RKD STUDIES

D33 - D42

... his drawing shows the original format of the now reduced Portrait of a man, dated 1634, in Budapes...

... red chalk on grey paper, 400 x 289 mmWhereabouts unknownAbraham Delfos (1731-1820) more frequently crea...

... red chalk on grey paper, 400 x 289 mmWhereabouts unknown...

... red chalk on grey paper, 250 x 283 mmWhereabouts unknown...

... red chalk on grey paper, 390 x 292 mmWhereabouts unknown...

... red chalk on grey paper, 330 x 280 mmWhereabouts unknown...

2.6 Expressive inclinations

... as stylistically different is the brushwork. The face is depicted using a soft brush – rather than a hard brush which can draw sharp edges and contours – and the paint has been applied uniformly opaque. As a result, the shadows on the temple and nasal root appear dull and patchy, when compared to the crisp brushstrokes in the face in the Portrait of Sara Wolphaerts van Diemen (A1.63) [112]. The execution of the white ruffs is also different. In the male portrait [113], it is coarse and almost clumsy, compared to the motif resembling it most closely from the same period: the ruff in the Portrait of an elderly man in the Frick Collection (A1.41) [114]. The collar of Cornelia Claesdr. Vooght [115] is routine template work with little regard for the variation in lighting, while that of Sara Wolphaerts van Diemen [116] – which also has a sequence of many small units by the nature of the object – does observe the gradual changes in lighting at all levels....

... Sara Wolphaerts van Diemen inevitably leads to a critical reinspection of Cornelia Claesdr. Vooght’s pendant as ...

... yster, I assumed that this frequent imitator of Frans Hals could have executed the portrait of Van Steenkiste.152 But the detailed images available today do not support this theory. Zooming in into the Leyster portrait demonstrates how much her manner of painting differs from that of Hals [125]. The detailed inspection of the portrait of Van Steenkiste surprises with the quality of execution in the hands and clothing. When brightening the image, subtly gradient paint layers of black-grey with confidently applied black contours can be discovered [122]. A particularly well-preserved female portrait from 1637 offers a striking comparison. Here, as well as in the Van Steenkiste portrait, we encounter Hals as an observer of silk surfaces who suddenly breaks a delicate grey in grey surface with hard black contours [123]. This is done in such a subtle capturing of nuances and at the same time with such a confident emphasis on individual sharp accents, that none of Hals’s assistants can be considered as the author of this clear and angular, semi-abstract design....

... ortraits it can be established that there are narrow islands in Feyntje’s face where Hals’s manner of representation is still recognizable. These are the two eyes, the eye sockets and eyebrows as well as the lower lid on the right, shadow of the nose and the right nostril. In the mouth, only the central line remains. Everything else is covered by a whitish layer of paint which creates a flat and rigid effect. Even the left lower lid was overpainted, as was the white skin of the right eye. The modelling of the corners of the mouth and the nasal fold were entirely eliminated....

... ty to assemble contrasts of light and shadow in his faces. These were the center and pivotal point of his orderly structured compositions. It is a daring feat to combine this highly expressive dimension with the soft skin of human facial expr...

A4.3.1 - A4.3.10

... and face is close to Hals, as well as the highlighted edges on the folds of the dress and the diagonal brushstrokes laid over the lit areas of the hands. There i...

... g on the book, differ from Hals’s usually foreshortened hand and arm positions which are usually captured in motion. There is also no coherent planar composition that establishes a visual connection betwe...

... e nose and the mouth; the surrounding small swellings and creases are ignored. The smooth execution of the surface conveys a formal expression. In contrast to Hals’s autograph works, the upper body and arms appear slightly reduced in size. This leads to a lack of three-dimensional volume which would be uncharacteristic in a work by Hals. The composition overemphasizes the highlights on the sleeve, which is atypical as well....

... catalogues by Bode, Moes, Bode & Binder and Valentiner.3 However, there is no resemblance to this person when compared to his certain portraits (A2.6, A3.24). It is possible that this identification derived from the title that is inclu...

... such as these could have only been available in the stock of the Hals workshop.Hofrichter included the present painting in her monograph on Leyster as Portrait of a Lute Player, thus emphasizing that this is not a typical genre painting representing the performance of an anonymous actor in a stage costume, or that of a fool, but rather a portrait comparable to that the Portrait of Daniel van Aken (A4.3.9) and hence a commission. As such, Hofrichter suggested that the painting needs to be understood as a representation of an elegantly dressed gentleman playing the lute – a portrait in action – with an unusually emphasized attribute. I agree with Hofrichter’s interpretation, but I think that this special painting was created within the Hals workshop, aided by separate preparatory studies by Hals himself, if only for the face and hands alone. The manner of execution imitates Hals’s brushwork, albeit unrhythmically and without achieving Hals’s ease. Stylistically, it can be placed in the middle of the 1630s, when Leyster had long been working independently. We could a...

... the beginning of the 1640s, based on the style of her dress, and especially of her lace-trimmed cap with the ...

... ted the present painting on commission, depicting the sitter with attributes referring to his profession. It is worth asking to what extent such a portrayal of a gentleman making can be read allegorically. Was the representation of the sitter, rendered in the act of playing an instrument, qualified as a demonstration of the transience of sensual experiences relating to the concept of vanitas, comparable to the motif of a skull? If this was indeed perceived as a self-evident concept, this also ...

... nen), 2003-10-28, lot 7This painting was offered for sale at Sotheby’s New York in 1999, c...

2.4 Momentary captures of short movements

... s away from the normal alignment of body, head, and eyes towards a new focus. In a brief moment of transition, the eyes are already directed towards the new target and the head has followed to some extent, while the rest of the body remains in the original position still. The facial features show a hint of a smile as a visible comment on this change. Characterizing this facial expression requires a subtle rendering of the small creases and bulges appearing in the face. In this constellation, the mental impulse becomes apparent which was recognized as ‘liveliness’ by the viewers of this and other works by Hals. The psychological approach to observing this manner of expression involves giving particular consideration to the crucial area of development. The focal point of attention is therefore the face, which is perceived brighter and with greater contrasts than the surrounding area, as if standing out from the dark dress. But this central field is in motion. Hals acknowledged this by creating soft contours everywhere in the face except around the eyes and by ensuring that individual zones of color and light reflexes remain recognizable as loose brushstrokes. As ‘first’ impressions, these belong to an initial moment of perception which is as yet not quite in focus and incomplete. Consequently, reading Hals’s style of painting as unfinished, ‘rough’ or arbitrary does not accurately describe its unique character. Hals’s deliberately transient brushwork was able to convey suggestions of quickly fleeting and momentary facial and body movements while indicating at the same time that the overall pictorial reality was fluid and a momentary impression. The facial expression of the small child would have turned into a rigid mask in any elaborate surface rendering. Examples for such failed representations of expression can easily be found in the history of painting, starting with imitators of Hals in his own workshop or the doll-like, frozen laughter of the child inserted by Salomon de Bray (1597-1664) in Hals’s early group painting of the Van Campen family [75]. In its porcelain-style smoothness and the too white teeth, this face has been recorded more cerebrally than visually. It feels impossible to linger on the rigid area of the mouth, which is intended to convey a smile. This child’s face differs strongly with that of its brother – featured on a fragment that was cut off from the family portrait (A2.4) – in which the lighting clearly generates colors and shapes on its own accord, such as edgy light streaks and bands of shadow [76].147 Laughter, smiles or grins are emotional expressions with a fleeting character by their very nature, and this is how Hals understood them. He captured these suggestions of movement in a carefully structured but seemingly sketchy manner of painting. This technique had a mediating function for the subjects he represented. It was an individual form of expression without a direct model, but certainly not an artificial ‘style’, a ‘logo of the Hals brand’ which would have assisted his profile as an artist or his positioning on the art market, as was suggested recently.148 Such assumptions belong to the modern world of ‘art marketing’ and not to the 17th century. At that time, nobody purchased a ‘Frans Hals’ and clearly nobody considered it a sacrilege for another painter to add something to a picture by Hals. Rather, representations had to be suitable for the importance of a subject, be it commissioned portraits, intellectually reflected history paintings, or symbolic images of everyday subjects which were bought on the open art market.Hals first adopted his sketchy, out-of-focus perception in his representations with more pronounced movement, such as in areas of the 1616 Banquet of the officers of the St George civic guard (A2.0), in the hand area of ‘Piero’ – a humorous take on a portrait also done in 1616 (A1.3)– and in his depictions of children. This style of painting can be found fully formed in study heads of laughing children created in the first half of the 1620s. Many of these representations were executed by Hals as head studies and complemented by workshop assistants from the neck and collar down to become finished pictures. This is the case for the two pictures of children in Los Angeles and Washington (A3.6, A3.31), as well as for the Laughing boy [77], which, unlike the facial features of Catharina Hooft, was painted from nature, but ‘alla prima’ – that is in a swift application of paint directly onto the panel, wet on wet. This is particularly obvious in the accents that determine the shape of the eyes and nose. A sketchy technique of depicting faces can be observed here, which Hals adopted brilliantly in representations of musicians and singers, actors and drunkards. In the anonymous sitters for his genre portraits he found unrestrained temperament. These ‘tronies’ – as they were known at the time – were studies of character and type which had reached an independent standing since the late16th century and had originally been used as preparatory material for larger scenes....

... jittery manner and always applied paint sparingly. He only knew precisely targeted, often diagonally rising or falling accents which convey an impression of movement in what was perceived. A quality of perception in the two-dimensional picture is used here to create an impression of movement in the three-dimensional image space. There are sometimes just slight exaggerations of contours, edgy emphasized contrasts of color or brightness, which seem to follow an overall direction of movement. Sometimes the edges of paint that was applied still protrude without blurring as in a hasty, rough sketch. In Hals, both effects seem to follow the same joint rhythm. Instead of carefully designed surfaces with smooth transitions, there are gradations of fewer modelling levels of brightness and color. This visual reading pattern gives a uniform structure to Hals’s painting. It is subject to a logic of perception where the facial features of his sitters are in focus and determine certain directions like a dominant motif, while everything else is just captured summarily. At the same time, it qualifies the image impression as a semblance whose contours are co-shaped by the viewers’ perception....

3 The workshop theory

... e as a painting workshop. According to Dudok van Heel, Uylenburgh was probably commissioned the group portrait and engaged Frans Hals to carry out the work.4 In the course of the correspondence about the Amsterdam group portrait, Hals suggested bringing the unfinished picture to Haarlem in order to complete it as much as possible.5 It follows that he must have had an available space suitable in size in Haarlem where he could work undisturbed. For the purpose of painting pictures at the time, a room needed sufficient light as well as depth to allow for the necessary distance between the artist and the painting, and the artist and the sitter. When the room was used by several people, requirements increased accordingly. Furthermore, a work table was needed for grinding pigments and mixing them with binding agents. This support function was needed continuously, as paints had to be in supply and kept from drying out. Furthermore, apprentices needed a workspace as well as a place to eat and sleep. From an economical point of view, pupils and assistants were part of the master’s household and usually lived with him. This, for instance, is the context of a statement made by the 22-year-old Pieter Gerritsz van Roestraten on 6 October 1651 at a notary’s in Amsterdam about having been a member of the Hals household for five years.6 To date, the question how exactly Frans Hals transferred single portraits into a larger composition remains unanswered – whether he made individual studies and copied them into the larger painting – or whether rolled up his canvasses vertically or horizontally, and arranged them differently on the stretcher in order to create an acceptable moving focus between the sitter and the canvas. Just how difficult it is to observe a sitter intently and not only accurately match the proportions of the facial features, but also the characteristic course of the outlines, the fleeting accents of facial expression and the nuances of light and colour, is clear to anybody who has ever attempted it. It is a psychological choice of subtle characteristics, which need to be captured precisely. It was therefore only logical that a painter with Hals’s pronounced ability to observe colour and modelling nuances would begin his large-scale works from the left- or right-hand edge, from where he would still have had an almost straight line of sight to the respective sitter. Accordingly, the flag-bearing ensign on the far left of the Amsterdam Meagre company (A2.11) remained the first and only full figure in the picture that was almost entirely executed by Hals. Similarly, in the 1639 Officers and sergeants of the St George civic guard (A2.12), the group to the far right – consisting of the ensigns Dirck Dicx († 1650) and Pieter Schout [1] – differs in its painterly freshness from the remainder of the painting.7 The same particularly spontaneous handling characterizes the figure of ensign Boudewijn van Offenberch (1590-1653) on the outer right edge of the 1616 Banquet of the officers of the St. George civic guard (A2.0) [2]. But even on the picture’s edges it was much more difficult to paint directly from the respective sitter’s features than to insert their individual studies. Preparatory sketches in a manageable size were made on paper, panel or canvas, and their subjects could be transferred in the correct proportion to the final composition. Although important parts had to be painted twice in this way, the quality of observation and rendering remained uniform....

... anner of painting. Quite a few have Hals signatures that are old and no less credible than the signatures on pictures that were undoubtedly painted by Frans...

... t and vegetable of 1630 [7]. This is a typical and loosely painted genre picture with an unquestionable attribution to Hals – the still life elements were carried out by Claes van Heussen (c. 1598/1599-c. 1631/1634), who also signed the painting. However, a detailed comparison from today’s perspective indicates that the plain and clear accentuation of the young woman’s face [8], and the clarity of the shape of her hands hands and dress [9] cannot be matched with any of the fishermen pictures accepted by Slive [10][11]. Detailed and precise photographs available today leave no doubt that there is a significant difference. The hard contours and stripy slashes of the brush in the fisherchildren in Antwerp, Dublin, etc. follow an independent style that is not present in accepted autograph works by Frans Hals....

... rp Fisherboy in a landscape (A4.2.20) [16]; or round finger joints that are treated unanatomically with stripy strokes, like in the Fishergirl (A4.2.19); or unnecessary slashes of paint that run riot on incidental and therefore unimportant parts of the clothing – which is the case in almost all fisherchildren as well as in many commissions of the later period – all of these are indications of assistants’ imitations. Without exception, Hals’s portraits are precise recordings of the observation of individual temperament. In his faces, the brushstrokes that are emphasized, are based on a summarizing but nevertheless sensitive characterisation of facial features and mark the fleeting tensions in facial expression. Therefore, Hals always makes the eyes the precisely lit centre of attention. Similarly, edges of light and shadow emphasize the volume and the folds of the clothing, while the strictest economy is consistently exercised in these accents up until the master’s late years. There are no superfluous stripes, lines, or edges, but only a few and determined coordinates, also in the folds of the dress in some body movements. The gaze of the sitter is often directed straight towards the viewer. The facial expression is always clearly formulated, also and especially in the shape of the mouth and the curving of the lips. This stringent observation of facial features – in specific conditions of movement and lighting – is lacking in many portraits by assistants, where thin lines at the mouth and a weak schematic smile take the place of precisely formulated expression.Clashing contour lines and free-floating colour slashes are a symptom of work by assistants and imitators. Their emphasis differs from that of Hals’s portraits, both in the features of the sitters and their dress, and the three-dimensional modelling is less accurate. The two large family portraits in London (A4.3.19) and Madrid (A4.3.24) are typical cases in point, which display aimless use of brushstrokes. This also goed for the three-quarter length Portrait of an unknown man in the Liechtenstein collection (A4.3.42), whose hand is cut across by random streaks [17]. Later works from this group display an excess of ‘floating reflections’ that give the facial features a sloppy creaminess. A prime example is the Portrait of an unknown man (A4.3.55) in Cambridge, whose features seem to glide out of control like those of a drunk [18]. A comparison with the Kassel Portrait of a man with a slouch hat (A1.130), probably painted at the same time, clearly demonstrates discipline and clarity of pictorial shape in the latter, as well as confidence in depicting the features of the face and the anatomy [19]. According to this, ‘old Hals’ was probably a painter who restricted himself to terse characterisations and few colour accents for emphasis. Yet, he did this is in a highly focused manner and not by using random slashes of the brush.Pictures by workshop assistants frequently display a lack of awareness for the basics of anatomical construction, as well as an inability to study different modelling in gradual levels of lightness and shade. Instead, they focus on superficial effects which they overemphasize. The unconvincing representation of anatomy, as well as a random adoption of ‘floating reflections’ and coarse, wooden shadow stripes are a common feature in many works. It can be found in assistants’ contributions in paintings ranging from the Merrrymaker at Shrovetide of c. 1616-1617 (A3.1), to the hands of the Regentesses of the Old Men’s Almshouse of 1663-1664 (A3.63), an...

D1- D10

... e preserved copies of the smaller painted self-portrait of c. 1648-1650 (B17), its characterisation appears credible and lively. Although the drawing is generally accepted as to have been made by an unknown draughtsman...

... ion does not exclude the characters being derived from contemporary theatre, such as Peeckelhaering and Hans Wurst. Overpainting of the New York painting had covered up some of the provoking details and the coarse background figures, which are all present in Matthias van den Bergh’s (1615-1687) drawing of 1660. Thus, the b...

... This first drawing depicts Peeckelhaering – recognizable by the garland of salted fish and eggs – without his merry companions from the painted example, and set within an elaborately decorated frame. Both drawings have long been considered copies of the New York painting. However, they are more detailed in execution and probably reproduce Hals's lost workshop templates. Two painted copies of the motif on the present sheet have survived as well (A3.1b, A3.1c)....

... red and white chalk on grey-brown paper, 202 x 172 mm, monogrammed lower left: WBFParis, Fondation Cus...

... Rommel-pot player, datable to c. 1622-1624. The drawing was probably directly inspired by the variant that is now in Wilton House [3].4...

A2.0 - A2.8

... e highest-ranking member, Colonel van Berckenrode (1). In addition, his face and hand suffered most from later cleaning and retouching [2][3]. All other faces show Hals’s striking emphases; his brushwork appears most clearly in the heads in the center and the right hand side of the composition. The color accents in the face of ensign Jacob Cornelisz. Schout, left of center (10) [4], his colleagues standing outer right (9, 11) [5] [6] and the two lieutenants seated behind the table (6, 7) [7][8] are unthinkable without a previous encounter with the work of Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640) and Jacob Jordaens (1593-1678) in Antwerp. The landscape as seen through the window in the background, with its greenish-brown tone and the evenly rendered round leaves, displays an independent manner which differs from the style of the Hals workshop. The colors, as well as the shape of the foliage and branches, connect this part of the painting to the Haarlem landscape painter Cornelis Vroom (c. 1591-1661).Two anonymous chalk drawings after the composition are preserved in the Teylers Museum in Haarlem. One of them bears the date 1720 on the back and shows a composition that is larger on the right, whilst a horizontal strip is missing on the top (D78). This suggests that the original group portrait may have been cut down on the right by approximately 25 cm.In the literature, Anne van Grevenstein, Norbert Middelkoop and Koos Levy-van Halm give an overview of the history of the present painting’s storage, preservation and restoration, and they discuss the most recent restoration that took place June to December 1986.4 An illustration shown by Grevenstein and Middelkoop provides a striking demonstration of a fact pertaining to all pictures from past centuries: the irreversible changes in color, which lead to an overall darker and more contrasting impression, while delicate transitions have faded and certain colors have disappeared completely, such as the copper green of the curtain on the left which became reddish brown.5...

... in the two pendants that differ in style. According to this, the execution of the two faces are definitely not in keeping with the style of Frans Hals. In contrast, Hals’s typical brushwork is recognizable from the collar downwards; both lace collars as well as the clothes underneath and especially the man’s hands are typical and virtuoso achievements in Hals’s confident brushstrokes. The connections between Pieter Soutman and the Beresteyn family (see below, cat.no. A2.2) suggest an attribution of the faces to this artist.8 In comparison to the manner of Hals, they are rendered smoother and softer. A remarkable detail are the pentimenti on the right and above the area of the man’s head, which seems to have been lowered at a later stage, perhaps in order to establish a better balance with the woman’s portrait.It is certainly unusual and even ironical that two three-quarter length figures in expensive clothing were executed by Frans Hals, while the faces were commissioned from a colleague....

... the colors of the faces and hands have been preserved above average in their intensity and in the nuances between the zones of light and shade.The second signature on the largest fragment in Toledo (A2.3) and the date 1628 refer specifically to the lower left part with the seated small boy and identify it as the work by Frans Hals’s successful colleague, the painter and architect Salomon de Bray. The reasons for commissioning a second painter to make a later addition, are unknown and may have been banal. They did not have the weight added by today’s view which regards such a representation as a uniform artwork. The same is true with regard to a further painter who contributed the landscape background. This background is devised as a prop to form a backdrop for the figures, and was probably painted by the Haarlem landscape and figure painter Gerrit Claesz. Bleker (c. 1592/1593-1656).16 The foliage shows Bleker’s typical characteristics, such as round bunches of foliage, with the shapes of the leaves modelled in a dabbing manner with a thick round brush [14][15]. Considering the darkening which is visible in other landscape areas in works by Hals – especially that in the Meeting of the officers and sergeants of the Calivermen civic guard of 1632/1633 (A2.10) – we may assume the present picture’s original appearance to have been much lighter overall and more differentiated in its three-dimensionality. The fact that the portrait was painted in the studio is indicated by the absence of recognizable outside lighting, especially in the depiction of the figures. There is only the muted light of an interior space.The prototype for a painting of a family as a group resting outside can be found in Flemish painting. There are several models, including depictions of the Rest on the Flight into Egypt and idyllic Arcadian scenes. In this instance, the father is seated next to a stone covered in ivy. His wife leans on him and, as a mother, gestures to the surrounding group of children, reaching as far as the children with the goat cart, preserved in the Brussels fragment (A2.4). The motif of the goat cart is part of the overall allegorical concept of a group of people dwelling in Arcadian fields. Contemporary viewers were presented with a spiritual and visionary content, as was the custom for erudite paintings at the time. While there are individual portraits of the respective family members, they form a group joined by an experience of particular unity, virtue and tranquility. The parents are resting in front of a vigorous tree of life; ivy – a symbol of consistency – is wrapped around its roots. The motif of the goat cart balances out the main figure group on the left. This arrangement would recur repeatedly in Dutch painting, with examples painted by artists ranging from Jan Daemen Cool (c. 1589-1660) in 1631 to Adriaen van de Velde (1636-1672) in 1655.17 A related composition with only children in a goat cart was painted in 1654 by Ferdinand Bol (1616-1680).18Around 1620, Arcadian motifs started to appear in paintings by the Utrecht artists Abraham Bloemaert (1566-1651) and Paulus Moreelse (1571-1638), for example in portraits which depict the sitters as shepherd or shepherdess. However, Hals’s present painting seems to be an early and independent example of this genre. It is not clear whether the patron exerted any influence on the design of this representation. It is conceivable that for such an unprecedented large family portrait, the concept was worked out jointly by several people, perhaps also by especially learned advisors.The composition of the present painting was followed in some unidentified family paintings from the Hals workshop which were painted during the 1640s (A4.3.19, A4.3.24), but also influenced others such as Pieter Soutman (1593/160...

... th merchant Willem van Heythuysen († 1650), who is represented in an excessively theatrical performance. He is dressed in the French fashion; some of his expensive pieces of clothing were described in his estate inventory ...

... f love. As outlined by Smith, the background scene might show an opposite world to the marital sphere in the foreground, based on the subject matter of the temple, fountain, and peacock and the clothing and behavior of the couples appearing there. The marital sphere is demarcated by the clay pots on the right and the ivy vines in front.36 The painterly style in the area of the trees – with the exception of the ivy at the feet and between the heads of the sitters – and the figures sauntering in the right hand background differs from Hals’s manner and is closer to that of Pieter de Molijn (1595-1661). A drawing by the latter, dated by Beck to c. 1625-1626, depicts a similar elegant couple and may have been created in preparation of the present painting [19][20]. A suitable comparison for the rendering of the foliage can be found in Prince Maurits and Prince Frederik Hendrik going to the chase, 1625 [21] [22].37 Awareness of the detailed symbolical program of the present double portrait suggests the presence of a well-considered concept involving the patron and further advisers. While Hals and De Molijn may have created the designs for the scenery, they were most likely not the sole originators. Up-close observations of the working sequence in this painting are described by Bezold, who also points out that parts of the background match the landscape in the 1627 Garden party by Dirck Hals (1591-1656).38 Within the landscape setting of the portrait of Massa and Van der Laen, the two illuminated vines of ivy at the feet of the sitters and between their heads have been rendered in the same loose manner as the single rose and leaf at the feet of Willem van Heythuyzen in his full-length portrait in Munich (A2.6) – a style different from De molijn’s. These can be recognized as contributions by Hals himself.Unfortunately, since the restoration of 1984, the damage in the paint layers in the lower left corner emerge in noticeable light patches....

A1.111 – A1.121

... rait, the juxtaposition of the flesh tone of the left hand and the ivory shade of the glove of the right hand is supremely delicate. The virtuosity in the rendering of the gloves is typical for Hals, who wonderfully captured the distorted creases and flat fingertips in both pictures.As stated above, from a historical point 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 right...

... 937.1.70This painting was offered at a 1919 Sotheby’s sale i...

... le the arm akimbo only appears as a dark circle in the background, the proper right arm pushed forward offers a decorative color scheme, with its slashed sleeve in embroidered brocade and the pleated shirt. With his shoulder-length hair, large white collar and hat with a pompom, the youth peers out at the viewer in a blasé and ostentatiously ...

... ls’s portrait seems even more arrogant than his contemporary Willem Coymans; leaning back, his scrutinizing gaze conveys pure contempt.Jasper, who came from a prestigious patrician family, became deacon of a protestant college in Utrecht in 1666, in 1672 he was representative for Utrecht to the States-General and in 1681 president of the Utrecht court of justice. The hereditary provenance of the portrait is extraordinary and illustrates magical thinking, in spite of the unparalleled material character of the representation. At the beginning of the 1650s, Jasper Schade had a superb country house built near Utrecht, called Zandbergen. Hals’s portrait was hung over the door to the salon (‘middenkamer’). With the house, it passed to Jaspe...

... logiae Practicae in his important book Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus.17 As an orthodox Calvinist, Hoornbeeck was a believer in the idea of predestination that was already recognizable in this world. In 1644 he was appointed professor of theology at the University of Utrecht, where he was to become rector i...

... that correspond to contemporary copper engravings. Repetitions were traditionally required for portraits, as there was often a need for private remembrance as well as for publ...

... area. Why would Hals, such a precise observer, have created such a crude reproduction? Instead of the clear application of paint in the facial areas and the restriction 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 ob...

... een Hals’s light and airy manner of execution – with rhythmic diagonal brushstrokes concentrated on a few accents – and the blurred and smudged application of paint in the present painting [5]....

... red to paintings from Hals’s workshop. The portrait in Boston (A4.3.53), possibly executed by Hals's son Frans Ha...

... nt 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....

... een painted can be dated to around 1639, following recent dendrochronological analysis. When the painting as it is visible today, was applied to it, is independent of this date and appears to be younger in style. Only a pigment analysis could reveal anything additional here. However, the well-preserved surface of the paint layer already has documentary value. This 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....

... e. An examination at the Swiss Institute for Art Research confirmed my presumption that it was in fact a damaged and dirty original by Hals. Several cracks ran across the center of the picture surface, indicating a probably deliberate attack. The restoration that Dr. Thomas Brachert undertook in 1973-1974 established the original components and could reduce the discoloration 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 Th...

... y fashion in which Isabella Coymans († 1689) is dressed.33 In Hals’s commissioned portraits, she...

1.7 The interplay of various ‘hands’

... re painting by Hals. However, it is not his spontaneous invention, but more likely a commission, as the size and the rich iconography suggest. The patron may have been a ‘Rederijkerskamer’ – an association of people who focused on literature and theatrical performances – or one of its wealthy members.18 The colorful composition depicts a ca...

... the appearance of the motif in one of his paintings of merry companies [82]. Frans Hals’s brother Dirck Hals (1591-1656) also borrowed motifs from the Merrymakers at Shrovetide in his paintings, at least three times, and always only from the group of the three main figures [83]. Those paintings date from around 1620 and are today located in Frankfurt, Paris and St. Petersburg.20But let us turn our attention back to the areas of sophisticated design, most particularly in the central figure. Her masterly depicted filigree collar is emphasized, as are the ornaments of her embroidered dress. In contrast to the collar, the waistcoat embroidery was not captured in varying shades of light and color, but rather uniformly depicted as a flat surface, which was later on covered in a shade of blue-grey in the shadow areas [84]. Both areas demonstrate a sensitive observation of small-scale details, and the loose brushwork of the collar, captured at an angle, contrasts with the meticulously delicate rendering of the embroidery. If the latter was a delegation, as were the blue bows, only Hals himself would have been capable of creating the structure of the lace collar which is as accurate as it is loose. It frames the face and covers the improbably skewed anatomy of the upper body. The subtlety of the embroidered decoration of the festive dress is in contrast to the awkward rendering of the two sleeves. We may thus conclude that responsibilities have been delegated. There are visible overlaps between the areas carried out by the different participants. For instance, the black cap of Peeckelhaering was already present when the laurel wreath and the forehead of the young woman were painted over it. Similarly, the areas below and behind the lace collar were finished first. But the woman’s blonde hair, then again, was added on top of the already present collar, as can be seen in a close-up detail [85]. The highlights in the curls were probably added by Hals himself, yet they have not been integrated into a convincing overall appearance of the hair. Apart from the carefully prepared representations of the main characters, there are also some freely added elements, such as the grinning and grimacing ancillary figures in the background [86]. Whether these were executed by the same hand as the two male protagonists, or whether other assistants were involved here, is hard to determine. Based on the various early copies, the group of six additional figures directly surrounding the main figures was part of the original composition....

D91 - D104

... hen Van der Vinne was about 32 years old. Although the working relationships of Van der Cooghen and Van der Vinne are unknown, both men entered the Guild of St. Luke in about 1652, together with Dirck Helmbreeker (1633-1696).3...

... Red and black chalk, washed in red on paper, 223 x 176 mmLondon, British Museum, inv.no. 1895,1214.9...