Real or Fake #17

Saturday, 1 February 2025. Newsletter 17.

Can we fool you? The term “fake” may be slightly sensationalist when it comes to old drawings. Copying originals and prints has formed a key part of an artist’s education since the Renaissance and with the passing of time the distinction between the two can be innocently mistaken.

Most artists gave up the practice of copying once they had attained their maturity, except in the cases where copy drawings were needed for a specific purpose, as in the production of prints or illustrated books. This month’s example is an exception to that rule, in that it is a characteristic copy which dates to the maturity of a well-established artist’s career. But which is which, and what might the differences in composition indicate?

Scroll for more information.

The original, of course, is the left-hand image.

Upper image: Giacinto Calandrucci (1646-1707), Assumption of the Virgin, Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, 1922.701

Lower image: Charles-Joseph Natoire (1700-1777) after Giacinto Calandrucci, Assumption of the Virgin, Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, 1976.344

Natoire’s copy and others of its kind are most likely related to the artist’s pedagogical responsibilities. In 1751 Natoire was appointed director of the French Academy in Rome, and all but ceased painting to focus on the responsibilities of the Academy, ceding courtly favour to Carle Van Loo, and François Boucher.

Natoire's drawing is not a precise transcription of the Calandrucci’s drawing, and it varies significantly in the poses of the standing figure, the Virgin, and the angels. Neither does Natoire’s drawing correspond exactly with Calandrucci’s fresco in S. Maria dell'Orto in Rome, suggesting that Natoire may have had a variant drawing at hand, or may simply have been exercising his artistic independence.

For further reading, see Perrin Stein, ‘Copies and Retouched Drawings by Charles-Joseph Natoire’, Master Drawings, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 167-286.