« Glass Magic Made Venetian Painting Shine | Main | Giorgio Vasari Online »



I always thought that photo of the Campanile falling was too good to be true- what are the chances someone of that era had a camera all set to photograph it at that tragic moment?

But since it's fake, how can we tell? Who put that picture together? Any info?

Also, I'm surprised the brick from the Campanile wouldn't have been used to build other buildings or churches in the city or on the islands.. like other European ruins often were.

Let me investigate the picture more. Many many people have told me it's a massively retouched photo (including Venetians). I'm a photographer, and I see some rather obvious signs too. I'm digging up a copy to post.

The campanile, however, DID give massive warning before it collapsed, in the form of obvious shifting and crumbling. Everyone was petrified it was going to whack the Basilica (it fell a few feet short). The only casualty, as I recall, was a cat the bellkeeper had. So there was time to set up a camera, and apparently crowds assembled. But catching the collapse in action is another matter. Stopping motion that fast in 1902 was an impossibility, I believe, though I'll look into it.

Also, regarding the story about finding the ruins in the Adriatic: no further word of it in the Gazzettino. The article mentioned a name, Andrea Falconi, as the discoverer of the ruins. I checked it out. He lives on the Lido, and is a member of a family of divers/submariners who investigate submerged areas of archeological interest. Sounds like a story that leads to a thousand other stories (as is always the case in Venice!)


The comments to this entry are closed.