DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.61668#0148
98 POLLAIUOLO
science, but we may seek in vain for the vanishing-point
of the room behind the Virgin, the perspective of which
is in defiance of all laws. The placing of the figures
well in the foreground is characteristic of Antonio’s
composition, and the unconventional and easy attitude
of the Archangel points to his design, but the awkward
pose and bad proportions of the Virgin, and the childish
drawing of her chair, prove that with this figure he had
nothing to do. In type, structure, and brushwork, the
Virgin is very characteristic of Piero at the date of the
Mercatanzia Virtues, with her long swollen body and
legs, her narrow shoulders, her puffy ill-modelled face
and her broad lifeless hands, so different to the bony
energetic hands of Antonio. The draperies are also
characteristic, with their badly arranged folds, which
seem inflated with air, ending in sharp hard lines on the
floor. It is a peculiarity of Piero’s female figures that
they seem at once meagre and swollen, and of his flesh-
painting that it is at the same time solid yet unreal.
The execution of the Archangel must also be by Piero.
Fine in attitude, even noble in gesture, it is robbed of
its dignity by the heavy bourgeois face, badly drawn and
modelled.
The background with its over-elaborated decoration
is made still more ponderous by the hot heavy colour, a
crude imitation of Antonio’s, but lacking his fusion and
harmony. The figures, placed against these coarsely-
coloured marbles, lose the importance their fine group-
ing and position against the depth of space might
otherwise have lent them. The beautiful landscape seen
science, but we may seek in vain for the vanishing-point
of the room behind the Virgin, the perspective of which
is in defiance of all laws. The placing of the figures
well in the foreground is characteristic of Antonio’s
composition, and the unconventional and easy attitude
of the Archangel points to his design, but the awkward
pose and bad proportions of the Virgin, and the childish
drawing of her chair, prove that with this figure he had
nothing to do. In type, structure, and brushwork, the
Virgin is very characteristic of Piero at the date of the
Mercatanzia Virtues, with her long swollen body and
legs, her narrow shoulders, her puffy ill-modelled face
and her broad lifeless hands, so different to the bony
energetic hands of Antonio. The draperies are also
characteristic, with their badly arranged folds, which
seem inflated with air, ending in sharp hard lines on the
floor. It is a peculiarity of Piero’s female figures that
they seem at once meagre and swollen, and of his flesh-
painting that it is at the same time solid yet unreal.
The execution of the Archangel must also be by Piero.
Fine in attitude, even noble in gesture, it is robbed of
its dignity by the heavy bourgeois face, badly drawn and
modelled.
The background with its over-elaborated decoration
is made still more ponderous by the hot heavy colour, a
crude imitation of Antonio’s, but lacking his fusion and
harmony. The figures, placed against these coarsely-
coloured marbles, lose the importance their fine group-
ing and position against the depth of space might
otherwise have lent them. The beautiful landscape seen