From The New Yorker, an article about the Met’s acquisition of this painting

It’s their most expensive acquisition ever – 50 million dollars, a Duccio. Apparently the piece is highly regarded because of its place as a sign of transition:

“It’s part of the whole revolution in expression that takes place in the late thirteenth century and early fourteenth century—the revolution which of course has as its real figurehead neither Duccio nor Giotto but Dante. Dante is an absolute contemporary of Giotto, and a near-contemporary of Duccio, he’s writing at exactly the same time, and he even made a scene with Giotto and Cimabue in ‘The Divine Comedy.’ The fact that Dante chose to write in the vernacular, in Italian rather than Latin, is one of the turning points of the West. And this is precisely what these artists were about as well—finding a vernacular as opposed to an intentionally élitist, anti-popular form of painting. This is the real thing; painting is no longer an illustration but something that attempts to evoke a human response from the viewer.”

The aspect of the work that evokes that intepretation is the gesture of the Child – reaching up to move the veil from the Virgin’s face.

It’s an interesting article, and I was especially fascinated by the curators’ fascination with , enthusiasm for and determination to acquire the piece, and their sense of its importance. Which of course, has nothing to do with the subject of the painting, but with its place in art history. I don’t deny its importance – I believe them. But I found the experience of reading an article on the love of a painting borne of religious faith with no reference to the subject as anything but a vehicle for stylistic innovation unsurprising, but thought-provoking.