Escenario real ocurrido en la empresa con un alto costo

In 1929, art historian Bernard Berenson (1865-1959) said, under oath:

….when I see a picture, in most cases I recognise it at once as being or not being by the master it is ascribed to; the rest is merely a question of how to try to fish out the evidence that will make the conviction as plain to others as it is to me.¹¹¹

This statement underlines one of the problems associated with conventional

connoisseurship as a methodology; it is often used for attribution purposes, as a means of explaining the appearance of an artwork, and a way of making the evidence fit pre-conceived ideas. Further, in its tacitness, traditional connoisseurship is neither a methodology that is measurable, nor is it a transferable tool for use by anyone other than the connoisseur. Prior to the development of and access to instrumental analysis and innovations in examination technology, Bernard Berenson’s opinion played a key role in the attribution of major artworks in the early 20^thcentury, including advising

110Raphael: http://cima.ng-london.org.uk/documentation/index.php; Cranach:

http://www.lucascranach.organd Rembrandt:http://www.rembrandtdatabase.org/

111Gary Schwartz, ‘The Penalty of Ahistoricism’. Artibus et Historiae. 1988. 9.18.202

Isabella Stewart Gardner in the acquisition of two Holbein portrait paintings now hanging in the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston.¹¹²This unquestioned opinion of the connoisseur has permeated art historical methodology for centuries, but can be an unquantifiable solution to many questions relating to an artist’s production.

Such an approach has sometimes limited potential new approaches to Holbein’s portrait drawings for fear of questioning authorities on Holbein.

At a recent conference in London regarding Leonardo da Vinci’s technical practice, the value of traditional connoisseurship within current art historical practice was

questioned as a methodology.¹¹³ The position of old-fashioned connoisseurship’s ability to understand an object’s production was questioned in relation to the now much valued collaboration between scientists, conservators and art historians.

Leonardo expert and art historian Martin Kemp responded that connoisseurship was still valid. However, since there was too much information still open to interpretation, art historians needed to work out their methodology in order to better integrate it with science. Further, emphasizing this lack of definition, Kemp answered by responding that the way we deal with connoisseurship now is ‘arbitrary, chaotic and

opportunistic’.¹¹⁴

It is increasingly acknowledged that, other than the benefits of the eye of the

experienced individual, a combination of methodologies is necessary to create a fuller picture of a drawing’s composition, history and function.¹¹⁵ Given advances in

technology and increasing numbers of materials-based research projects, it is important to re-examine and perhaps question some cataloguing information regarding materials and techniques for drawings. It is also important to point out and acknowledge

anomalies, and to admit when we are not sure what it is we are looking at. There is nothing wrong with speculation; it can be enlightening, as long as it is informed and not

112These were the portraits of Lady and Sir William Butts, Isabella Steward Gardner Museum, Boston.

113‘Leonardo da Vinci’s Technical Practice: Paintings, Drawings and Influence’. CHARISMA Conference, organised jointly by the National Gallery, London, Centre de Recherche et de Restauration des Musée de France (C2RMF) and the British Museum 13-14 January 2012

11414 January, closing remarks of Leonardo Charisma conference. Perhaps Kemp should also have pointed out the lack of discussion regarding Leonardo’s drawing techniques: only two hours were devoted to this during a two day conference..

115See for instance, Janet Ambers, Catherine Higgitt and David Saunders, eds. Italian Renaissance Drawings: Techincal Examination and Analysis. Archetype Publications in associate with The British Museum: London. 2010I as well as the Making Art in Tudor Britain project whose approach as re-evaluated artistic processes.

offered up as a fact.. Focussing on the object itself and asking questions around its manufacture is arguably a more useful exercise than trying to shape evidence for attribution. A separation of the disciplines of art history, conservation and science when discussing Holbein’s drawings has meant that information has not been extracted to its full extent possible. What is needed is an interdisciplinary approach. It is in each discipline’s interest to understand the working processes of an artist when viewing, examining, describing and treating their work.

This research places the portrait drawings at the centre of the project, and uses a range of methodologies to build a fuller picture and establish a more developed dialogue. A broader spectrum of methods has helped to place Holbein’s work not only art

historically, but technically, culturally and socially within the context of its time.

The exploration of materials and techniques for this project should be seen in the context of what has become known as Art Technological Research.¹¹⁶ Set up in 2001 by the Institut Collectie Nederland (ICN), the Art Technological Source Research study group states that the ‘three pillars of art technology’ are scientific analysis, source research and reconstruction.¹¹⁷ Within this methodology, an art ‘technological source’:

be it the object itself; the tools or materials used in its making; contemporaneous, primary information; art history; conservation; secondary literature and so on, never stands alone as there is always a context that reveals differences and similarities.

Scientific analysis and visual examination is important to conservation and informs the reconstruction process, which in turn may inform conservation practices.¹¹⁸ As a conservator, it is important to distinguish between damage, restoration and if possible, original appearance.

Visual examination of the drawings has been the backbone of this research. The

importance of consulting the primary source in making comment on an artwork is key.

However, the interpretation of visual evidence is more complicated and the findings

116Art technology is defined as “knowledge concerning the production methods of works of art or craft ie. Machines, materials, studios, techniques, tools etc.” The Art Technological Source Research working group, March 2002, from Art of the Past: Sources and Reconstructions, proceedings of the first

symposium of the Art Technological Source Research study group, 2005, Archetype Publications.

117 Foreword, pp v. Art of the Past: Sources and Reconstructions, proceedings of the first symposium of the Art Technological Source Research study group, 2005, Archetype Publications.

118See A. Stinjman. ‘Style and technique are inseparable: art technological sources and reconstructions’

from proceedings Art of the Past: Sources and Reconstructions ed. Clarke, Townsend & Stinjnman, UK &

Amsterdam: 2005

were not always definable nor conclusions definitive. Over a period of five years, I have examined over 200 hundred drawings, half of which were Holbein’s portrait drawings.¹¹⁹Other genres of drawings by Holbein, such as his designs for goldsmiths, were also examined in order to establish if there is a relationship between choice of materials and techniques, and to understand the possible function of the drawing.

Drawings by Hans Holbein the Elder and Holbein’s contemporaries were also examined so as to gain a better understanding of workshop style and the individual artist’s materials and techniques.

Such comparison helps not only to gain an overview of Holbein’s materials and techniques, but it establishes what working practices were particular to him and what was part of workshop practice, as well. For example, comparison of Holbein’s drawing of the poet Thomas Wyatt, c1535-37, Parker 64, and what is catalogued by Parker to be a contemporaneous copy, Parker 65, both at Windsor, was an illuminating exercise, which suggested that the copyist did not fully understand the layering of media involved in Holbein’s drawing processes. This is discussed in Chapter Three. Whilst Holbein’s training in a workshop is not in doubt, the existence of a Holbein workshop in England has, to date, never been confirmed and we do not know who may have had access to his drawings during his lifetime.¹²⁰

Although a large number of drawings have been examined, the main focus of this research has been the eighteen drawings that relate to currently attributed paintings, and one miniature, (see Table 1, Appendix Four). Studying the drawings as a group has highlighted similarities, differences and potentially established patterns of production and use. Concentrating on the eighteen drawings with associated paintings, and

underdrawings, of the same sitter has been most useful in terms of understanding their

119With the exception of three, all of Holbein’s currently attributed portrait drawings were examined.

Portrait of Man, c1532-5.Inv no: 84.GG.93 , the J Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles; An Unidentified Man,c 1534-6, Inv. No: 2392, Staaliche Museen zu Berlin (Kupferstichkabinett); George Neville,3^rdBaron

Bergavenny, c.1532-5, The Earl of Pembroke, Wilton House, Wilton, Salisbury.

120See Susan Foister, Holbein and England.2004.65 Affiliation to a court by an artist would ordinarily mean some information being on record in official court papers. However, this is not the case for Holbein as the Royal accounts of the 1530s, the decade that Holbein was Painter to the King, are incomplete.

There is proof, however, that Holbein worked with large groups of fellow artists and craftsmen. For example, he was employed to create the Greenwich Festivities of 1527, where he worked with 19 other painters (see Susan Foister, ‘Holbein’s Paintings on Canvas: The Greenwich Festivities of 1527.’ In: Hans Holbein: Paintings, Prints and Reception. Studies in the History of Art 60. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. 2001.112.

relationship to the painting or miniature. Information gleaned has helped to establish how the drawings may have been referred to during the painting process, in terms of what information was translated from one to the other. A smaller selection was chosen for discussion when it came to comparison of underdrawing to drawing and painting.

This selection was made according to quality of underdrawing image, and access to the painting and drawing.

Comparing the eighteen drawings as a group is revealing. The immediate differences may appear somewhat obvious: for instance, in their size; the tones of the paper

resulting from the use of a coloured preparation; the introduction of a more descriptive use of coloured media in chalks; or the emphasis on the contour. Closer scrutiny in terms of visual analysis reveals the more elusive differences and similarities.

Examination with the naked eye and by microscope, using different light sources and directions of light, such as natural, raking and transmitted has revealed more

information. Microscope images of details were useful in terms of making comparisons whilst visiting other collections.

In terms of instrumental analysis, Raman spectroscopy has been carried out on a number of Holbein portrait drawings and miniatures at Windsor only. Infra red reflectography of a number of the Windsor drawings was also carried out to aid the location of any silverpoint media that may have been used, either as a drawing or tracing tool. Although the forensic paper historian, Peter Bower, has pointed out that there is no formulaic approach to investigating individual papers, there is a way of looking that is consistent, and asking the same question of each drawing helps to clarify differences and similarities.¹²¹Empirical observations were recorded by means of a pro forma table that asked the same question of each drawing such as substrate type, size, media, placement of media, etc.

During a lecture in 1996, British Museum curator Antony Griffiths spoke about the

‘archaeology of the print’.¹²²This concept and the possibilities of applying it to

121Peter Bower, ‘The White Art: The Importance of Interpretation in the Analysis of Paper. Looking at Paper: Evidence & Interpretation.’ Symposium proceedings published by Canadian Conservation Institute 2001.5

122Conference paper presented at ‘The Collecting of Prints and Drawings in Europe c.1539-1750’, London, National Gallery 20-21 June 1997. Conference organised by The Burlington magazine with the support of The Provenance Index, The Getty Information Institute.

Holbein’s drawings were instrumental not only in the approach to systematically investigating the drawings, but also key to the clarification of their description and the findings framing this research. This archaeological approach has been interpreted in terms of layers – applied from the paper up. It also takes into account the drawing’s use, its history of storage and display, its wear and tear, and its conservation - all factors that may affect appearance. Such an approach considers the size of paper, its tone, texture, weight and watermarks; the media and the sequence it is laid down; and the method of application. This archaeological analogy helps to establish and explain the complexity or combination of factors that unite to make up the drawings. Moreover, studying the physical properties of the drawings enables certain distinctions to be made between materials. When coupled with visual examination and instrumental analysis, the archaeological concept enables a thorough investigation of the drawings, something the subjective nature of connoisseurship does not necessarily do.

By using the archaeological approach, it has been possible to clarify some of the confusion around the complex discussions pertaining to the physical attributes of Holbein’s portrait drawings. This is particularly so with regards to the role of the drawings’ contours, their media and their much-discussed connection with transfer.

The sequence of application of media for each drawing, whilst often hard to decipher, has revealed certain consistencies in his working methods, especially in relation to the execution of certain features of the drawing: in particular the eyes, ears, mouth and nose, for example. The function of such drawings can be revealed or enhanced through the exploration of materials and techniques, and an understanding of how they are combined to produce a portrait drawing. This links to the salient points that are needed for transfer or give that likeness of that sitter, and why thinking in terms of layers and sequencing is the best approach to reveal Holbein’s working methods.

This research was developed over a period of five years and was dependent upon the invaluable co-operation of the institutions that house Holbein drawings, as well as the curators and conservators involved with their care and display. When not on display or out on loan, I have had constant access to all the Holbein portrait drawings, which includes the main body of this project’s selected corpus, in the Royal Collection, Windsor. I have been able to get all 85 Parker catalogued portrait drawings out at the same time and display them around the Royal Library Print Room; and this has enabled

me to engage with them as a group, and to compare directly this body of work. The paper conservation studio at Windsor was made available to me for the examination of the drawings using various light sources, and a microscope from which I was also able to capture microscopic details if necessary. It was also a venue for undertaking

instrumental analysis, such as Raman and infra-red reflectography.¹²³It was harder to interpret some aspects of the drawings’ physical nature because of the Perspex

sandwich mounting method employed at Windsor, as described in Chapter One.

Texture, weight and tone of papers are harder, if not impossible, to gauge beneath Perspex. Encapsulation of this type can be a frustrating barrier to examination, especially in raking light, and Perspex’s reflective properties also make photography difficult. The difference in viewing was made more apparent when I was fortunate enough to be present when three of the drawings were taken out of their Perspex mounts for re-mounting, and in two instances during Raman analysis to see if we could get a better reading without the interference from the Perspex.

For Holbein collections outside of Windsor, I was able to carry out detailed examination of other Holbein portrait drawings in the conservation studios of the British Museum in London; the Staaliche Kunstsammlungen in Dresden and the Louvre in Paris. Access to the corpus of drawings at Basel was more limited, not just because it was

geographically less convenient for constant access. For example, it was only possible to examine the drawings in the Print Room, which restricted the type of lighting for

viewing. A microscope was provided for one of the visits and to this I was able to attach an eyepiece camera in order to take more detailed images. In this way, I was able to be consistent with the recording of the microscopic visual examination of each drawing.

Access to the painted versions of the sitters as well underdrawing images was made possible through the cooperation of curators and conservators at The Frick and Metropolitan Museum in New York; the Staaliche Kunstsammlungen in Dresden; the Städel Museum, Frankfurt; the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, Boston; the

Kunstmuseum, Basel; The Royal Collection, Windsor and Hampton Court and the Louvre, Paris. Not all portrait paintings were available for thorough examination. For example, only the portraits of Simon George, Sir Thomas More, Charles de Solier, Sir

123 Examination carried out by the author, Raman analysis and interpretation of the result carried out by Professor Robert Withnall and PhD student, Alexander Reip, Brunel University.

Henry Guildford, William Reskimer and Unidentified Gentleman were removed from the gallery walls to allow a detailed examination under laboratory conditions. Other paintings were viewable on the gallery walls only with varying degrees of visibility. For example, The Darmstadt Madonna portraits of the Meyer family were viewed outside of the Städel Museum’s opening hours, up a ladder with a torch and viewed through glass. Despite viewing through glass and setting off the alarm twice, being in close proximity to study the beautiful detail and fine quality of the painting in situ was still enlightening.

A summary of the methodologies employed are listed below:

Library and Archival Research

Extensive library and archival research has informed all aspects of this project, in particular art historical investigation. It has involved an extensive reading process that encompasses art history; aspects of artists’ materials including their components and availability during the 16^thcentury; the status of drawing and portraiture and the social and political context of art production during this time. All of these aspects help to set the objects within the context of their time. Comparison with Holbein’s

contemporaries has also been investigated through books and archives. Technical data from other research institutions has been sought:¹²⁴results of analysis of paintings for under-drawings; any drawing analysis carried out by institutions; and previous

conservation records: all of which informed the visual and technical analysis in terms of changes the objects may have undergone, and provided a better knowledge of available 16^thcentury portrait drawing and transfer techniques. Reading historical Holbein literature has been particularly revealing and enabled a mapping of the way the drawings have been discussed, interpreted and written about.

Visual Examination

124 Only one of Holbein’s portrait drawings in the Kunstmuseum, Basel, has undergone scientific analysis. Portrait of a man with a red beret inv. no: 1662.6. See Marcus Jacob, ‘Bildnis eines Mannes mit rotem Barett von Hans Holbein dem Jüngeren’. Technologische Untersuchung und Konservierung.’

Restauro April/May 2005. 176-186. In 2004, four portrait drawings from Windsor underwent Raman analysis alongside the V&A drawing (Dyce 363), whose attribution continues to be questioned. Given

Restauro April/May 2005. 176-186. In 2004, four portrait drawings from Windsor underwent Raman analysis alongside the V&A drawing (Dyce 363), whose attribution continues to be questioned. Given