Search
-
A4.2.2 - A4.2.6
... 26...
... nse Molenaer (c. 1609/10-1668), as Slive had concluded earlier.1The present frontal view of a child in Detroit is close to the Laughing boy in the Mauritshuis (A3.4) in terms of the head turn and facial expression. Yet, it was executed independently after a template, which is especially noticeable in the zone around the eyes and nose. The composition is preserved in three further variants on panel of identical size, one of them a roundel. The face corresponds in all versions, whereas the dress varies....
... ish National Gallery, inv.no. S 110...
... n with a cat, signed by Judith Leyster (1609-1660) (A4.2.10). The close relationship in subject matter between the two compositions sheds new light on the inscription in the engraving by Cornelis Danckerts (1604-1656), who faithfully reproduced the scene, but wrongly noted down F. Hals pinxit (C15)....
... top of his listing. However, based on the assumption of a shared workshop production process for marketable motifs, the connection between the two paintings cannot be entirely ruled out. Even the signature gains a different importance, which is only visible in versions the present variant and the one that was auctioned in 1993 (A4.2.3a) – both being of notably higher quality....
... is, Kleinberger Galleries...
... istically weak replica was ironically ascribed by Slive to a ‘Fat Boy Master’, to whom he also attributed the version of the...
... a loosely executed, colorful copy, based on one of the versions of the child’s head listed above. It does not exactly match any of the variants listed here, and its size belongs with the larger ones....
... ful and wrongly attributed works was limited to listing seven variants of the laughing boy motif. ...
... is, Galerie S. Koti...
... is variant deviates from the common typology by replacing the flute with a bunch of grapes and by the addition of a sligh...
... is pastiche brings together two prototypes from the Hals workshop: the Laughing boy with a wine glass from Schwerin (A1.35...
... 26...
... ists a total of six versions of this composition, in which the depic...
... 26...
... le illustrations, it is not clear if the second child’s head is missing here, or whether was once present and overpainted later on. This version is closest to Hals’s own style in the details of the faces and hair, especially in the alternating opaque and transparent brushwork....
... 26...
... of the nut is probably caused by a misunderstanding of the template, in w...
... m the poor manner of execution, this variant is probably created in the later 17th or 18th...
... istle, c. 1624-1626...
... d in 1801, which shows both compositions next to each other, and at least implies a longer tradition for the combination.7 Stylistically, the two pictures match broadly. If they originally belonged together indeed, it would also be conceivable to consider a series of three, four or five corresponding depictions of the five senses. This would correspond to similar series of small-scale paintings that were created at the time....
... 26...
... 26...
... 26 June 1983, lot 402...
... 26...
... 26...
... er of sensual activity – in this case symbolizing touch, and possibly also smell. It is not clear if pictures with such an emphasis on sensual experiences were always planned as groups or series. However, the present case suggests a matching picture of the same size: Head of a boy with a whistle (A4.2.5a), symbolizing the sense of hearing....
... 26...
... 26...
... of artificial patination (sandpapering and rubbing of the surface with brownish transparent paint?)’.9 Following this observation, the paintings conservator in Oslo supposed the painting to be a ‘hard core fake’.10...
-
A4.1.15 - A4.1.18
... ry that Hals had created Descartes's portrait not from life but rather after Van Schooten's engraving.7 The same objection must be made with regard to Watson’s statement. Such a procedure from differently presented and illuminated facial features cannot be substantiated. Even the most dedicated physiognomist would not be able to produce such a variation from memory and based on an entirely differently presented portrait.Hals's portrait of Descartes was probably painted shortly before the latter's departure for Stockholm, which concluded the philosopher's sojourn in the Netherlands from 1628 to September 1649. Steven Nadler recently summarized the results from the available sources: ‘The painting was made sometime that summer, perhaps as late as September, when Descartes finally embarked for Sweden. It must have been done before Descartes went to Amsterdam to settle some affairs and board the ship to Stockholm […] So if the painting is from life and Descartes did pose for Hals, in all likelihood it was done in Haarlem when Descartes’s final departure from Egmont was imminent’.8 What was most likely created at that point, was the portrait painted by Hals, which is no longer preserved, but which formed the basis for Suyderhoef’s engraving and all painted copies.In accordance with the sitter’s reputation, his portrait was copied many times in paintings, engravings and medals, typically based on Suyderhoef’s engraving (C46). Slive lists the following further engravers: Gérard Edelinck (1640-1707), Carel Allard (1648-1709), Jacques Lubin (c. 1659-after 1703), Jacob Gole (c. 1665-1724), Etienne Ficquet (1719-1794), Jean-Baptiste de Grateloup (1735-1817), Joachim Oortman (1777-1818), Pierre-François Bertonnier (1791-after 1854).9 The distinction of Hals’s portrait as conveyed by Suyderhoef is especially apparent in the portrait of Descartes by the Swedish court painter David Beck (1621-1656), probably dating from 1650 or 1651, where the head is based on the countered engraving.10 ...
... ist, Portrait of René Descartes, after c. 1649...
... These details form an essential part of the portrait and determine its expression. Earlier assessments of the Copenhagen picture cannot be upheld, due to the high-resolution images available today, which can be enlarged to display and compare even the craquelure....
... of Adrianus Tegularius, the same area measures 7 cm and renders concrete facial features with distinct details.The engraving by Suyderhoef conveys such a pronounced character that its existence would be unthinkable without an equally explicit modello by Hals. Taking into account the high quality of the engraving, and the much coarser repetition of the subject in the painting, the order of precedence is clear. The print presents a magnificent portrait with an energetic expression on the powerful face, with matching details in the hands and the folds of the coat. In spite of the engraving’s monochromatic character, it is obvious that every brushstroke of the example was placed with determination. Accordingly, there must have been a fully finished painted modello....
... erges from typical autograph works by Hals.The present painted portrait fits into a group of late portraits from the Hals workshop, which I have tentatively attributed to Hals's son, Frans Hals (II) (1618-1669). Characteristic elements are the very distinctive diagonal brushstrokes, the blurry execution of the hand, which is too small and too flat, and the overall two-dimensional representation. The composition shows similarities to the 1656 Portrait of Tyman Oosdorp (A1.126), while the style of painting appears to be closer to the handling in the Portrait of Vincent Laurens. van der Vinne (A4.3.47), the Portrait of a seated man in Paris (A4.3.52), and the Portrait of an unknown man in Cambridge (A4.3.55)....
... rt dealer D.H. CevatSlive describes this painting as ‘a weaker version’ of t...
... ginal painted design has some weaknesses, such as the upper body that is probably too small, the short arm, and the tiny hand. A comparison with the similarly positioned arm in the slightly later Portrait of a man with a slouch hat in Kassel (A1.130) [8] [9] rules out an execution by Frans Hals for the present painting. Here, the overall style differs from the master’s approach; it is clumsier and does not reflect the tension and rhythmical movement of the facial features that are so evident in the late autograph portraits. Whenever Hals himself was involved in this instance, whether in the design or in a first sketching phase, cannot be decided only by studying the painting in its current condition. Stylistically, the portrait can be dated to c. 1655-1658....
Notes
... 0, p. 314. For the possible commission by Bloemert, see also: Na...
... ...
... 87-A-11451. Jan Lievens, René Descartes, 1644-1649, black chalk on paper, 241 x 206 mm, Groninger Museum, inv. no. 1931.0173. Jan Baptist Weenix, Portrait of René Descartes, oil on canvas, 45.5 x 35.0 cm, Utrecht, Centraal museum, inv. no. 7386. ...
... vour could be heard as long as his thunderous voice rung in the ears of the faithful. But now his noble soul lives on with the Lord and he no longer conveys entertainment to the earthly life. As our will is subject to that of God, his portrait shall suffice for us in this world’. ...
... is Sylvius, 1646, etching, 278 x 189 mm, Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv.no. RP-P-OB-566. ...
... of Jan Antonides van der Linden, 1660, oil on canvas, 88 x 70 cm, Leiden, Museum de Lakenhal, inv.no. B 582; on long term loan from the Mauritshuis, The Hague (inv.no. 396). ...
-
A4.1.10 - A4.1.14
... istiaansz. Bor, 1634...
... veral old copies of Bor's portrait are known, which are listed by Slive and in the documentation files of the RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History in The Hague.1 The coloring and style of these copies are mostly consistent, and the present painting’s size and inscription seem to fit into this group as well. Based on an assessment of the quality of the surviving copies, the authorship of the lost picture remains unclear. Had it been largely of the same quality as the others, I would not consider it an autograph work by Frans Hals himself....
... istiaansz. Bor...
... , as well as in many other paintings. It would be impossible to distinguish a ‘seemingly genuine signature’ in a copy, when even the original works do not give a clear indication which of the signatures may be autograph. A longer hand-written signature on a document would offer more clues. In the present case, the copy is further discredited by its date of 1633. By comparison to the engraving [1], this copy diverges from the original composition in depicting a book on the edge of the feigned oval, which constitutes a reference to the learned historian and author's occupation....
... istiaansz. Bor...
... istiaansz. Bor...
... istiaansz. Bor...
... 26 x 23.5 cm, monogrammed lower right: FHPrivate collection...
... istiaansz. Bor...
... istiaansz. Bor...
... 75; dated upper right: An° 1634Paris/New York, art dealer Franz Klein...
... istiaansz. Bor...
... lot 59The book does not appear in this version....
... Isaac Abrahamsz. Massa, c. 1635...
... to a copper plate or on a panel of the same size. The confidently depicted foreshortened hand in the engraving would certainly have required a similarly exact modello as would the head area, which the somewhat weakly rendered hand in the painting could not provide. The representation of the slightly compressed upper body and the hesitant handling, especially in the arm akimbo in the engraving, can only be explained by the probability that the artist was working from a rough preparatory sketch, on the basis of which they worked out the further details themselves. Most likely, Hals had designed the entire composition for this portrait, or, minimally a sketch for the face that could be used as a traceable model. If the tracing dots that are visible here, consist of a carbonic pigment, further traces could be explored in this and other pictures by means of infrared-reflectography....
... 26.5 x 22.5 cm, inscribed, dated, and monogrammed center right: ÆTAT SVÆ 47 / AN° 1637 / FHFormerly USA,...
... le face in the present picture, which is too large in proportion to the hands, falls far short of the kind gravity of the much more subtly modelled engraving [5][6].With respect to the verses under the engraving, they state that Swalmius’s sermon in God’s honor was ‘sweet as honey’, that ‘the spirit of God’ moves his lips. Such expressions only match the serious demeanor in the engraving, which is at a similar level of expressiveness as Rembrandt’s (1606-1669) Portrait of a clergyman.8 In other words: Suyderhoef was a much more reliable copyist than Hals’s assistant who painted the portrait of Swalmius and his wife. Accordingly, Hals must have already created a modello for an engraving in 1639 for the devout commemoration by the parish, which had been copied for the purposes of the sitter and his family on a more durable panel support, complemented by a pendant featuring the sitter’s wife....
... a separate preparatory sketch or as a first outline in the final panel. Hals clearly appears to have delegated the finishing of each individual button and collar fold to one of his assistants.Valentiner presumed that the long inaccessible fragmentary Portrait of a woman from the Quincy Shaw collection in Boston (B15) was a copy after the present painting, or at least depicted the same sitter.10 Comparison with the more recent reproduction in the auction catalogue of Sotheby’s, where it was sold in 2008, has pointed out that the faces differ, especially in the area around the eyes....
... is, private collection Adolphe SchlossCopy after the abovementioned Portrait of a woman, possibly Judith van Br...
Notes
... ...
-
E1 - E21
... an be further supported, and Hals was indeed responsible for the sleeve area, this would be an important clue that Hals may have trained in Amsterdam – as the rest of the portrait can be connected stylistically to Amsterdam portraiture of the early 17th century....
... rk by Frans Hals, Dirck Hals (1591-1656), or by an unidentified artist from the circle of Willem Buytewech (c. 1591/1592-1624)....
... n to Hals, while Slive gave it to an unidentified Flemish painter.1...
... t any slips of the brush.Stylistically, this painting is reminiscent of Willem Buytewech (c. 1591/92-1624), to whom it has been attributed on several occasions.3 Based on the clothing and style of execution, it could be dated around c. 1615. However, even this attribution is no longer tenable.4 The question as to whom painted this portrait thus remains unanswered for now....
... that Jan Stolker (1724-1785) has copied an unidentified engraving after an equally unidentified modello by Hals in this case, there are no similarities to Hals’s individual manner of painting....
... 2640Based on the clothing, this painting can be dated to c. 1632-1635. The stiff pose and smooth manner of execution, ...
... cution has anything to do with Hals. Only the stripy reflexes in the hair are reminiscent of his manner....
... ist B.E., The rommelpot-player, c. 1640-1645...
... and its manner of execution, it was probably made by one of Hals’s immediate followers, being the only work of its kind. Whether this follower picked up Hals’s topic and style in the master’s workshop, or learnt about these from the observation of individual pain...
... served in its movement, and the overall brushwork is softer and less distinct. Conversely, the execution of the collar and the adjoining areas of the coat clearly differ from Hals’s painterly bravura. The painter of the present portrait was most likely already an independent artist who emulated Hals’s style in this instance....
... logue raisonné by Hofstede de Groot, nor in later literature on Frans Hals, it is still notable as a document of Hals’s influence on his contemporaries and the reception of his style....
... A 25The sitter’s pose is reminiscent of portraits by Hals, ev...
... e older literature, until Slive included it under his doubtful attributions as: ‘Probably a nineteenth...
... take this signature seriously and look for stylistic similarities with the work of artists from Hals’s circle, the only possible candidate for this painting would be Pieter van Roestraeten (1630-1700)....
... Stylistically, it is definitely later, and the execution clearly diverges from Hals and his immediate circle....
... ls (II) (1618-1669), whose autograph style cannot be established via any securely attributed work. In the 1978 collection catalogue of Museum Bredius, Blankert mentioned the – in his opinion – ‘copy-like character’ of the painting.8...
... should be discarded due to a lack of resemblance. Van Hasevelt was Regent of the Alms-, Poor and Workhouse in Haarlem, and is portrayed as second from the left in a 1659 group portrait by Jacob van Loo (1614-1670).9...
... . Slive, however suggested that the signature can also be interpreted as F. Halls.10 In the strikingly fashionable elements of collar and cuffs, this portrait is datable to the late 1660s. Thus, the modello for the present painting would have most likely been executed by Frans Hals (II) (1618-1669)....
... Isaac Laurensz. van der Vinne, c. 1651-165211...
... an be related to the self-portrait of Vincent Laurensz. van der Vinne (1628-1702) from the same year [5], and a portrait of his other brother, Jacob Laurensz. van der Vinne (1619-1694), dated 1652 [6].Vincent Laurensz. van der Vinne was a pupil of Fr...
... t finding an alternative proved difficult. Van Gelder presumably suggested the Delft-born painter Maerten Pietersz. Deym (c. 1566/1567-1624) as the creator of this portrait. More likely, however, the portrait was painted by Jan Hals (c. 1620-c. 1654)....
... ist trained by him, Portrait of a gentleman, probably Dirck Dircksz. Tjarck, 162112...
... tes noted below it as well as an inventory note on the reverse of the painting are consistent with the identification.15 Another special feature of this painting is the original frame, which is a typical Dutch oak box frame of the early 17th century. It gives a valuable insight into the original framing of similar portrait formats by Hals. The only other original frame of a painting by Hals is the one surrounding the considerably larger Regents of St Elisabeth’s Hospital from c. 1640-1641 (A1.102).16 ...
... ait of Paulus van Beresteyn, created in 1620 (A2.1).18 In my opinion, however, the differences in the anatomical rendering are obvious when putting the details side-by-side [11][12]. My conclusion from these comparisons is that the present portrait is the work of an artist who was clearly influenced by Hals, but whose manner of execution turned out more schematically and less accentuated. It is not possible to say whether this individual was active in Hals's workshop or elsewhere, as there are no traces of a design by Hals or of the master’s direct intervention in the painting. Who exactly might have been working in Hals’s studio as a pupil or assistant during the period around 1620 remains unknown. ...
... o the left and looking at us. She wears a white linen cap and a millstone ruff. In her left hand she holds a linen handkerchief. At the top left there is a lozenge-shaped coat of arms, also painted in diagonal perspective. Due to the quality of the available photos it cannot be identified, neither is it possible to trace any inscriptions. The pair is the earliest known in Hals’s oeuvre to portray a standing man in combination with his sitting wife, a feature which the artist repeated for the first time ten years later, in the portraits of Nicolaes van der Meer and Cornelia Vooght‘ (A3.19, A3.20).20...
Notes
... historians have observed a stylistic relation to Buytewech, se...
... is by Peter Klein indicated that the youngest tree ring in the panel dates from 1624. Taking into account a drying time ...
... – born 1625 – was portrayed at age 26. ...
... isons-Laffitte, 16 November 1969, lot 17. ...
... 2003, lot 3020; sale New York (Christie’s), 5 February 2025, lot 25 ...
... elkoop in cat. sale New York (Christie’s), 5 February 2025, lot 25...
... iscussion of the frame and its exceptional features. ...
... istie’s), 5 February 2025, lot 25. ...
-
A3.56 - A3.64
... In the present painting, everything has been rendered with a suggestive calligraphy of the brush. The result is further emphasized through the stripy pattern of the folds and the two-dimensional decoration of ornaments, which were probably contributed by another hand. Designed by Hals and painted by him in the areas of the face and hands, the picture shows a similar, yet harder style in the execution of the hair, the collar and the area of the chest and the arms, where the contouring neglects detailed shapes, curvatures, and shading. As convincingly explained by Slive through a comparison, this has nothing in common with Jan Hals (c. 1620-c. 1654).2 An independent creative talent – perhaps Frans Hals (II) (1618-1669) – was involved, working in a simplified variant of Hals’s style....
... pturing of the face and the hair as well as that of the hanging hand outshines the imprecise and randomly stripy execution of the coat that makes it appear so flat. The illuminated side of the collar, the white tassel, the cuffs, and gloves, as well as the area where the hand is put on the hip can also be attributed to Hals’s assistant....
... d at least on an initial design by the master. The blurry, somewhat patchy brushwork of the eyes, mouth and nose shows some similarities with the late Portrait of a man in Amsterdam (A3.60). The zone of the hair is either little developed or abraded, while the hand and the glove were added by a hesitant hand....
... t an execution by Frans Hals himself. I consider my earlier attribution of the entire picture to Jan Hals (c. 1620-c. 1654) disproved by the qualities that are visible today in the central area.6 Nevertheless, the darker area of the coat was executed by a weaker hand....
... ere executed with a loose brushstroke, but not confidently shaped. The compositional relationship between the fingers and the diagonal brushwork in the area of the head is probably based on Hals’s design; the painterly execution is, however, weaker than in comparative areas that were executed by Hals himself – for example in the Portrait of Willem Croes (A1.128). The hand area is stylistically reminiscent of the execution of the Portrait of a man in Musée Jacquemart-André (A4.3.52) which is most likely also by Frans Hals (II) (1618-1669) [2][3]....
... pper part of the white cuff and the palm below are rendered in a more disciplined manner. The application of the colors in the face, dissolved into flaky dabs [7], also departs from the delicate toning and sparse lines of the late group portrait. Yet, the clear depiction of the eyes and the equally confident highlighting of the nose and mouth leave no doubt that Frans Hals himself did the portrait work here, presumably through a preparatory study of the man’s features. The passages with the more uneasily applied paint are then the contribution of an assistant....
... sitters. It was easier to do so for the figures placed on the edges of the composition, than for those positioned more towards the center of the large picture plane. The faces of the group on the right could have conceivably been created on the basis of intermediary separate facial studies that were afterwards included by Hals in the correct format. In this process, the face of the third figure from the right has come out slightly too large.On closer examination of the faces in this group, it is notable that some of the features have been reworked. Softly rubbed paint covers the corners of the mouths of all three sitters on the right, but also parts of the eyes, especially the shaded eye of the man seated in the center. There is also overpainting in the face of the sitter seated to his right. Thick, impasto paint is apparent in the corners of the mouth, along the ridge of the nose and to the side and over the eye of the sitter on the far right. In all these cases it seems as if accents that appeared to harsh have been concealed at a later stage in the creation process. This hypothesis is supported by the sudden disappearance of the craquelure in these areas, as is being covered by a cloud. The painting must have been completely dry at the moment of this intervention.13During one of the discussions of the advisory board for the restoration of the regents’ group portraits at the Frans Hals Museum, it was discussed that the heads and hands of the five regents all appear somewhat large in relationship to the size of their bodies. This is true; however, a similar impression is already noticeable in the early civic guard portraits. The three-dimensionally modelled heads and hands stand out brightly lit against the closely arranged figures of the bodies which appear flat in their darkly colored clothing. The relatively large hands of the two groups of regents – equally noticeable in the group portrait of the Regents of St Elisabeth’s Hospital of c. 1640-1641 (A1.102) – correspond to a close-up observation, where the painter is positioned directly in front of his sitter and perceives objects in proximity to himself as larger in proportion. In any case, the regents of the Old Men’s Almshouse are closer to the viewer than the regentesses, who were painted almost at the same time or a little later under Hals’s supervision (A3.63). The latter’s faces are about one fifth smaller. Another significant difference is created by the impression of the wide hats and the light and airy hairstyles. These enhance the visual appearance of the gentlemen, which would have been even more distinct in the original contrast against the formerly lighter background colors.It is difficult to date the present painting precisely, since the few other pictures from Hals’s final years can only be categorized as a sequence in very general terms. These are sometimes painted in unconnected color stripes and dots. The frequently adopted date of 1664 for the present painting is connected to the unusual circumstance that the impoverished painter Hals, who lived on handouts from the municipal authorities, was in a position to guarantee a credit of 458 guilders for his son-in-law in January 1665.14 Traditionally, a date of execution just before this date is therefore assumed. Nevertheless, the differences in execution between the present group portrait of the regents of the Old Men’s Almshouse and that of its regentesses, which is nearly identical in size, indicate a sequence in production of the two commissions. Since Hals’s own contribution is clearly discernible in the painting of the gentlemen, and only traces of it remain in that of the women’s, the present commission was most likely executed earlier....
... picture plane show differences from the painterly technique in the group portrait of the regents, which is loose and at the same time more bold and consistent. The execution of all hands and collars, but especially the details of the brightly illuminated faces of the women seated on the right [16] and the left, display a linearity and two-dimensionality that clearly diverges from the painterly richness and tonality of the contemporary regents’ picture, as well as from other autograph portraits by Hals. There are noticeable insecurities in the anatomical treatment of the hands and cuffs, in the foreshortening and in the illumination, while the use of hard contours is similar to that already noticed in the two family portraits in London (A4.3.19) and Madrid (A4.3.24) as well as in several individual portraits from the 1640 and 1650s. While only visible under strong light, the deepening of the folds in the clothing by black contours is also different from the regents’ group portrait. The accents in the men’s picture are set with a rich, soft technique of brushwork that models and also structures the three gentlemen on the right in a rhythmical manner. In contrast, the light edges and shadows in the ladies’ clothes are marked in an abrupt and hard technique that is not confident in shaping [17]. It resembles the clothes of the men on the left side [18]. These differences in the ability of representation are discernible despite a matching technical process; therefore, they cannot be distinguished in technical photographs, but only through a comparison of the respective stylistic and creative approach. On the whole, the two group portraits together demonstrate an unmistakable fading of the bold painter’s powers of observation and representation. Hals’s design is increasingly reduced to the point of becoming mere hints which are hesitantly followed by the assistant, with a comparable broad brushstroke. In the regents’ picture, Hals’s unaccommodating bravura in emphasizing degrees of light and modelling nuances is clearly visible in parts, while in the regentesses’ portrait it only shines through the later supplementary execution.It is surprising that Hals received the commission for the present group portrait of the regentesses of the Old Men’s Almshouse, for two decades earlier he had not been chosen for depicting the regentesses of St Elisabeth’s Hospital. It had been Verspronck who received that commission in 1641. But the situation had changed since: Hals had survived the established portrait painters in Haarlem. Pieter Soutman had died in 1657; Verspronck was buried on June 30, 1662; Jacob van Loo (1614-1670) had fled to Paris from Amsterdam in 1660; and the much-acclaimed Jan de Braij (1626/1627-1697) was already occupied with the painting of the children of the Haarlem orphanage, and the group portraits of the regents and regentesses of this institution, which he would complete in 1663 and 1664.22 His greatly esteemed father Salomon de Bray (1597-1664) had lost his wife, probably in the plague epidemic of 1663, and died of the same disease a year later, together with four of Jan’s siblings. If the patrons wished to have their paintings completed in the not-too-distant future, they probably had no choice but to refer to the elderly Frans Hals....
... g a Japanese-style dressing gown called a ‘Japonsche rock’. The possession of such a precious garment was much sought-after for informal appearances, ever since the shoguns had presented thirty kimonos to their trading partners in the Dutch East India Company on the occasion of signing the annual renewal of the trade agreement. The Dutch soon had to meet a demand from far beyond their own borders, which kept tailors busy, both in the East and at home.23 Those who found a ‘Japonsche rock’ to expensive could rent an ‘Indian gowne’, as the famous diarist Samuel Pepys (1633-1703) did for his portrait of 1666 by John Hayls (†1679).24 In this dressing gown, Pepys appeared seemingly informal and private; ostensibly turning towards a visitor entering unexpectedly in a relaxed manner. At the same time, his exotic outfit signaled his elevated status....
Notes
... Loon, E. Uffelman, H. van Putten and M. te Marvelde is forthcoming. ...
... moeten zy stercker oft flaeuwer ghehouden werden: dat is, soo veel als zy verliesen door verkleiningh, soo ve...
... ...
... isabeth Hospital, Haarlem, 1740, oil on canvas, 152 x 210 cm, Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum, inv.no. OS 83-294. Biesboer 2001, ...
... s bouleversants qui aient jamais été peints en Occident […]’...
... egentesses of the Heilige Geesthuis, Haarlem, 1642, oil on canvas,...
-
A3.30 - A3.39
... isherboys, c. 1634-1637...
... e in the background of several other works by Hals. The rolling dune landscape with small figures in the distance and the ochre and green tones are related to Molijn’s Landscape with a cottage, dated 1629 [1].The boy with the shadowed face in the foreground reappears as – or at least strongly resembles – the model in Young boy in profile in Washington (A3.31). That painting was also executed by Hals in the facial area, while the remainder must be considered to be a work by an artist from his immediate circle. The correspondence between both representations suggests a similar time of execution.The motif of the crab on the boy’s finger, or of children playing with crabs in general, is recurrent in artworks of the period. It first appeared in the work of Italian artists, for example in a drawing and painting by Sofonisba Anguissola (c. 1535-1625), both undated.8 Similar subject matter can be found in a half-length figure by Caravaggio (1571-1610), depicting a young man being bitten by a lizard.9 Also worth mentioning is Annibale Carracci’s (1560-1609) composition of children teasing a cat with a small crab, dating from around 1590.10 But the subject matter of pain inflicted through the bite of a crab can be found in Holland as well, for example in the picture Boy with fish still-life by Petrus Staverenus (c. 1610/1612- after 1654), who was heavily influenced by Hals and worked in Haarlem and The Hague.11 All these representations certainly refer to worldly wisdom, be it about the pain, the children’s courage, or the multiple symbolisms of the crab....
... d anywhere in the work of Hals’s pupils, and neither in the secure works by Leyster. This is Hals’s own handwriting, which contrasts in the present painting with the precise contours and smooth completion of the shoulder and collar. The peculiarly dashed brushwork in the hair is striking, but also does not match the style of Leyster. Neither does the precisely modelled collar. Therefore, the painting must have been either designed by Frans Hals with the face executed by him, or it was one of his unfinished studies which was completed to form a portrait-like representation by a different hand.14 I am pleased that Hofrichter agreed to my attribution in a recent exchange of letters.15...
... shows the same cool and garish colors as in the coats of arms in the companion piece as well as those in the two Olycan portraits of 1625 (A1.17, A1.18), which have now been rendered invisible by a neutral covering, since their chemical analysis had revealed them to be later additions. In spite of the different states of preservation and the unresolved reworkings, a precise comparison of the head areas in both portraits of Pieter Jacobsz. Olycan (A3.25, A3.32) is instructive with regard to our understanding of the sitter’s personality as well as Hals’s stylistic development.19 Olycan’s spontaneous facial expression is especially marked in the present portrait, which also relies on the clarity of Hals’s brushwork in this central area....
... 26.4 x 93.2 cm, inscribed and dated upper left: AETAT SVAE 62/AN° 1639Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv.no. SK...
... done’.22Regardless of the still open attribution of the New York portrait, the question arises against which contemporary alternatives Hals’s female portraits of the 1630s would be measured in Haarlem. Which painters were available there apart from Hals, what did their work cost and how busy were they? An associated question concerns the overpainter, who smoothed faces and hands, and the assistant – or could it have been the same person? – who executed the folds of the dress and the fur. When comparing these interventions with works by potential competitors – Salomon de Bray (1597-1664), Johannes Verspronck (c. 1600/1603-1662), Pieter Soutman (c. 1593/1601-1657) – a participation by Verspronck seems to me only plausible in the repetition of the Portrait of Maritge Claesdr. Vooght (A3.33a), as well as possibly for the reworking of the head in the Portrait of a man in Berlin (A3.18). The latter could have been carried out within the Hals workshop even before Verspronck set out independently. Stylistically different, yet close to Hals’s style are the abovementioned areas in the portraits of Nicolaes van der Meer (A3.19), Pieter Jacobsz. Olycan (A3.25, A3.32) and the present portrait. Accordingly, it would have been Hals himself who delegated the reworking to assistants....
... isz. Verspronck, Portrait of Maritge Claesdr. Vooght...
... eworking the portraits of the sitter’s brother-in-law and sister (A3.19, A3.20), and of the copy after Hals’s 1650 Portrait of Nicolaas Stenius (A3.54) by Ludolf de Jongh (1616-1679), dated 1652 (A3.54a), as a copy by a different workshop may have been obtained cheaper, faster or more reliably.The present painting is of particular interest from the point of view of technique and the largely preserved coloring. In today’s appearance it can be compared directly to Hals’s – reworked – model and gives a good impression of the thinly painted half-tones, especially in the shaded parts of the face – which appear lighter than in the...
... 26St. Petersburg, State Hermitage Museum, inv.no. ГЭ-982Narrow canvas strips were added to the painting's top edg...
... rtheless, to me the facial features do not seem to support this identification. The more voluminous nose and the pointier nose profile, as well as the wide and prominent upper eyelids set the present painting’s sitter apart from Van Warmont’s confirmed likeness in the Banquet of the officers of the Calivermen civic guard of 1627 (A2.8A) [4].In 2014 Frans Grijzenhout discovered an inventory of the possessions of Nicolaes Noppen (1600/1605-1657) and his wife Geertruijt Gerrits. van Santen (1605/1610-1675), drawn up in 1676. Aside from portraits of the husband and wife (A1.99, A1.100) the inventory lists a portrait by Frans Hals of the father of Geertruijt, Gerrit Jansz. van Santen (1583/1584-c. 1653), which Grijzenhout tentatively matches to the present painting.29 Gerrit Jansz. van Santen was a distiller, and also a Mennonite preacher, which would be in keeping with the present sitter’s unembellished clothing....
... ster’s visual subtlety. There is no angular, rhythmically dotted pattern of lines in a diagonal direction that is typical for Frans Hals. The hairline, bonnet, cuffs, and collar are treated schematically and hesitantly. Overall, Hals is likely to have designed the composition and corrected it after the execution, which was left to an assistant. In addition, later interventions disturb the overall impression, such as the pink contour on the left cheek, the filled in nostril and the cast shadow under the nose. Stylistically, there is a relationship to the female portrait that was sold at Sotheby’s New York in 2008 (B15)....
... is hand, c. 1640-1642...
... forehead. This immediacy of observation and clarity of representation is lacking in the other areas of the painting. The collar with its hesitantly executed lace is as flat as the area of the arm with its grey stripes running down in parallel. The hand with the book is also incongruous and anatomically too small. The painting, which is so lively in its main area, was executed in other parts by a different hand...
... nvolved in the execution, possibly Jan Hals (c. 1620-c. 1654). Nevertheless, these observations are secondary to the expressive face that seems to turn spontaneously towards the viewer. The head, which is modelled with rich contrasts throughout, the lively eyes, the jauntily added moustache and the movement conveyed in the mouth unequivocally demonstrate Hals’s generous and confident style of painting [7]. He probably sketched the entire figure and then took on the modelling of the head himself. Overpainting around the head most likely contributed to obscuring the quality of this area and preventing an attribution to Frans Hals. The underlying contour of a wide-brimmed hat is discernible, now covered by the background color, as are some of the edges of the white collar. Even the lowered contour of the shoulder that Slive criticized can be regarded as the result of later reworking. An original higher shape is recognizable in the picture’s appearance today. It is to be hoped that these deforming interventions, which obscure the composition, will be reversed in the intended restoration. As in all comparable cases, it would certainly be worthwhile to reveal the original composition [8]....
... format that was considerably larger. It is not clear whether the sitter was a priest, as the black cap was also worn by others, especially older gentlemen (for instance A4.3.54). Nevertheless, the frontal position indicates a person of particular dignity. As published by Slive, the picture’s old stretcher bears the seal of the Polish king Stanislaw Augustus, in whose collection it was in the late 18th century.34...
Notes
... for an overview of the attribution history. ...
... According to an anecdotal reference, Michelangelo (1475-1564) had asked Anguissola, who had come to Rome in 1554, to paint a crying boy, whereupon she se...
... ish, c. 1635-1640, oil on canvas, 90 x 98 cm, sale Berlin (Lepke) 4 April 1911, lot 135. ...
... ...
... er Mr Burgemr Olycan en syn huisvrouw van Frans Hals’. ‘2 co...
... , 214 x 276 cm, Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum, inv.no. OS I-285. This group portrait has traditionally been attributed to Hendrick ...
... ssen/ von Harlem ankommen/ und gleich selbigen Tag wieder nach Haus gereist/ welche er in so kurzer Zeit mit dem Angesicht/ Kragen/ Pelz/ Leibro...
... istie’s), 23 June 1967, lot 28. ...
... er Mr Burgemr Olycan en syn huisvrouw van Frans Hals’. ‘2 co...
... 26 Below, there are traces of a second monogram. ...
... y prove that the F is a later addition, and the rather faint H was originally part of his characteristic ligated monogram’. Slive 1970-1974, vol. 3 (1974), p. 73. ...
... 266. ...
... ne 1797, lot 91 (Lugt 5624); sale Paris, 16 March 1876, lot 22 (Lugt 36278...
-
A3.19 - A3.29
... isz. Verspronck, Portrait of Nicolaes Woutersz. van der Meer, 1631...
... (1599-1641) compositions – a comparison with their glorifying elegance highlights the sobriety of Frans Hals's observation at close quarters. However, the present picture and its pendant (A3.20) differ in several respects from Hals’s autograph portraits from the 1630s. Scientific research showed that the heads of the sitters were overpainted after completion. The top layer of paint in these sections was painted over a layer of varnish.1 The realistic smoothness of the wall’s appearance is probably due to the same reworking process. I would assume that the background in the present painting was originally lighter and more diffuse.2...
... rait of an elderly man in the Frick Collection (A1.41). The collar in the Portrait of Pieter Jacobsz. Olycan (A3.25) is also more confidently captured in the foreshortened side edges [2][3].4 The collar was probably painted by an assistant of Hals, whose viscous application of paint is also apparent in the creamy overpainting of the fingers, the accents on the fingernails, the strengthened contours of the cuffs as well as the lion’s head on the back of the chair. In contrast, Hals’s brushwork is still visible in the soft contours of the brushstroke around the finger joints, especially in the left hand.As is the case in a number of Hals's portraits (A1.65) - especially several portraits from the Olycan family (A1.17, A1.18, A1.93 and A1.94) – the coats of arms in the portraits of Van der Meer and his wife were added at a later date. Chemical analysis of the pigments identified the presence of the pigment Prussian blue, which only came onto the market in the early 18th century.5...
... isz. Verspronck, Portrait of Cornelia Claesdr. Vooght, 1631...
... 26.5 x 101 cm, inscribed and dated upper left: AETAT SVAE 53 / A° 1631Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum, inv.no...
... cional de Bellas Artes, inv.no. 8626This portrait fits perfectly int...
... retched foot. This also applies to the angular folds of the gathered curtain on the right and the stiff fringe on the chair. The juxtaposition of such traces of execution and of pentimenti such as the correction of the hat, illustrates the process of creation. They reinforce the impression that the present picture was painted in a collaboration between the master and an assistant.Stylistically, the painting can be dated to 1634-1635. Martin Bijl observed that the panels used for paintings in Haarlem were sawn by hand until c. 1634. Afterwards, they consistently show the marks from a sawmill. This is already the case for the workshop replica in private ownership (A3.23), while the present picture still shows marks of the hand saw.13The inventory drawn up after Heythuysen’s death in 1650 lists a ‘small likeness of the deceased, in a black frame’, which hung in a private room in the sitter’s house. Twice, the picture achieved a record price on the art market: in 1865 in Paris at 35.000 Francs and in 2008 in London at seven million pounds. Several repetitions of the composition have been preserved, which can be dated justifiably to the 17th century (A3.23, A3.24)....
... on the back commemorates Heythuysen’s personal achievements: ‘Willem van Heythuyzen, Protestant left Flanders on account of his Religion & brought over with him 28 Families into Holland some of which afterwards settled in England’. The fact that the picture first appeared in an 1893 London sale, suggests the possibility that Van Heythuysen ordered it himself for his contacts in England.15...
... inal, these were contributed by the master. The similarity suffers in particular from the too-wide area around the eyes, which is more clearly designed in the first version (A3.22) and corresponds better with the large-scale Munich portrait as well (A2.6) [9][10][11]. In most cases, the production of copies after 17th-century paintings was delegated to workshop assistants. Based on a comparison of the details of the execution and in contradiction with previous literature, the same approach can be assumed in this instance....
... the facial features are especially close to the second version (A3.23). In the existing photographs, neither the inscription on the ribbons on the side of the coa...
... e would be Slive's reference to a copy after the Brussels picture that was created by the painter Pieter Ernst Hendrik Praetorius (1791-1876), by his own account in 1865/1866.22...
... the shadowed side of the forehead, and in the contouring of the eyes, nose, and mouth – but predominantly, it displays a smoother and softer handling. This includes smoothing overpainting in the area of the head, such as on the ear, the eyelids, the nose, the cheeks, and the lip. Hals’s brushwork was also later attenuated in the hair on the head and in the moustache. A further phenomenon is the strengthening of the whitening of the hair of the head and the beard which emerged in this early Olycan portrait over the course of several reworkings and restorations. The thinly applied brown and grey tones were partly dissolved and thinned down while the opaque lead white lines gained preponderance. The result is that the sitter’s full hair seems more silvery and brushed smoothly than in the unkempt appearance of 1639 [13][14]. Finally, the design of the collar also deviates from the accurate modelling we see in contemporary examples.Biesboer dated the picture around 1629-1630, since Olycan had first become mayor in 1630.26 However, Hillegers moved it closer to the portrait in Sarasota, whose facial features it closely resembles (A3.32).27 Indeed, the loose brushwork and the modelling details of the facial features support a date of creation not far removed from the Portrait of Pieter van den Broecke (A1.58), Portrait of Nicolaes Hasselaer (A1.62) and the Portrait of Tieleman Roosterman (A1.65), all three date...
... 26 Frans Hals and workshop, Portrait of a woman, 1634...
... hen studied up close, the woman’s hands, pearl necklace, cuffs, and the overall dress, including the collar and lace cap, appear to have been painted by an experienced workshop assistant. Only a few touches of revision by the master can be discerned. The surface of the face seems to have been smoothed in some areas. The paint has been applied in an impasto manner, causing a comparatively pronounced craquelure pattern....
... re and summarily executed the area of the face. Consequently, this area remained with thin paint layers and just a few accents of light and shadow. The remainder of the portrait was executed subsequently and more hesitantly by the hand of an assistant....
... is workshop and Pieter de Molijn, Portrait of Nicolaes van den Heuvel, Susanna van Haelwael and their eld...
... lity. The faces of both parents were probably based on individual studies by Hals and executed by him for the most part, while the clothing including collars, all hands and the children’s faces are executed by a weaker hand – or even by two weaker hands. The very ‘Halsian’ design of the well-proportioned parents’ figures is remarkable and contrasts with the clumsy hard lines of light and shadow on the children’s clothing. Illuminated areas and folds in the shadows of the parents’ clothing are, however, more even in their brushwork. It seems reasonable to assume that preparatory drawings or paintings created after life as ‘snapshots’ were available for these areas, including the faces and hands, and were subsequently copied in proportion into the painting.On the right-hand side of the composition a view towards a manor house and a church tower are visible, which have not yet been identified. The slightly abraded paint surface in this area also makes it harder to identify the painter’s hand. Just like other backgrounds in Hals’s works, the brushwork clearly differs from his own. However, the depiction of the trees and the foliage in the typical finger-like shapes corresponds to the style of Pieter de Molijn (1595-1661). It is interesting to note that infrared-reflectography found an underdrawing of the background, probably done in black chalk. However, in the absence of matching comparisons, this does not provide enough information about the exact sequence of steps in the working process, and even less about those involved in the execution....
Notes
... ...
... ...
... ...
... ...
... istie, Manson & Woods), 24 June 1893, lot 21 (Lugt 51887). ...
... , property of Michel van Gelder and Leo Nardus (since 1908); confiscated by the German occupying forces in 1940, auctioned by Lemp...
... is (M. Peletier), 28 April 1870, lot 12 (Lugt 31982). ...
... mination, the sawing marks and stylistics datable to c. 1634-1635. ...
... 26 Biesboer/Bijl 2006, p. 9. ...
-
A3.1 - A3.9
... ckelhaering as a single figure, with a fox's tail over his right shoulder and hints of the necklace of sausages, eggs, and fish hanging from his left (A3.1b, A3.1c). Also, in these versions, the overcut half of the face from the New York painting is now completely and credibly reproduced, as is the white collar, which corresponds to the collar of the same model in the contemporaneous painting by Buytewech.6 Many details of the Peeckelhaering character found in Buytewechs's painting Merry company also agree with these observations.7 Taken together, these indicate that one or more representations of the model’s head and chest by Hals existed, which were also used as a model for the face of the male figure in the New York painting [5][6][7].Both faces of the male figures are more accurately captured in Buytewechs's drawings (D3, D4), than in Hals’s painting. Similarly, the cap of the man on the right has been modelled more coherently – which suggests the existence of more precisely elaborated templates. When it comes to the relation between Hals and Buytewech, the template for the drawing of the Peeckelhaering character may be similar to the portraits of the grandparents of the Haarlem painters Nicolaes de Kemp (1609-1672) and Jan de Kemp, which are mentioned in a deed dated 6 November 1656: ‘[the] portraits are made and painted by master Frans Hals the Elder and the “comparquement” by Buytewech, or otherwise called Witty Willem’.8 Slive adds in this context: ‘The meaning of “comparquement” is obscure, but it possibly refers to the kind of decorative cartouche which serves as a frame for Buytewech's drawing based on Hals's “Peeckelhaering”’.9 The examination of the individual parts of the New York painting proves that the depiction of the figures goes back to Hals' models, but these were not transferred onto the canvas by Hals himself. On the other hand, Buytewechs's drawings are subtle reproductions of lost works by Hals. We can imagine its colored appearance on the basis of the repetition in Musée Marmottan Monet (A3.1b)....
... is, Fondation Custodia – Collection frits Lugt, inv.no. 2212Slive noted that the dress of the seated young woman was alte...
... o also occurs in the two variants of the Merry trio (B2a, B2b). The painting also shows small traces of the turnips that hang down from the man’s neck, which are only visible similarly in Buytewech’s drawing. This correspondence proves that the motif was an independent creation by Hals, which probably preceded the more elaborate New York painting....
... h (c. 1587/1588-after 1650) is plausible.12 This artist, trained by Hendrick Goltzius (1558-1617) in Haarlem, worked as an assistant in Peter Paul Rubens’s (1577-1640) workshop from 1615 onwards. A relation between Van den Bergh and Frans Hals is also suggested by the drawing that his son Matthias van den Bergh (c. 1615-1687) made after the Merrymakers at Shrovetide in 1660 (D2)....
... form and a characterization of facial expression, while the two women’s faces are done in a commonplace or even clumsy manner. This is especially true with regard to the background figure on the right with her enormous hand, but also for the sweetheart on the left. Nevertheless, the shadow lines on the eyelids and the bridge of this girl’s nose are likely to be by the hand of the master. There is no question that the loose composition overall, but also the preparatory drawing of the protagonist’s clothing, and the design of the three-hand area, as well as the sketch of the green bed hanging form a coherent ensemble, initially designed by Hals himself. Yet, the painterly execution betrays a much weaker hand. This is already tangible in the areas of the collars and clothing. The paint layers visible today display the broad illuminated lines to the left of the girl’s nasal root and on her forehead as outlines of a first sketch for the painting [7]. These were smoothed over by the covering layer of overpainting. Sadly, overpainting has also blurred the shock of hair of the smoker which appears under the left hand of his sweetheart....
... mical weaknesses which far remove it from the original in New York. It is hard to understand how Valentiner could accept it as an original.17...
... the right, the dog’s head and the fingers of the young man touching it, and also the execution of the head and hands of the girl. In contrast, the difficult area of the man’s raised hand is designed in a superior manner, unlike his face which is done in a coarser way here than the comparable face of the Lute player. One explanation might be that Hals designed the composition, outlining the head and hand of the protagonist. He then added only some accents, for example enlivening the areas of the young man’s dark hair with scratches of the brush handle.The lively movement and the bright illumination of the protagonist suggest that Hals had already seen Utrecht paintings such as the Merry fiddler by Gerard van Honthorst (1592-1656), dated 1623.24 The increasingly consistent observation of light effects, the close-up perspectives and the enhanced plasticity over the following period – for example in the two Lute Players (A1.15, A1.26) and Young man holding a skull (A1.29) – indicate Hals’s response to the half-length figures that were painted by the Netherlandish Caravaggisti precisely during his work on the present picture....
... 26...
... rans Hals: compare the children’s collars painted by him in the two roundels from Schwerin (A1.35, A1.36). We may speculate why Frans Hals did not complete his facial study either in this case or in others. Similar to the present painting, the following two pictures (A3.5, A3.6) were also completed with collar areas and allegorical elements by a weaker hand...
... ber 1996, lot 43This copy, which is accurate in size as well as in...
... 26...
... strations, the present boy’s face is accurately modelled with clear ...
... y adaptation of Laughing boy holding a flute (A3.5), which is of interest because of the added attributes of a mussel ...
... ion as early as 1868 and, if it is a more recent copy, was possibly painted together with its counterpart (B3A) in the 1860s at the earliest. That would be remarkable in view of the rediscovery of Hals, which only began in 1857 with Thoré-Bürger's exhibition reviews and catalogue entries....
... 26...
... the present picture corresponds to that of numerous contemporary depictions, such as the Child with a soap bubble in the Louvre (A3.5a) and its variants. Having seen Laughing child with a soap bubble (A3.6a), and taking it seriously as a document of the original design of the composition, one can actually make out the outline of the raised hand with the stretched-out finger showing through on the right side of the present painting. This proves that there were three stages of reworking the picture. First, the child’s face was painted – by Frans Hals himself –, then the hands and the soap bubble – probably by a member of the workshop – and finally, a later intervention once again removed the didactic additions through overpainting....
... 26...
... areas in that painting was carried out soon after the face was painted by Hals. In the same way, the noticeable twist of the roundel is likely to reflect the artist’s original intention....
... 26...
... nd shaded part of the face. The originally 1-2 mm wider jaw can still be observed, its contour shimmering through the upper layer on the right. The costume is similarly overpainted from the shoulders down.26 Careful cleaning can provide further clarification on the painting’s conservation history and may possibly lead to an idea of its original appearance. Nevertheless, even in its current condition, the depiction of the facial features and the style of modelling suggest a date around the mid-1620s....
... 26.3 x 20.7 cm, dated in verso: 1625Berlin, Gemäldegalerie der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, inv.no. 801...
... aptured, with the slightly raised right hand eyebrow, as well as the lighting and modelling. Deviating from his brushwork and handling, is the uniformly opaque, monotonous, and smoothly applied paint of the surface of the face, the ear, mouth, hair, and beard. The collar also appears depicted insecurely, especially when compared to the sovereignly executed collar of Jacob Pietersz. Olycan (1596-1638) from 1625 (A1.17). From these observations, it can be concluded that a design of the master was transferred onto the canvas by an assistant. However, the execution of the sleeve section on the left and the hand modelled in loose strokes can be attributed to Hals' own hand....
Notes
... ...
... ...
... an example by Snijders himself, which is in a private collection in Scotland...
... from: Van Thiel 1996, which contains an extensive analysis of this publication containing 17 prints with didactic verses on the ...
... is van Breen, The prodigal son, engraving, 130 x 195 mm, Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv.no. RP-P-1887-A-11999. ...
... ...
... 26 Observations based on first-hand inspection, October 2023. ...
-
A1.122 - A1.132
... he period around 1650. My suggestion of a resemblance between the sitter’s features and those of the German painter Michael Willmann (1630-1706) can no longer be upheld, since the latter’s self-portrait of 1682 in Wrocław depicts his eyes as blue, while the eyes of the present portrait are brown.1 Nevertheless, the rhetorical affirmative gesture of the hand on the chest would be commensurate with a portrait of a painter, since it can be read as an expression of artistic sensitivity and honesty.2...
... 26 cmBerlin, Stiftung Heinz Kuckei – on loan to the Frans Hals Museum, inv.no. OS 2013-17As Slive noted, ...
... 26.9The sitter presents himself in a much-used position, with his proper right arm akimbo and his hat in his other hand, dep...
... is picture was moved onto an oval stretcher at some point – probably in the 18th century – in order to serve as a pendant fo...
... 26 Frans Hals, Portrait of Tyman Oosdorp, 1656-1658...
... dorp’s remarriage.9 This seems highly plausible: neither date could be excluded, since there are only very few portraits dating from Hals’s last two decades and, with the exception of the 1650 Portrait of Nicolaes Stenius (A3.54), none of these is dated. As far as dates have been suggested in the literature, these were deduced from the circumstances of creation of the portraits, and from the placement of the painting style in specific ideas of stylistic development....
... 1...
... chnique enhances the energetic surge in the facial features in a masterly way.We do not know how this type of portraiture was received before Hals’s ‘Impressionist’ discovery in the late 19th century. If the attribution of the drawn copy after the Portrait of Willem Croes (D91) to Jean Honoré Fragonard (1732-1806) had not been rejected, it would have been an important document reporting on Hals’s reception prior to his discovery as an artist in the modern sense.12 It would have also been the earliest copy after Hals’s example by an international artist. An honour which is now reserved for Gustave Courbet’s (1819-1877) copy of Malle Babbe from 1869.13...
... rk documents the focused view of the late Hals. The area around the sitter’s eyes always forms the centre of the composition, and is the focus for the direction of the light and enhanced contrasts. The sitter’s active gaze is captured with the greatest clarity – unlike the schematic rendering of the area around the eyes as is present in several paintings from catalogue part A4.3. The thin paint layers and the rhythm of the brushstrokes in their recurring diagonal pattern evidently separate the clear design of the present picture from the demonstration of unbridled handling that can be discerned in the contemporary Portrait of a man (A3.64) and Portrait of an unknown man (A4.3.55)....
... sing and ingenious, and when seen from a distance seem to lack nothing but life itself […]’.15 This bright spot on the horizon of connoisseurship fell into a time when Hals only received occasional commissions. According to all characteristics, this picture was a commissioned work as well. It is the boldest of the entirely autograph executions that have come down to us. It is in the light of this image that De Bie's recognition gains particular value. His praise is so outstanding compared to the few and muted comments of Hals's paintings in his life time and aware of the decline in orders and many instances of smoothing revision of his faces....
... ti are visible to the right of the upper body. The right outer contour of the body was later covered by a grey brushstroke, which is certainly not original, and which makes the white collar appear suspended mid-air. It is worth comparing this subsequent narrowing of contours with the late Portrait of a man, possibly a clergyman in Amsterdam (A3.60). There, the in parts somewhat haphazard, almost patchy marking of cast shadows and bright highlights – noticeable in the areas of...
... al years.The rhythmical arrangement of the diagonal accents in the face is striking; they resemble those in the figure seated on the outer left in Regents of the Old Men’s Almshouse (A3.62). Some of the shades of color also match this noticeable area, for example on the lower lip, which is done in short swerving brushstrokes as only approximate markings. Similarly to areas of the regents’ portrait, the restoration revealed a few sparse contours in the shaded parts of the face. They have nothing in common with the washed-out brushstrokes of the workshop pictures listed under A4.3. This decisive approach prompted me to remove the present picture from the mere workshop- and follower-production. To my mind, the ‘lion’s paw’ seems to be recognizable in the faint traces of the facial design. At the same time, a hesitant and by now only cautious brushwork appears....
Notes
... mmission after the death of Johannes Cornelisz. Verspronck c. 1662-1664. ...
... rait of Eduard Wallis, 1652, oil on panel, 97 x 75 cm, Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv.no. SK-A-4999; Portrait of Dirck, Johannes or Jacobus Wallis, 1653, oil on panel, 85.1 x 65.6 cm, Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv.no. SK-A-4997. ...
... ng to Fragonard, instead stating that it is a ‘modern (20th century?) forgery that...
... 85 x 71 cm, Hamburger, Hamburger Kunsthalle, inv.no. 2262. ...
... ist’s last period, but most likely earlier than the Regents of the Old Men's Almshouse (A3.62) of 1664. ...
... oft Conterfeyten, staet seer rou en cloeck, vlijtigh ghetoetst en wel ghestelt, plaisant en gheestich om van veer aen te sien daer niet als het leven en schijnt in te ...
... ...
-
A1.111 – A1.121
... ed on a capital of 400.000 guilders, for instance.1 Slive mentioned that the marriage of the Coymans-Berck couple’s daughter Isabella Coymans († 1689) to Stephanus Geeraerdts († 1671) on 4 October 1644 in Haarlem, may have been the occasion for the present portraits.2 A few years later, Hals created the glorious representations of Isabella and her husband (A1.119, A1.120).The pair of portrait pendants of Joseph Coymans and Dorothea Berck form an outstanding document for the history of portraiture, since an entire group of ambitious portraits can be attributed as commissions from these patrons. There are the pictures dated 1641 and 1648, formerly in Huis Bing...
... oint of view, it is interesting that both paintings can be compared to further contemporary portraits of the same sitters. Two other portraits of the Coymans couple from the 1640s have been preserved, which the faces are recognizably the same, yet the representation is mechanical and lacking in expression.7 From the point of view of perspective, the female portrait of 1641 is nearly identical with Hals’s present 1644 painting. Slive quite rightly rejected the suggestion that Hals’s portrait had been painted after this earlier picture and not after the model.8...
... , which reproduces a lost portrait that Ostade’s pupil Cornelis Dusart (1660-1704) had painted of his teacher (C43).10 Dusart used the face of the present portrait as a model and dressed his master with a long curly wig, a scarf slung around the neck and a kimono-style dressing gown, known as ‘Japonsche rock’. In the present picture he is presented as an elegant gentleman, comparable in bearing and gestures to Hals’s Portrait of Paulus Verschuur of 1643 (A1.107). Wheelock pointed to the gestures of the removed glove in both paintings, presenting an open and unarmed hand for greeting.11 In each of the two portraits, Hals sketched the hands in comparable virtuoso style....
... tory together with his brother-in-law Johan Fabry.12The present portrait, with its restricted palette, is very well preserved with a restricted palette and displays the compositional skills and ease of painterly technique that Hals used to configure his types of expression. The most virtuoso detail is the hand that is subtly touched by the light. Once this shape, delineated with very few brushstrokes, has been consciously perceived, any suggestion of attributing clumsy hand areas such as in the Portrait of a man (A4.3.17) to the same painter is out of the question....
... eight family coats of arms, the date of 1645 had been noted on the frame of the original, as well as on that of the copy. Sadly, the original frame was lost in the meantime. The well-preserved original painting was cleaned in 2011.Just like several other contemporaries – Theodorus Schrevelius (1572-1653), Petrus Scriverius (1576-1660) and Joseph Coymans (1591-1677) – Jasper Schade had himself painted not only by Frans Hals but also subsequently by other artists. A comparison with the 1654 portrait by Cornelis Jonson van Ceulen (1593-1661) confirms the fashionable inclinations of the wealthy patron [2]. Cornelis Jonson was a painter born in England, from a Netherlandish family. He was successful painting the portraits of the English aristocracy and had been appointed court painter in 1632 by King Charles I of England (1600-1649). During the English civil war he had moved to Holland. From 1646 to 1652 he worked in Amsterdam, then in Utrecht. The pair of three-quarter portraits of Jasper Schade and his wife Cornelia Strick van Linschoten (1628-1703) shows an aristocratic self-image, devoid of Hals’s critical distance.16...
... den.18 The sitter appears at peace with himself, and his face seems almost unmoved. The left eyebrow is slightly raised and the lower lip protrudes a little, giving an impression of collecting one’s thoughts. The highlights on the black silk and the sketchy light rendering of the hand suggest a peripheral dissolution of the visual perception and refer back to the central focus of the sitter’s face. In accordance with Hoornbeeck’s high social status, a number of copies of his portrait have been preserved.19...
... istie’s), 1 July 2025, lot 5...
... erhoef (C45), which is slightly larger, but has the same format when the edges of the copperplate are taken into account [3]. This attribution is remarkable. Up to my knowledge, there are no other copies by Hals himself in his oeuvre, and only one painting by his own hand that directly served as a model for an engraving of the same format, which is the portrait of Jean de la Chambre (A1.87) executed in 1638. With this one exception, all other comparative works mentioned in the catalogue entry can be recognized as being of lesser quality. This can be clearly observed from the examples below. By comparing detailed photographs, the still divergent attribution situation can be brought to a more easily comprehensible level....
... ion to specific accents, there is a jumble of blurred brushstrokes. The concentration on a few significant details, so typical of the master, is missing. What we see here is a superficial imitation that deviates from Hals’s his handling of the brush. One possible objection to the comparison made here concerns the difference in size between the artworks. In the Brussels painting, the face measures approximately 20 cm in height, while in the London version it measures only approximately 7.5 cm....
... s Hoornbeeck, sale London (Christie’s), 1 July 2025, lot 5- ...
... la Chambre, with the height of the face measuring about 6 cm. Comparison of these two small-sale faces clearly shows the differences betw...
... s Hoornbeeck, sale London (Christie’s), 1 July 2025, lot 5- ...
... lication of colourful passages onto into the painted surface. Hals created patterns of colours and light that aesthetically enhance the appeal of the depiction. In doing so, he combined the application of paint with rendering the outlines of the facial expressions, which he put down psychologically accurately in a few sweeping lines. None of this ability to emphasize aesthetic observations can be found in the London Hoornbeeck portrait [6]....
... 131, Frans Hals (I), Portrait of a man, The Hague, Mauritshuis...
... e brushstrokes that are present in the London painting [7]. Highlights and patches of colour are merely dabbed on, but the application is uncertain and haphazard, almost shaky....
... s Hoornbeeck, sale London (Christie’s), 1 July 2025, lot 5- ...
... ikely executed in oil paint on paper. This was cheaper than painting on canvas or wood and dried more quickly. It was thus ideal for use by engravers, as well as for painters, functioning as a design for a more finished painting on canvas or panel. Its disadvantage was its low durability, which explains the loss of most of these portrait sketches. Based on this primary design, the final composition could be developed further in the studio in the absence of the sitter. Their presence was neither necessary for the depiction of the hands and clothing – as can sometimes be seen in the sketchy execution of these areas. However, these aspects of artistic practice have not been considered thus far....
... s is because, probably long after the Brussels painting was completed, a significant change was made to the sitter’s clothing – for unknown reasons. The left upper arm and, with it, almost half of the figure were painted over with smooth black paint, blurring the previously visible modelling. Knowing this, the figure looks as if his arm has been amputated. The resulting ‘dead’ area was enlivened by a few faint reflections and scattered grey brushstrokes. The flattened surface is visible in a post-exposed detail image and is reproduced exactly in the London copy [9]. In turn, Suyderhoef's engraving shows what Hals's portrait originally looked like and how convincingly the figure was depicted. The plasticity of his chest and arm, and the clearly imaginable folds of the heavy fabric falling from the shoulder, give the figure an emphatic presence. The split sleeve, decorated with buttons and small ribbons also adds to the liveliness of this section....
... - cat.no. A1.116a, after Frans Hals (I), Portrait of Johannes Hoornbeeck, sale London (Christie’s), 1 July 2025, lot 5- cat.no. C45, Jonas Syderhoef, Portrait of Johannes Hoornbeec...
... ng and print overlay with almost no discrepancies’, as is mentioned in the sale catalogue, is worth commenting on. This observation only confirms the correspondence between the two representations. Usually, a copyist copied the outlines of an engraving, using these as a basis for the rest of the artwork....
... n that was caused in particular by the darkening of a binding agent. The paint losses could be filled in by retouching. Afterwards, the paint layers were revealed again in their uniform coloring and with Hals’s typical brushwork. The extensive recovery of the original; appearance is described in the 1975 restoration report by Thomas Brachert and me.27 The execution of the facial features, but also the cool grey tonality is in keeping with Hals’s style of the mid-1640s. The collar with the large lace scallops is related to the collars in the earlier portraits dated 1643 (A1.107, A1.108)....
... pole must be taken seriously as a source of information about the internationally famous English court painter . Gottfried Kneller (1646-1723). Kneller became a painter at age seventeen in Holland and was sent for training not only to Ferdinand Bol (1616-1680) and Rembrandt (1606-1669), but also to Hals, according to Walpole.30 He must have become familiar with Hals’s work in the last years of his activity. The present portrait that is associated with this reference was copied in an engraving in 1777 by Jean-Baptiste Michel (1748-1804), which is inscribed as ‘Francis Halls’ [10]....
... Stephanus Geeraerdts († 1671) from Amsterdam married Isabella Coymans († 1689), who had been born in Haarl...
... Isabella Coymans, c. 1646-1648...
... onal picture expectations of her parents, her portrait, as well as that of her relative Willem Coymans (1623-1678) (A1.114), displays a new and carefree extravagance. This is Hals’s latest female portrait that is unquestionably by his own hand. The loose brushwork of the present picture and its pendant certainly indicate a date later than the 1644 portraits of her parents and the 1645 portrait of Willem Coymans. The estimated date of c. 1646-1648 takes this difference into account, but is also based on the research by Du Mortier that dates Isabella’s clothing around 1644.36 The slashed jacket of Stephanus Geraerdts matches the similarly embroidered jackets in the 1645 Portrait of Willem Coymans (A1.114), and the probably contemporary Portrait of Jasper Schade (A1.115). Might the clothes of the couple not be their wedding attire that they wore at a later stage, similar to the Olycan-Hanemans couple (A1.17, A1.18)?...
... A...
Notes
... ...
... is (Pillet), 14-16 March 1881, lot 58 (Lugt 40851). ...
... is Jonson van Ceulen I, Portrait of Cornelia Strick van Linschoten, dated 1654, oil on canvas, 118 x 90 cm, Ensche...
... he Hague, RKD – Netherlands Institute for Art History. ...
... is entry was included in August 2025. ...
... , Paris, Musée du Louvre, inv.no. 1317 (A4.1.15); Jan Baptist Weenix, Portrait of René Descartes, oil on canvas, 45....
... 26 March 1969, lot 86. ...
... ...
... 26 Brachert/Grimm 1975, p. 148-151. ...