This report bugged me, for a few reasons. First, it contains this generalization and conclusion that left me wanting a second opinion (or a reference to a letter or something from the artist that backs up that last line):
“Women at this time were not considered capable of artistic production. They weren’t [considered] capable of great works. The fact that Michelangelo the Younger wants her to produce that specific value is really important, because he’s actually saying, ‘Yes, women can produce art. They do have the drive to produce art,’” Falcone said.
“And that’s why she wanted to be connected to the painting.”
Second, there are as many references to the person who commissioned the work as there are to the artist, because of the connection to Michelangelo. Third, the coordinator of this project throws in another barb about the artist’s education in this article, which is a better take on the story, IMO:
On the subject of illiteracy, here’s something that refutes that:
