Michelangelo

The lecturer argues that Michelangelo was not forge the ‘Laocoon’. This contradicts

the reading passage’s claim that the ‘Laocoon’ is a forgery carried out by Michelangelo.

First of all, the lecturer claims that Michelangelo was not deceive Sangallo. This is

because Michelangelo and Sangallo were in close relationship. Additionally, Sangallo

assisted a lot of Michelangelo’s projects, even invited him to identify the ‘Laocoon’ when it

just had discovered. This cast doubt on the reading passage’s thought that Michelangelo

might have forge the ‘Laocoon’ to fool Sangallo.

Second, the speaker points out that resemblance between the ‘Laocoon’ and ‘The

Last Judgment’ is because Michelangelo was influenced by the ‘Laocoon’. This is supported

by the fact that ‘The Last Judgment’ was created years after the ‘Laocoon’ was found.

Moreover, he said that the ‘Laocoon’ had profound influence in his later artworks. This goes

against the writer’s point that the similarity between two artworks support the forger theory.

Finally, speaker asserts that forgery was not common practice, but serious offend

during the Renaissance. The reason is that forgery is different with replication. Forgery is

fraud to trick people, and who did it would have severe punishment, such as taking over the

art or perform death penalty in the worst case. This counter author’s idea that forgery was

acceptable in Michelangelo’s time.