|
|
|
|
|
|
by hej
5174 days ago
|
|
|
That seems very clear from the article. She looked at it because the Louvre asked her whether that painting had ever been looked at in depth before. It seems that she didn't start out with any hypothesis about the history of this painting (other than what is probably the default assumption and what the painting was cataloged as, that it’s a 500 year old anonymous copy). |
|
|