Viewing page 77 of 77

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

[[news clippings]]

[[first clipping]]

"The Velasquez Not Genuine"
A Specialist's Argument in Opposition 

BY NEENA HAMILTON PRINGSHEIM

  It has been my privilege in some eight years of the critical study of art in Europe to see, to examine and to classify all the works of Velasquez in the public galleries, except the doubtful paintings in The Hermitage in St. Petersburg.  I have visited private collections in England, and closely studied the master's style in the great loan exhibition held in London three years ago.
  The first glance at the Boston painting showed me that though the motives of the same were familiar, the work, as a whole was untrue.  A careful examination convinced me that attribution to the hand of Velasquez was open to some serious doubt.  Of the three hundred works catalogued by Ch. B. Curtis (London, 1883) as belonging to Velasquez and his pupils, Sir Walter Armstrong accepts about one hundred as showing the hand of the master.  He declares, "the most difficult problem to be faced by the would-be critics of Velasquez is that of distinguishing his own genuine creations from the copies, imitations and more or less controlled replicas turned out by his pupils."  To this task we must now, with diligent attention, apply ourselves.  Historically, the painting possessed by the Boston Museum represents Philip IV, at about eighteen years of age, in the year 1623.  It could not have been painted before that date, as the king first sat for Velasquez on Aug. 30, and as the monarch is represented in the simple black attire first donned in that year.  The technique which it represents belongs also to this period of Velasquez's work.  The drawing is light; the figure is modelled piecemeal, not impressionistically; its tone is not aerial, nor even luminous: it then, unquestionably, represents Velasquez's brush as a beginner.
  The king stands dressed in black, near a table covered with a red cloth, upon which is a high hat.  His right hand holds a petition, his left rests upon his sword hilt.  The position of his legs is somewhat distended, the feet being placed at some distance apart.  Over the tightly fitting, padded costume, Philip wears the usual large Spanish mantle, a white golilla, and short white turnedover cuffs complete his attire, which is enriched by a heavy gold chain with the order of the Golden Fleece.  The simple background is divided by a diagonal, the lower part representing the floor, the upper, of a cool, neutral, greenish-gray tone, giving us the idea of indefinite space.  The motives of the upper part of the figure - the position of the head, the body, the right arm, the left arm and hand, the costume, the background including the table and hat, we find to correspond with the original Velasquez of Philip on the Prado (Braun, 1070).  Its deviations-the position of the legs and feet, the right hand, and the chair-we find to be borrowed from the portrait of Philip's brother, Don Carlos (Braun, 1073), painted at about the same time as the Philip.  We therefore conclude, knowing that such was the custom in Velasquez's atelier, that this is a composite of two of his originals.  This composite was possible as the upper part of both figures was seen from the same viewpoint in front.  The reason of the choice of the extended position of the feet may easily be found in the fact that the earlier Spanish royal portraits gave this extended position.  Velasquez's drawing of the feet together, placing one in front of the other, as seen in his Philips of this date, was an innovation, and may have displeased the painter of the Boston portrait, or the person for whom it was ordered.
  The outline of the figure is drawn with great care and is convincing, yet the king seems to have a bend backwards at the line of the hips and knees, as if a slight blow would send him over. This we know was not characteristic of the young cavalier, and a glance at the two originals from which the picture is composed shows us the cause of the defect.  Velasquez has modelled strongly and clearly the chest and the hips of both figures, throwing especially a bright light upon the left leg of Don Carlos as it advances beyond the other, and this modelling has not been reproduced, and wrong general value is thus given to the planes of the figure.  The body does not stand well upon the thin legs, which have no third dimension, and are only more shadowy than the lower part of the garments, the folds of which we cannot clearly discern.
  Again, the drawing of the head is good, and the modelling shows greater care.  We do not, however, apprehend the skull structure with the same directness that is found in the portraits of Philip and Don Carlos in the Prado, while the skin lacks that epidermis quality characteristic of Velasquez even in this early period.  The difference becomes even more apparent if we compare the same with the bust of Philip (Braun, 1071), Velasquez's first work in Madrid.  That the likeness has not been too definitely caught is evidenced by the fact that opinions differ as to whether the Boston portrait is of Philip or of Don Carlos.
  We pass now to the details of the figure, and find that, though the greys of the white golilla are exquisitely given, the shadows of the face on the collar are darker and its outline more sharply defined than is usual with Velasquez.  We look long at the goods of which Philip's costume is made, but it is not possible to discern any pattern upon it, nor is the texture, with the exception of some black velvet over the right shoulder, apparent.  Its lustreless quality suggests asphalt.  In the authentic works of this period Velasquez reproduces every detail of pattern, of texture, of fold, with convincing earnestness.  This may be clearly seen even in the photographic reproductions of the portraits of Philip and his brother, where the velvet strips of the goods stands forth, where no button is lost to sight, and no fold is indistinct.
  The drawing and modelling of the human hand is, proverbally, the searching test of a good figure-painter.  The right hand of Philip in the Boston portrait we find to be a composite of the right hands of Philip and Don Carlos, as given in the Velasquez originals of the Prado - the upper part corresponding in shape and modelling to the hand of Philip, the curved-under fingers, however, being taken, even to the préciosité of the position of the little finger, from the hand of Don Carlos.  This change of the position of the fingers necessitates a change int eh shape of the petition, or despatch which the king holds, and this, we find has been accomplished by reducing its size, so that it may be held as Don Carlos lightly holds his glove.  The hand is fairly well modelled and the position perhaps less forced and more pleasing than in the Philip of Velasquez.
  The left hand of the Boston picture offers us remarkable testimony as to the
[[/first column]]

[[second column]]
character of its painter.  It reproduces the motive and the position of the same hand in the authentic portrait of Philip, with this difference - he cannot see, nor feel, the end of the sword-hilt pressing against the palm outward, as the hand rests upon it.  The hand supports itself awkwardly upon its own wrist.  This results in an unnatural, strained, and motiveless position.  Strange as it seems at first, we are gradually led to the conclusion that the painter could not have understood perfectly that which he was here attempting to paint.  This conclusion is strengthened by the knowledge that so careful an observer as Curtis in his Velasquez catalogue describes the hand of the king in the Prado original as resting upon the table.  Any misunderstanding of the motive is not due to a fault of Velasquez, however, as a careful study of the original will show us the finesse and beauty of his presentation.  A magnifying glass applied to the Braun photograph of the original reveals the perfect unity and correctness of the motive and its delineation.  The sword is held slanting backwards, which between the arm and the belt appears a curved hilt, composed of small balls of metal, which individually catch the light, as does each pearl in a chain.  We turn now to the same motive as reproduced in the Boston portrait and find that even with a magnifying glass applied to the original, we are unable to discover the structure of the sword.  I one day in the gallery questioned six intelligent looking persons, who seemed interested in the painting, if they could tell me upon what the king's hand rested.  Four said, after examination of the motive, that they could not imagine; two replied, "probably a pouch."  The painter, observing carelessly this seemingly minor detail, has given us glints of light upon the metal as unformed bits of white paint, laid on with a slap-dash use of the brush.  Not pausing to understand thoroughly its construction, he has further laid on these dashes of paint in the same place in which the line of light on the metal is found on the Prado portrait, so that the sword which there is held between the arm and the belt, is here, because of the greater width of the cuff, painted on the outside of the white cuff.  Given a curved Spanish sword-hilt in this position, so near to the wrist and above it, the palm of a hand cannot rest upon the end of its handle.  We have, therefore, represented here an impossibility in nature.
  The background of the picture gives us the general tone characteristics of Velasquez during his early period.  In the Prado originals, although the coloring is of the same neutral effect, the figures are relieved by a heightening of the atmospheric effect, especially to the left of the figure and about the feet.  Here we find a dead level of tone, relieved by no differences.  Opaqueness is still more noticeable in the rendering of the cloth upon the table.  Velasquez allows the gleaming from behind the figure to fall upon the red velvet below the black hat, thus bringing its blackness into a pleasing relief.  In the Boston reproduction of this motive the light is misplaced, falling from the front upon the table, so that the subtle effect of the motive is lost.
  The results of our investigation are, then, as follows: We have before us a portrait of Philip IV, a composite of two works of Velasquez, in the main well drawn, but in one detail inconsistent with the truth of nature; the modelling of the head is good, but not equal to the work of the master; the modelling of the figure as a whole shows a wrong general value of planes and does not lend to the portrait its proper plastic quality; the garments are lacking in stuff quality, and instead of being over-modelled, as scarcely distinguishable in their folds; the tone of the background in general is opaque, and is not relieved by those subtle effects of light and shadow which we find in Velasquez's work.  The brush work throughout is tentative, small and flat.  Therefore, knowing that such composite portraits were common in Velasquez's atelier, convinced from a study of his entire authentic works that he never painted any object that was not a living organic unity, believing him to be the greatest of artists in the reproduction of planes of surface and of tones of color, we must conclude that the Boston painting in the qualities of its technique - composition, modelling, color, and brush work - is unworthy of Velasquez and cannot be ascribed to him.
[[/second column]]

[[/first clipping]]



[[second clipping]]

DANCE AT FENWAY COURT
Mrs. John L. Gardner Entertains in Honor of Her Great Niece, Miss Catherine E. Gardner 

Mrs. John. L. Gardner gave a large ball for her great niece, Miss Catherine E. Gardner, at Fenway Court, last night.  The white and gold music room, where the dance took place, was lavishly adorned with Christmas greens, with here and there clusters of blossoms.  Mrs. Gardner was gowned in white satin and wore many jewels.  Miss Gardner was attired in cloth of silver with touches of green.  Guests began to arrive soon after nine, and dancing was continued until one o'clock, supper being served at midnight.  The guests who enjoyed Mrs. Gardner's hospitality included most of the prominent society people of this city, Cambridge and Brookline.
  Miss Gardner's parents, Mr. and Mrs. George P. Gardner, of 186 Beacon street, will give a ball for their daughter at the Somerset on the evening of Jan. 2.
[[/second clipping]]



[[third clipping]]

THE FINE ARTS

Exhibitions now open:
Museum of Fine Arts - Early American Engraving.
St. Botolph Club - Mr. Benson's Paintings.
Williams & Everett's - Mr. Johnson's Watercolors.
Williams & Everett's - Mr. Little's Etchings.
Doll & Richards's - German Etchings in Color.
Chase Galleries - Watercolors and Pastels.

The Velasquez Affair Again

A private letter from a gentleman in New York contains the following statement: "I have had talks with three dealers here, who declare without reserve that the picture in question (the Velasquez bought by the Museum of Fine Arts) is not by Velasquez.  Two of them had the opportunity to acquire the work, and declined it.  Moreover, one of them told me that this very picture was offered to their buyer for 80,000 francs, and could have undoubtedly been bought for much less.  From the New York point of view, it looks as if the Museum's agents had been the victims of a game which was too thin for old and more experienced European buyers."
  The New York Evening Post of Saturday says: "As a contribution to the controversy raging about the Boston Velasquez, one of our weekly contemporaries prints side by side the disputed Philip IV, and the two other "undoubtedly genuine" portraits of the same monarch - all in tiny half-tones.  The only trouble with this apparently useful confrontation is that the two "undoubtedly genuine" Philips - one in the Louvre and the other in the Uffizi - are in the first place not of the same period as the challenged portrait - hence valueless for purposes of comparison; while next they are both about as doubtful as the Boston picture itself, being old copies or schoolpieces.  As if to emphasize the generally eccentric character of this item of art criticism a portrait of Velasquez painted by himself is thrown in for good measure.  The picture again is of the dubious work.  All of which goes to show that neither the balancing issue of the Boston canvas is settled nor connoisseurship in general greatly advanced by such enterprising use of the paste pot and shears.  As for the picture under investigation, the historic doubts raised against it come to this, that it was for a time in questionable hands, and that a dealer now plumes himself upon declining to purchase it.  Hereupon some archivist adds that it is not know to art history
[[/third clipping]]


[[fourth clipping]]
history.  To all which, without in any way judging the case, it may be answered that the best pictures often fall into the worst of company, that dealers are almost the worst judges of pictures, and that no year passes without bringing to light some rare work of art previously overlooked by the critics.  The Boston picture may or may not deserve the great name of Velasquez, but all arguments against the authenticity so far have been about as futile as the pictorial symposium analyzed above."
  The New York Sun returns to the subject of the disputed Velasquez and offers, in quotation marks, several passages from articles in the Transcript, accompanied by sarcastic comments, intended to show that the views of a few Boston painters and critics are not invariably conclusive, and that Mr. Downes has "not enough elementary learning to offer an opinion of real value."  Sir Walter Armstrong is quoted as saying that Velasquez "had almost as many scholars as Rembrandt."  If this be true, Mr. Downes was mistaken in stating that Velasquez had no pupils and no imitators.  Elsewhere in its article the Sun finds that Mr. Downes exhibits "very level-headed views regarding the general nature of the matter in debate."
In the meantime, the investigation set on foot by the trustees of the Museum of Fine Arts is still proceeding, and the opinions of painters and critics are being obtained.  So far as is now known, this investigation has been confined to what is call the internal evidence; that is to day, the evidence offered by the painting itself.  Of the experts - if it may be assumed that the witnesses called are such - all but one, so far, have pronounced in favor of the genuineness of the picture, and the one exception, a painter, remains in doubt, and, consequently, offers no definite judgment for or against the authenticity of the work.  Until the investigation shall have been carried farther, or to a point where the trustees deem the results to warrant some satisfactory verdict, we are not at liberty to publish the testimony collected up to date.
  It would be desirable to obtain the views of such experts as Dr. Carl Justi, Sir Walter Armstrong, and other European critics, but the difficulty of doing this is obviously great.
[[/fourth clipping]]