ID1110851953