S.E.Hendriksen
02-23-2003, 09:06 AM
A FAKE REPLACED BY A FAKE?
The very common, centuries-old practice in the art business of the doctoring of a painting or even the replacement of the original with a copy. Once such a painting enters a museum it is extremely difficult to dislodge it from its exalted position. After all these are national treasures and above criticism, except possibly by rogue art historians who find themselves very quickly on the outside looking in, and are an extremely rare and endangered species.
Ladies and gentlemen, does anyone remember the television quiz show where three persons stand in front of a panel of contestants? Two are impostors. Contestants will have to judge which one of the three persons is the real one!
Take for example the nearly-sanctified self-portrait of Titian in the Prado hailed as a serene contemplation, philosophical, melancholy, you name it, it has been tried and said of this painting, which is not easy! That is, not easy to find something nice to say of this grey blandness.
But art historians are never lost for words, just think of the many words that have been spilled on any two stripes or splotches in modern art!
Since there is not much to say about this self-portrait, there is always the adulation of the famous gold chain that Titian wears around his neck, which the emperor Charles V gave him as the symbol of his status as a Knight of the Golden Spur. Art historians have been racking their brains to say something nice concerning this portrait, of course several different versions of the paintings history also exist, including one that says it was sent by Titian to the emperor as a present, and many other fables.
Harold Wethey, whom I mentioned before wrote the standard monograph on Titian, breezes through the history of this self-portrait, to mention only that it was purchased out of Rubens estate. What he did not mention is that when it was sold to the King of Spain, the receipt of the sale said something very specific concerning the painting that should have been reported, it certainly merits attention!
Rubens estate inventory, which was found and is in the National Library in Paris, notes there were 11 paintings attributed to Titian; including the Prado self-portrait, in addition to 32 copies after Titian. One can wonder how many more were sold by Rubens?
Fritz Lught, a researcher in art, in Oudholland (1929 p.110) published that "the self-portrait was sold a couple of years later to the King of Spain with two other paintings by Rubens, where it expressly said on the receipt of the bill of sale that the self-portrait in the Prado was a copy by Rubens himself, "med sijn eyen hand geschildred"! The researcher was, to put it mildly, rather perplexed by this enormous discovery of the receipt and did not know what to make of it; he was at a loss to explain it.
Of course there is a explanation of where the face of Titian in the "self-portrait" is derived. In Titians birthplace of Pieve de Cadore there is a painting in the parish church (the Madonna and Nursing Child) that Titian (Vasari tells us) painted sometime in 1564 and donated to the church (to be placed in the Vecellio chapel) in memoriam of his brother’s death in1560. This I went to see. Only in recent decades have the High Priests attributed this work to the master, but I am doubtful of this. It definitely is where Titian painted himself as an "afterthought" in the upper left-hand corner. The face in the corner is the exact mirror-image of the Prado self-portrait.
And this is where Rubens got the features of Titian in his reconstruction (pastiche) but not only is the Cadore self-portrait details the absolute original, it is undoubtedly painted by Titian himself. For when I was in Pieve de Cadore to look at the painting I discovered something no one else in 400 years had ever before noticed. Titian had his face signed with his own initials, "TV", directly under his beard, lying in the embroidery on the back of St. Tizian. The craquelure of the area testifies to its originality. As to the beard in the Cadore face, it has been repeatedly remarked that it had been heavily over-painted in an early restoration. The beard is presently undivided. Was it originally a split beard such as Titian himself wore? Obviously it could be contended that the initials were there for identification of this detail. if they were, why did it take 400 years for them to get noticed by me? Besides, who would know what "TV" meant? Naturally the rest of the painting is by Titians son Orazio.
AN INCONCEIVABLE FALSEHOOD REVEALED
Going back to the Prado self-portrait of Titian, unprejudiced ladies and gentlemen, there is one more important item wrong with this international-national treasure!
Is this the painting that was sold to the King of Spain from the Rubens estate? Or had the painting been switched in the nineteenth century? Is it an impostor? This is nothing new. It has been recorded numerous times over the centuries that originals were taken by poor civil servants and caretakers, even owners, and replaced with copies. You see, in my research on Titian I came across something incredible!
The earliest researched and illustrated compilation of his complete works, appearing in the Klassiker der Kunst series, was compiled in the nineteenth century by Oscar Fischel in Germany the third edition, 1907 (the first one came out at the beginning of this twentieth century). It has 274 photos of all known Titian paintings scattered all over the world in private and public collections, with all known relevant data of the paintings researched and included.
This enormous task of researching and obtaining photos for the series must have taken 15-20 years, considering the primitive transportation system of the times. That brings us to about 1880 or thereabout, with some of the plates being photos from the major museums in their archives, perhaps taken God knows how many tens of years before this date. So the officials in the museums, at the request of the publisher, sent a pre-existing photograph for the reproduction of a requested painting! I think you wonder why I am going through this exercise.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, when I was looking at the photo-reproduction of the Prado self-portrait in the Titian volume of the Klassiker der Kunst, I was stunned. It is not the same painting that is hanging in the Prado today!
The photo reproduction in the Klassiker of the Prado self-portrait in this self-portrait there is not the slightest sign of the famous gold chain. An explanation is most likely forth coming that the painting was dirty! Such would be unacceptable for this quite prominent feature! The beard is definitely split in the early version! The whole mode of expression appears different from the present Prado version.
But more than that! If you take a measuring tape and measure the old inventory number 695, you will find that it is in a different location on the canvas. Lower and more to the left. Also the old numeral 9 is different, nearly or more likely closing to an 8. The 5 is only slightly different and has a point behind it. Apparently, the present Prado self-portrait, with its famous gold chain, is not the same work as the one they asserted back in the late nineteenth century!
So now there are two or maybe there are three? Who knows?
Oh, yes. There was another self-portrait, one that’s never, ever mentioned. A French one with a split beard.
It took me many years to find this second self-portrait, which has so far only surfaced in an engraving done by Alphonse Francois in 1842. This painting was exhibited as autograph at the Worlds Fair in Paris in 1840, coming from the collection of M. Chaix de Est-Ange in Paris. In this painting, Titian wears the same gold chain that the Prado version later mysteriously acquired! Was the painting switched?
Many questions, but no answer. Where did the chain come from? Did someone notice the engraving of the self-portrait exhibited in the Paris Worlds Fair of 1840, which came from a private collection, and add it? Is the painting now in the Prado a fake copy of the original copy by Rubens, replaced in the nineteenth century? A case of a copy being replaced by another copy? A very likely solution.
Every book that mentions the Prado self-portrait is fascinated by the famous gold chain, what else can one say! Ladies and gentlemen, being a student of Titians works I have stood three days in front of this self-portrait to see something of Titians hand, the confident handling of the paint at Titians advanced age, to no avail! As for the Chaix de Est-Ange self-portrait exhibited in 1840, its present whereabouts are unknown. Crowe and Cavascaselle presumed it to be a copy from the nineteenth century, but admitted they never saw it! Clairvoyance? This happens all the time!
To bring the two available works into focus, compare with scientific Morellian discipline the brushwork of the two self-portraits, the so-called Prado one and the Cadore signed one. It is quite evident to the unprejudiced observer, that since Titian without question painted the signed Cadore self-portrait, with its loose and certain brush-strokes, with his right hand (he was right handed). He must have painted the Prado version, with its thin, timid and meticulous brushstrokes, with his left hand, or considering the timid strokes, maybe even his foot! Certainly these two works (consider the technique on the eyes) did not come from the same hand. That, even a casual Morellian examination will reveal.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/23-Feb-2003/19064-Prado_(before).jpg http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/23-Feb-2003/19064-Prado_(now).jpg
(Left) Oscar Fischel's book (Rigth) The Prado painting today
The very common, centuries-old practice in the art business of the doctoring of a painting or even the replacement of the original with a copy. Once such a painting enters a museum it is extremely difficult to dislodge it from its exalted position. After all these are national treasures and above criticism, except possibly by rogue art historians who find themselves very quickly on the outside looking in, and are an extremely rare and endangered species.
Ladies and gentlemen, does anyone remember the television quiz show where three persons stand in front of a panel of contestants? Two are impostors. Contestants will have to judge which one of the three persons is the real one!
Take for example the nearly-sanctified self-portrait of Titian in the Prado hailed as a serene contemplation, philosophical, melancholy, you name it, it has been tried and said of this painting, which is not easy! That is, not easy to find something nice to say of this grey blandness.
But art historians are never lost for words, just think of the many words that have been spilled on any two stripes or splotches in modern art!
Since there is not much to say about this self-portrait, there is always the adulation of the famous gold chain that Titian wears around his neck, which the emperor Charles V gave him as the symbol of his status as a Knight of the Golden Spur. Art historians have been racking their brains to say something nice concerning this portrait, of course several different versions of the paintings history also exist, including one that says it was sent by Titian to the emperor as a present, and many other fables.
Harold Wethey, whom I mentioned before wrote the standard monograph on Titian, breezes through the history of this self-portrait, to mention only that it was purchased out of Rubens estate. What he did not mention is that when it was sold to the King of Spain, the receipt of the sale said something very specific concerning the painting that should have been reported, it certainly merits attention!
Rubens estate inventory, which was found and is in the National Library in Paris, notes there were 11 paintings attributed to Titian; including the Prado self-portrait, in addition to 32 copies after Titian. One can wonder how many more were sold by Rubens?
Fritz Lught, a researcher in art, in Oudholland (1929 p.110) published that "the self-portrait was sold a couple of years later to the King of Spain with two other paintings by Rubens, where it expressly said on the receipt of the bill of sale that the self-portrait in the Prado was a copy by Rubens himself, "med sijn eyen hand geschildred"! The researcher was, to put it mildly, rather perplexed by this enormous discovery of the receipt and did not know what to make of it; he was at a loss to explain it.
Of course there is a explanation of where the face of Titian in the "self-portrait" is derived. In Titians birthplace of Pieve de Cadore there is a painting in the parish church (the Madonna and Nursing Child) that Titian (Vasari tells us) painted sometime in 1564 and donated to the church (to be placed in the Vecellio chapel) in memoriam of his brother’s death in1560. This I went to see. Only in recent decades have the High Priests attributed this work to the master, but I am doubtful of this. It definitely is where Titian painted himself as an "afterthought" in the upper left-hand corner. The face in the corner is the exact mirror-image of the Prado self-portrait.
And this is where Rubens got the features of Titian in his reconstruction (pastiche) but not only is the Cadore self-portrait details the absolute original, it is undoubtedly painted by Titian himself. For when I was in Pieve de Cadore to look at the painting I discovered something no one else in 400 years had ever before noticed. Titian had his face signed with his own initials, "TV", directly under his beard, lying in the embroidery on the back of St. Tizian. The craquelure of the area testifies to its originality. As to the beard in the Cadore face, it has been repeatedly remarked that it had been heavily over-painted in an early restoration. The beard is presently undivided. Was it originally a split beard such as Titian himself wore? Obviously it could be contended that the initials were there for identification of this detail. if they were, why did it take 400 years for them to get noticed by me? Besides, who would know what "TV" meant? Naturally the rest of the painting is by Titians son Orazio.
AN INCONCEIVABLE FALSEHOOD REVEALED
Going back to the Prado self-portrait of Titian, unprejudiced ladies and gentlemen, there is one more important item wrong with this international-national treasure!
Is this the painting that was sold to the King of Spain from the Rubens estate? Or had the painting been switched in the nineteenth century? Is it an impostor? This is nothing new. It has been recorded numerous times over the centuries that originals were taken by poor civil servants and caretakers, even owners, and replaced with copies. You see, in my research on Titian I came across something incredible!
The earliest researched and illustrated compilation of his complete works, appearing in the Klassiker der Kunst series, was compiled in the nineteenth century by Oscar Fischel in Germany the third edition, 1907 (the first one came out at the beginning of this twentieth century). It has 274 photos of all known Titian paintings scattered all over the world in private and public collections, with all known relevant data of the paintings researched and included.
This enormous task of researching and obtaining photos for the series must have taken 15-20 years, considering the primitive transportation system of the times. That brings us to about 1880 or thereabout, with some of the plates being photos from the major museums in their archives, perhaps taken God knows how many tens of years before this date. So the officials in the museums, at the request of the publisher, sent a pre-existing photograph for the reproduction of a requested painting! I think you wonder why I am going through this exercise.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, when I was looking at the photo-reproduction of the Prado self-portrait in the Titian volume of the Klassiker der Kunst, I was stunned. It is not the same painting that is hanging in the Prado today!
The photo reproduction in the Klassiker of the Prado self-portrait in this self-portrait there is not the slightest sign of the famous gold chain. An explanation is most likely forth coming that the painting was dirty! Such would be unacceptable for this quite prominent feature! The beard is definitely split in the early version! The whole mode of expression appears different from the present Prado version.
But more than that! If you take a measuring tape and measure the old inventory number 695, you will find that it is in a different location on the canvas. Lower and more to the left. Also the old numeral 9 is different, nearly or more likely closing to an 8. The 5 is only slightly different and has a point behind it. Apparently, the present Prado self-portrait, with its famous gold chain, is not the same work as the one they asserted back in the late nineteenth century!
So now there are two or maybe there are three? Who knows?
Oh, yes. There was another self-portrait, one that’s never, ever mentioned. A French one with a split beard.
It took me many years to find this second self-portrait, which has so far only surfaced in an engraving done by Alphonse Francois in 1842. This painting was exhibited as autograph at the Worlds Fair in Paris in 1840, coming from the collection of M. Chaix de Est-Ange in Paris. In this painting, Titian wears the same gold chain that the Prado version later mysteriously acquired! Was the painting switched?
Many questions, but no answer. Where did the chain come from? Did someone notice the engraving of the self-portrait exhibited in the Paris Worlds Fair of 1840, which came from a private collection, and add it? Is the painting now in the Prado a fake copy of the original copy by Rubens, replaced in the nineteenth century? A case of a copy being replaced by another copy? A very likely solution.
Every book that mentions the Prado self-portrait is fascinated by the famous gold chain, what else can one say! Ladies and gentlemen, being a student of Titians works I have stood three days in front of this self-portrait to see something of Titians hand, the confident handling of the paint at Titians advanced age, to no avail! As for the Chaix de Est-Ange self-portrait exhibited in 1840, its present whereabouts are unknown. Crowe and Cavascaselle presumed it to be a copy from the nineteenth century, but admitted they never saw it! Clairvoyance? This happens all the time!
To bring the two available works into focus, compare with scientific Morellian discipline the brushwork of the two self-portraits, the so-called Prado one and the Cadore signed one. It is quite evident to the unprejudiced observer, that since Titian without question painted the signed Cadore self-portrait, with its loose and certain brush-strokes, with his right hand (he was right handed). He must have painted the Prado version, with its thin, timid and meticulous brushstrokes, with his left hand, or considering the timid strokes, maybe even his foot! Certainly these two works (consider the technique on the eyes) did not come from the same hand. That, even a casual Morellian examination will reveal.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/23-Feb-2003/19064-Prado_(before).jpg http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/23-Feb-2003/19064-Prado_(now).jpg
(Left) Oscar Fischel's book (Rigth) The Prado painting today