SteveM wrote:
Yes it does look like a Breughel or Bosch - and even if it turns out that the magician (in Carpi's landscape) is not wearing poulaines with patten, would we not still think, if it was anonymous and we did not know otherwise, that it was Flemish or Dutch? If the magician is wearing poulaines and patten then applying current criteria would we not be declaring confidently that it cannot possibly be Italian?
I'm not declaring confidently that it cannot possibly be Italian - I just see no reason to think that it
is to begin with.
I think all the little details add up to "not Italian", but "cannot possibly be" is pretty strong. I don't know that Carpi's magician's footwear, in a fantasy painting of 1525, can prove anything about an engraving that Dummett assigned to Milan in 1500.
It is true that my initial impression of the Carpi was Flemish, but I would have quickly changed that in view of the architecture - which is southern French and Provençal or northern Italian - and the coastline. It is also clearly a fantasy painting, not an actual landscape - it is certainly nothing that really exists in or around Ferrara, Bologna or Rome.
If we want to keep it in Milan, we have to find a likely engraver, not a painter (sure it can be both, but then we have to find one who was both, like Mantegna was). Given all the inconguities with Italian style, it seems to me that fighting for Italian provenance is grasping at straws.
To me, the real excitement is the growing certainty that it is much earlier than 1500.