Mario Schifano was a volcanic talent, endowed with exceptional creativity and speed of execution. He was extraordinarily productive, but also among the most falsified Italian artists of the second half of the twentieth century. This case-study examines an iconography introduced by Mario Schifano in the “Revisited Futurism” cycle (1965-1966), that was based on a photograph immortalising the group of futurist painters in Paris in 1912. Through the analysis of two fake specimens, we propose a reflection on the methodology to be adopted with the tools available to the contemporary art historian in order to shed light on the catalogue of works by an artist who is still not adequately investigated. The example of Mario Schifano’s paintings – both authentic and counterfeit – is made particularly complex by the difficulty in accessing the works, by the artist’s use of numerous assistants and collaborators, by his adoption of diversified linguistic conventions and, last but not least, the ease of the “technical reproducibility” of some works which – as in the case for the “Revisited Futurism” series – were executed with the aid of mechanical methods such as that of normographic masks or tracings on the canvas.
Talento vulcanico, dotato di straordinaria ricchezza creativa e velocità esecutiva, Mario Schifano è stato un artista molto produttivo ma anche tra i più falsificati dell’arte italiana del secondo Novecento. Il caso di studio prende in esame un’iconografia introdotta da Mario Schifano nel ciclo “Futurismo rivisitato” (1965-1966) e desunta da una fotografia che immortalava il gruppo dei pittori futuristi a Parigi nel 1912. Attraverso l’analisi di due esemplari falsi, si propone una riflessione metodologica sugli strumenti a disposizione dello Storico dell’arte contemporanea per fare chiarezza nel catalogo delle opere di un artista ancora non adeguatamente indagato. Il confronto con la pittura di Mario Schifano (e con i suoi esemplari falsi) è reso particolarmente complesso dalla difficile accessibilità alle opere, dal ricorso dell’artista a numerosi assistenti e collaboratori, dall’utilizzo di convenzioni linguistiche diversificate e, non ultima, dalla facile “riproducibilità tecnica” di alcune opere che, come per la serie “Futurismo rivisitato”, sono state eseguite attraverso modalità meccaniche quali l’uso di maschere normografiche o il ricalco sulla tela.
Futurismi “rivisitati”? No, falsi! Il caso di Mario Schifano
Elisa Francesconi
2020-01-01
Abstract
Mario Schifano was a volcanic talent, endowed with exceptional creativity and speed of execution. He was extraordinarily productive, but also among the most falsified Italian artists of the second half of the twentieth century. This case-study examines an iconography introduced by Mario Schifano in the “Revisited Futurism” cycle (1965-1966), that was based on a photograph immortalising the group of futurist painters in Paris in 1912. Through the analysis of two fake specimens, we propose a reflection on the methodology to be adopted with the tools available to the contemporary art historian in order to shed light on the catalogue of works by an artist who is still not adequately investigated. The example of Mario Schifano’s paintings – both authentic and counterfeit – is made particularly complex by the difficulty in accessing the works, by the artist’s use of numerous assistants and collaborators, by his adoption of diversified linguistic conventions and, last but not least, the ease of the “technical reproducibility” of some works which – as in the case for the “Revisited Futurism” series – were executed with the aid of mechanical methods such as that of normographic masks or tracings on the canvas.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.