From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
|
| ??? |
Class: This article has not been assigned a class according to the assessment scale. |
[edit] Holbein portrait
Hans Holbein,
Self-portrait, c. 1542/1543. Coloured chalks and pen, heightened (later) with gold. Uffizi.
I've just read this article. What a delight it is to find such a thorough, well-researched article on a little-known, but in some ways seminal, figure. Many congratulations to Johnbod for another invaluable piece of work.
I cannot myself give much credit to Horenbout for the portrait of Holbein, because it is so similar to Holbein's self-portrait in pen and chalk, apparently a preparatory drawing for a panel painting. The gaze is the classic gaze of the self-portrait, surely. qp10qp (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- My view too, but I've only seen it attributed to LH. I thought perhaps it's some sort of joint effort whilst he was teaching HH the limning game. The drawing is certainly better than LH can usually manage. Actually I had forgotten it was in the Wallace Collection - I've just looked at their 1980 Miniatures catalogue (reduced to £1 - thank you) by Reynolds, who did the Royal Coll one too. He says it was always thought of as a self-portrait until recently, but on technical grounds now looks (I think mainly to him) as though it is by LH based on the Uffizi drawing. Possibly done as a memorial portrait in the 6 months between their deaths. Strong I think concurs. Thanks for the compliments - It's (fairly) easy when you have the books to hand! Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- It's easy in one way, but it takes time and concentration and is an achievement. Yes, I don't dispute that it's by Horenbout, but I wouldn't give him the accolade he gets in the caption, considering the painting is derivative. Apparently Holbein did at least one painted version, which is lost. The practice of artists copying one another's paintings was so common that it just makes everything murky. As does the practice of painting people after they had died or of making them older and younger, from a standard base. I just noticed that Holbein's portrait of John Chambers, in which the subject looks about forty, was done when he was actually 88. François Clouet's portraits of Charles IX age him beyond his death, in my opinion, having been painted as a job lot in advance. It's infuriating, but I suppose one has to escape from the modern mindset of the painter as auteur. I've also noticed that de Critz and Gheeraerts, as far as one can tell when attributions are so elusive, were painting at times from the same base portrait, which is confusing (but, well, their families were interrelated). The practice becomes exposed in artificial group paintings, where we see standard figures inserted into compositions, often anachronistically or beyond the grave. It's fascinating, though. qp10qp (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
