TO DECIDE whether a drawing was done by Ticpolo or a member of his atelier is like trying to decide whether a ??? was done by Andy Warhol? or a member of his company, Andy Film. Inc. But this "who done it" is the ??? question that the Fogg Art Museum has tried to answer in its current exhibition of Gi?mbattista Ti?polo and his ???.

Agnes M?ng??. Director of the Fogg, with the help of ??? and a Ti??? authority. George Knox, have ??? ?? ??? catalogue of this 18th century workshop th?t affirm? the excellence of the Fogg ??? teaching museum.

The Fogg's statement in this show is concerned with ?? ??? of this I??? baroque (or some might call ??? ???) m?ster-his own works of art and his ??? on others. Knox hoped that through this exhibit, ? "cl??r?r d??inition of the development of Giam??? ??? a draftsman" could be formed, and that the "relationship of Gi?mbattista and his assistants" could be ???. The foundation for the Museum's very schol??? demonstration of these points is formed by Knox's definitive system of cataloguing (the medium. prove??? ???. exhibitions, and description of each work), ?? ??? by his previous expertise in Tiepolo ??? and in the father-son ???.

The exhibit not only illustrates Tiepolo's individual ??? ??? also comments on his skill in expressing this ???. The hands pictured in the earliest work in the exhibition. "The Annunciation." expose Giambattista's im??? ??? at the age of 22:the Virgin clasps ??? fingers in prayer. But the hands in the late dr??? ??? "A Drunken Ponchinello" illustrates the ??? technique of Tiepolo: the hands so real that sweat ??? ?? ??? in the ???'s ???. If the exhibit had con??? more numerous early works, the contrast would be m??? ???: a subst?n?? number have not been ??? as yet.

His earlier works usually reveal a much tighter and more de??? representation of his religious world than his ??? drawings do (as shown in contrasting ?6 and ???). Yet the consistency throughout his career is in subject ???-almost always the religious.

In the second "Annunciation" (?9) of the exhibit, G??? introduces a handling of his materials that r??? in later works and develops into his characteristic, innovative style. Here the wash has been applied in blocks of uniform values: there is no modeling in the area of wash itself. The b??nk paper plays the important role of light which creates the ethereal atmosphere of the heavens.

TIEPOLO emphasized the celestial setting by drawing figures sotto or placing them on a physical level above the view??. "Flying Angels," drawn from an underneath perspective, incorporates the confidence of the baroque artist-the bo?dness in line, a shift of the object off center, movement the feeling of depth as the angel recedes into the sky. Many of these drawings with unusual perspectives were sketches for his famed ceilings. In such a series of sketches for the Palazzo Trento (=72-?6). Tiepolo communicates the vitality and spontaneity attributed to him.

Although showing Tiepolo's stylistic development from the timid "Moses" to the virile "Head of a Bearded Man," the exhibition stresses its second point: primarily Tiepolo's influence on his two sons. Domenico and Lorenzo, and his differentiation between other artists of this atelier. Giovanni Raggis works are much more subdued than Tiepolo's works: Raggi's less effective style of wash makes one appreciate Tiepolo. Raggi's "Virgin" (=25) clearly evolves from specific Tiepolo drawings such as =12, Tiepolo's influence on Francesco Lorenzi is also prevalent. The chalk drawings of these two artists were sometimes indistinguishable.

The viewer can not help but see the exhibition's statement as Knox and the Fogg staff intended, for they have provided the visual evidence to support their premises. Unfortunately the show's emphasis on Tiepolo's stylistic virtuosity and influence sacrifices the use of many master-pieces that would only be repetitious to the exhibit's assertions. Some of the Fogg's most interesting Tiepolos are in a supplementary exhibit on the drawing balcony of the museum (for instance the historiated initials and a portrait of Lorenzo Tiepolo).

This lack of emphasis on his masterpieces leaves insufficient evidence to answer the question: how great was Tiepolo? Is it his innovative style with pen and wash that makes him important? Is it his ethereal atmospheres or his vision of a grand and an heroic world that makes him significant? How unique is the viewer's alienation from Tiepolo's religious theatres? To answer these questions, one must consider Tiepolo's other works-his ceilings in Italy.

Indeed the Fogg has made a scholarly contribution to art history-recreating the draftsmanship and the atelier of Giambattista-but by contrasting the works of Degas with Tiepolo the Fogg could have contemporized the exhibit: Tiepolo's aloof world of the religious could have been viewed in comparison to Degas' off-stage world of the dancer. Degas' attempt to take the viewer backstage, to remove the dancer from her idealized position, would complement Tiepolo's pedestal art. A single color cannot evoke the vibrations that two juxtaposed complementary colors do.