Page 92 - The mystery of faith

Fig. 4a sculptures, which share similar dimensions however, may claim to be
Fig. 4b autograph works by Alonso Cano: one is the example preserved in the
San Isabel Convent of Marchena6 (Figs. 4a, b); the other is the present
work. Both of these sculptures retain the aforementioned
compositional elements described in the Cano Granada image and also
present a similar approach to modelling the mantle, just as in the
example in the cathedral. All possess the identical sense of peculiar
movement and soft, undulating, complex drapery forms, devoid of
hard folds, this latter trait being something that Mena, for instance,
later tended to simplify.

The elements that differentiate these latter two sculptures from the one
that in the past had been considered to be Cano’s sole work are the
faces, which appear marginally more stylized, whereas the head of
Mena’s 1658 Virgin reflects the direct influence of Cano’s Granada
Cathedral image in its realism. A comparison may be made with the
eyes, and in the way of delineating the drapery fringe with its
characteristic undulation and somewhat angular shape, as well as with
the hair parting at the sides. Yet in these two Inmaculadas the oval
shape of the face is accentuated, the eyebrows are narrower and the
eyes more ‘oriental’. These features are a far remove from those in
works by both Mena7 and Mora, and in fact closely resemble the more
refined and idealized aesthetics of Cano’s mature works, including the
Virgen del Belén (Granada Cathedral; Fig. 5) and the two versions of
San Antonio de Padua (Murcia, Church of San Nicolás; Granada,
Museo Gómez Moreno; Fig. 6).

The present Inmaculada possesses two distinguishing marks: the
singularity of having blue eyes (a typical characteristic almost
exclusively present in autograph works by Cano) and the distinctive
Seraphim in the clouds at the Virgin’s feet. These again possess the
outstretched wings that should be compared to those in the Virgen de
la Campana (Seville) that Cano carved in 1632. On account of the very
high artistic quality and formal and aesthetic aspects the writer does
not believe this sculpture to be either a workshop repetition or even by
a disciple, but, instead, to be a fully finished autograph work,
representative of the master’s own evolution in style, as his later works
can attest.

92