The Entombment (Bouts): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:16, 8 November 2011

The Entombment is a glue-size painting on linen^[2] attributed to the Flemish Primitive painter Dirk Bouts. It shows a scene from the biblical entombment of Christ, and was likely completed between 1440 and 1455^[3] as a wing panel for a large hinged polyptych altarpiece. The now lost altarpiece is thought to have contained a central crucifixion scene flanked on either side by two works half its length depicting scenes from the life of Christ. The smaller panels would have been paired in a format similar to Bouts' 1464–67 Altar of the Holy Sacrament. The larger work was probably commissioned for export, possibly to a Venetian patron whose identity is lost.^[1] It was first recorded in a mid-19th century Milan inventory and has been in the National Gallery, London since its purchase on the gallery's behalf by Charles Eastlake in 1861.

The Entombment is renowned for its austere but affecting portrayal of sorrow and grief. It shows four female and three male mourners grieving over the body of Christ. They are, from left to right, Nicodemus, Mary Salome, Mary of Clopas, Mary mother of Jesus, John the Evangelist, Mary Magdalene and Joseph of Arimathea. The attendants' faces display a range of emotions, though each figure's expression is uniquely rendered. All are described with restraint in muted colours, mainly whites, greens and blues.

It is one of the few surviving 15th-century paintings created using glue size, an extremely fragile medium lacking durability. The Entombment is in relatively poor condition compared to panel paintings of similar age. Its colours are now far darker than they have been painted; they would originally have appeared as pale and dry.^[4]^[5]^[6] The painting is covered by accumulated layers of greyish dirt and cannot be cleaned without damaging the surface and removing large amounts of pigment as its glue-size medium is water-soluble.^[7]

The painting

Description

The work shows Christ's body, wrapped in a white linen shroud and still wearing a crown of thorns, as it is lowered into a deep stone tomb. He is attended by seven mourners dressed in contemporary clothing. Among the group of mourners standing at Christ's side, the three female figures are shown with downcast eyes while the two men look directly at Christ; these gazes are reversed with the couple kneeling at his feet.^[1] The background contains a wide landscape with a winding pathway and a broad river before a more distant vista of trees and hills.

The Pharisee Nicodemus supports Christ as he is lowered, and can be identified by his similarity to Simon the Pharisee in another canvas attributed to Bouts, Christ in the House of Simon.^[8] The Virgin wears a white headdress and a dark blue dress with a yellowish mantle, and holds Christ's arm just above his wrist as if afraid to let go of her dead son. She is supported by John the Evangelist, who wears a red robe. The three other women are identified as the Three Marys. Dressed in green robes, Mary Salome stands to the Virgin's left, wiping tears from her face with the fold of her white headdress. Mary of Clopas is behind them, holding a red cloth over her mouth, while the Magdalen is in the foreground at Christ's feet, dressed in a heavily folded cloak. The man in the brown–green tabard at the feet of Christ is probably Joseph of Arimathea, who, according to Gospel, brought Christ's body from Pontius Pilate to Golgotha.^[8]

The Entombment is painted on linen tightly woven with 20 to 22 vertical and between 19 to 22 horizontal threads per centimeter.^[9] The cloth is Z-spun (tightly spun) and tabby woven^[10] with flax perhaps combined with cotton.^[7] The cloth support is lined, unusually, with similar but more finely woven linen mounted on a wooden stretcher. Before the paint was applied, the linen was first mounted on a temporary stretcher and outlined with a brown border – now visible on the lower border – which was used as a guide to cut the picture down before framing.^[11]

Glue-sizing consists of creating a distemper by mixing pigments in water and then using a glue-base derived from boiled animal skin and other tissues as a binder.^[12] The pigments were applied to a linen cloth, treated with the same glue sizing, fixed in turn to its frame by glue.^[6] The paint saturated the cloth, often leaving an image on the reverse side, which was lined with an additional cloth.^[13]

Pigments bound in glue had an optical quality that rendered them opaque in appearance and unusually vivid. Unlike oil, which makes chalk appear translucent, chalk mixed in glue is rendered as stark white. Similarly, more expensive pigments assume brilliant opacity in a glue medium.^[13] The whites are chalk in areas mixed with lead white, especially in the Magdalen's mantle and veil and in Christ's shroud and the the Virgin's veil.^[10] The artist used four blue pigments, an usual number for paintings of the period, with indigo predominating. As a plant-derived pigment, indigo it has a tendency to fade over time.^[4] Azurite and lead-white line the under-paint, while the landscape contains indigo mixed with lead-tin yellow. The sky and Nicodemus' collar are painted with lighter and less intense azurite, while the Virgin's dress is azurite mixed with ultramarine and smalt, a blue ground-glass pigment.^[10]

The greens are mostly verdigris, although the those predominant in the background landscape are mostly blends of blue and yellow pigments, and the green of the cloth worn by Mary Salome is malachite mixed with yellow lake. The browns are blends of reds and blacks. John's red robe is composed from cinnabar and vermilion made from rubia and insect dyes.^[14] Some of the reds are mixed with earth colours not susceptible to the effects of light, and have thus survived close to their original appearance.^[4] The black pigments are generally bone blacks but in places from charcoal.^[14] The blacks are mixed with chalk in areas, producing a red to brownish 'earthy' appearance.^[10]

The cloth support is visible in areas where the paint was thinly applied. Rusty nail holes can be seen in the lower border and across the top of the picture in an area of sky that was initially covered by frame. They indicate that the woodworking was positioned much lower than Bouts had intended; generally works painted on commission were placed by professional joiners who worked independant of the painter.^[15] The low placing of the frame however protected the underlying colours over the centuries from light; they are preserved as first laid down.^[16] The panel was originally attached to its frame by pegs and nails;^[10] the nails would have been used to attach the linen to the underlying wooden frame.^[17]

Condition

Painting on linen cloth using glue size as a binder was at the time a relatively inexpensive alternative to oil, and a large number of works were produced in the 15th century.^[18]^[19] Glue size does not saturate its medium as much as oil, allowing the pigment to show as matt and opaque, giving – especially with reds and blues – an intense appearance when applied to cloth. Cloth is fragile and easily perishable,^[20] and this work is one of the best preserved of the few surviving examples of the technique from the period; the majority extant today were executed on wood using oil or egg tempera. Curtains or glass were often used to protect glue-sized works.^[16]

The colours would have first appeared as bright and crisp, but over six-and-a-half centuries have acquired layers of grey dirt which darken the tone and render them as faint and pallid. Normally these layers would be removed by restorers, but given the delicate and fragile nature of a work painted in a water-soluble medium, it is impossible to do so without removing large amounts of pigment.^[4] The colours as they appear today have likely faded from their original hues. The Virgin's mantle is now brown but would have been painted as blue. Joseph's tabard, once blue, now appears as green. The original indigos of the landscape are lost, while the azurite in Nicodemus's collar has darkened.^[4] It is possible to see the degree to which the format allowed Bouts, in the words of art historian Susan Jones, to "[achieve such] sophistication ... to create both fine linear detail and subtle tonal transitions."^[18] Jones notes that the sky would have appeared with the same clear and pale blue that is still intact in a narrow strip along the top of the work, which has been protected from light and dirt by a frame. In its current condition the muted landscape appears to echo the sorrow of the mourning figures.^[16]

X-ray show that there were a few bare preparatory drawings made with chalk before the paint was applied.^[17] This is left exposed in some areas, most noticeably in the Virgin's veil and mantle and in Christ's shroud.^[10] Infrared photography reveals little underdrawing but that the canvas underwent several changes before it was completed; Mary Salome was repositioned slightly to the left, the size of Nicodemus' arm and shoulder were reduced, and the Magdalen's face was painted over the Virgin's mantle.^[10]

The cloth on which the work was painted had been lined with a more finely woven piece of linen and restretched, probably by the same person who stretched and lined the other works identified with the larger altarpiece.^[7] It was placed under glass, probably in the early 19th century and certainly before its acquisition by the National Gallery (Eastlake noted that it was under glass in 1858).^[22] The piece was evidently sent rolled and unframed to its patron. A brown border painted along the four sides indicates where the frame should be positioned when it is added to its final support.^[23] The row of rust-stained nail holes running along the top of the cloth is evidence that the frame was eventually positioned within the pictorial field, at a point far lower than Bouts had intended.^[16] This low framing protected a portion of the canvas from deterioration and allows us to see some of the colours as they would have originally appeared.^[17]

Polyptych

The Entombment was probably painted as part of a winged altarpiece created for export to Venice. Art historian Lorne Campbell proposed in 1998 that the altarpiece was a five-part polyptych comprising a large central crucifixion scene with two works half its length and width positioned at either side. Based on the format of Bouts' 1464–67 Altar of Holy Sacrament, whose four wing panels are of the same length as The Entombment, Campbell's speculative reconstruction places The Entombment on the upper right hand wing, above the Adoration.^[24] The large center work has not been positively identified, but Campbell speculates that, given its size (181 × 153.5 cm) and similarity of material, technique, tone and colour, it may have been the damaged Crucifixion, now in the Musées royaux des Beaux-Arts, Brussels.^[24]

Charles Eastlake first saw the work in 1858 while in Milan purchasing Northern Renaissance art on behalf of the National Gallery.^[25] He was made aware of three companion pieces, but told they were not on the market and so was not allowed to view them. The other works, two of which are now in public collections, were described as: Annunciation (now in the J. Paul Getty Museum), Adoration of the Kings (now in a private collection) and Presentation (or Resurrection; now in the Norton Simon Museum, Pasadena, California).^[21] These works are the same size as The Entombment, have similar colouring and pigmentation and are painted using the same glue-size technique. It is probable that all were re-lined and stretched at the same time by the same restorer, which indicates that they were kept together until shortly before The Entombment was acquired by the National Gallery.^[24]

Provenance and attribution

Bouts did not inscribe any of his paintings, which makes attribution and dating difficult. His developing skill with perspective and unified vanishing points is used by art historians to date his works from the period. Although its colourisation is among the best of his work, the perspective is clumsy in areas, thus the painting can be assumed to date no later than 1460. Bouts often quoted visual passages from artists and paintings that influenced his work, so the influences are well established and datable. Along with the companion Resurrection, British art historian Martin Davies believes the work shows influences from Rogier van der Weyden's Descent (c. 1435) and Miraflores Altarpiece (1440s), which allows it to be placed after 1440.^[26]^[27] Robert Koch dates the entire polyptych to between 1450-55.^[3]

Charles Eastlake purchased the painting for just over £120 in 1860 in Milan. During a period of aggressive acquisition intended to establish the international prestige of Britain's collection, it was acquired along with a number of other Netherlandish works from the Guicciardi family.^[26]^[22]^[28] Eastlake's notes mention that the works were "originally in the possession of the Foscari family".^[25] The Foscaris were a wealthy Venetian family which included a Doge of Venice and were known through Lord Byron's play The Two Foscari. There is no documentary evidence to substantiate the claim that the painting came from the Foscari collection, and some art historians believe that representatives of the Guicciardis invented this provenance to impress Eastlake. Campbell considers the provenance "probable", noting that a descendant, Fergio Foscari (1732–1811), an ambassador to Saint Petersburg, squandered his fortune and may have been forced into selling pictures belonging to the family,^[26] and documentary evidence drawn from various inventories indicates that the painting was produced on commission for export to Venice.^[26]

The companion pieces in the Guicciardi collection (Annunciation, Adoration of the Kings, and Resurrection) were similar works in glue size, though of lesser quality; Eastlake's notebooks mention that they were "not so good (not so well preserved)".^[21] Their tone and size are similar to The Entombment, suggesting that they were most likely pieces that would have formed part of the larger polyptych.^[10] The Entombment was attributed to Lucas van Leyden at the time,^[29] though Eastlake thought that, given its emotional power, it might be a van der Weyden.^[30]^[31] Bouts studied under van der Weyden, and was strongly influenced by his work.^[8] The painting arrived in London from Milan in 1861. It was not attributed to Bouts until 1911. Two copies exist: an unsophisticated panel was sold in Munich to a private collector in 1934, and an oak panel attributed to a follower of Bouts is in Kreuzlingen, Switzerland.^[22]

References

Notes

^ ^a ^b ^c "The Entombment". Display caption, National Gallery, London. Retrieved 18 June, 2011.
^ Also known as Tiichlein or Tüchlein, a technique in which pigments were bound in glue and painted on a cloth treated with glue, it was a delicate and fragile technique. See Spronk, 8
^ ^a ^b Koch, 509
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Bomford, David. "Art in the Making: The Entombment" (Audio). National Gallery, London. Retrieved 18 June, 2011.
^ Campbell, 39–41
^ ^a ^b Jones, 10
^ ^a ^b ^c Leonard, 517
^ ^a ^b ^c Campbell, 41
^ It is difficult to determine the direction of the weaving because the selvage-edge is missing, making weft from warp indistinguishable. See Campbell 40
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h Campbell, 40
^ Guiding borders of this type are often found just under the frames of works from the period.
^ Dunkerton, 187
^ ^a ^b Dunkerton, 187-188
^ ^a ^b Campbell, 30
^ Campbell 29
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Jones, 62
^ ^a ^b ^c Leonard, 520
^ ^a ^b Jones, 11
^ The glue was produced by boiling animal skin or other tissue, mixing the result with pigment and applying it in thin layers to the cloth. See Jones, 10
^ For this reason these works were usually kept under curtains or glass for protection. See Jones, 62
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Koch, 514
^ ^a ^b ^c Campbell, 38
^ National Gallery Technical Bulletin, Volume 18, 1997. 25
^ ^a ^b ^c Campbell, 42
^ ^a ^b Davies, 27
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Campbell, 44
^ Campbell sees the influence of the Miraflores Altarpiece in the representation of Christ's dead body, while British art historian Martin Davies speculated that a relief in the architecture of van der Weyden's center panel may have informed the positioning of Bouts' mourners. See Campbell 44
^ Reitlinger, Gerald. "The Economics of Taste: The Rise and Fall of Picture Prices, 1760–1960". London: Barrie and Rockliff, 1961. 311
^ Macfall, Haldane. "A History of Painting: The Renaissance in the North and the Flemish Genius Part Four". Whitefish, Montana: Kessinger Publishing, 1911. 34
^ Van Leyden and van der Weyden were often mistaken for each other due to the similarity of their surnames, both of which have many different spellings in the historical and art historical record.
^ Borchert, 203

Sources

Borchert, Till-Holger. "Collecting Early Netherlandish Paintings in Europe and the United States". in Ridderbos, Bernhard, Van Buren, Anne, Van Veen, Henk (eds). Early Netherlandish Paintings: Rediscovery, Reception and Research. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2005 ISBN 978-90-5356-614-5
Campbell, Lorne. The Fifteenth Century Netherlandish Paintings. National Gallery, 1998. ISBN 978-1-85709-171-7
Davies, Martin. "Primitifs flamands. I, Corpus de la peinture des anciens Pays-Bas méridionaux au quinzième siècle" (in French). National Gallery Technical Bulletin, Volume 1, 1953
Dunkerton, Jill. Giotto to Dürer: early Renaissance painting in The National Gallery. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991 ISBN 978-030-0050-820
Jones, Susan Frances. Van Eyck to Gossaert. National Gallery, 2011. ISBN 978-1-85709-504-3
Koch, Robert. "The Getty 'Annunciation' by Dieric Bouts". The Burlington Magazine, Volume 130, July 1988
Leonard, Mark, et. al. "Dieric Bouts's 'Annunciation'. Materials and Techniques: A Summary". The Burlington Magazine, Volume 130, July 1988
Spronk, Ron. "More than Meets the Eye: An Introduction to Technical Examination of Early Netherlandish Paintings at the Fogg Art Museum". Harvard University Art Museums Bulletin, Volume 5, Autumn 1996

@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 Charles Eastlake purchased the painting for just over [[pound sterling|£]]120 in 1860 in Milan. During a period of aggressive acquisition intended to establish the international prestige of Britain's collection, it was acquired along with a number of other Netherlandish works from the Guicciardi family.<ref name="C44"/><ref name="C38"/><ref>Reitlinger, Gerald. "The Economics of Taste: The Rise and Fall of Picture Prices, 1760–1960". London: Barrie and Rockliff, 1961. 311</ref> Eastlake's notes mention that the works were "originally in the possession of the Foscari family".<ref name="D27"/> The Foscaris were a wealthy Venetian family which included a [[Doge of Venice]] and were known through [[Lord Byron]]'s play ''The Two Foscari''. There is no documentary evidence to substantiate the claim that the painting came from the Foscari  collection, and some art historians believe that representatives of the Guicciardis invented this provenance to impress Eastlake.  Campbell considers the provenance "probable", noting that a descendant, Fergio Foscari (1732–1811), an ambassador to Saint Petersburg, squandered his fortune and may have been forced into selling pictures belonging to the family,<ref name="C44"/> and documentary evidence drawn from various inventories indicates that the painting was produced on commission for export to Venice.<ref name="C44">Campbell, 44</ref>
-The Guicciardi collection contained at least three other similar works in glue size, though of lesser quality; Eastlake's notebooks mention that they were "not so good (not so well preserved)". The works are now known as ''Annunciation'' ([[J. Paul Getty Museum]]), ''Adoration of the Kings'' (private collection) and ''Resurrection'' ([[Norton Simon Museum]], [[Pasadena, California]]).<ref name="k514"/> Their tone and size are similar to ''The Entombment'', suggesting that they were most likely pieces that would have formed part of the larger polyptych.<ref name="C40"/> ''The Entombment'' was attributed to [[Lucas van Leyden]] at the time,<ref>Macfall, Haldane. "A History of Painting: The Renaissance in the North and the Flemish Genius Part Four". Whitefish, Montana: Kessinger Publishing, 1911. 34</ref> though Eastlake thought that, given its emotional power, it might be a van der Weyden.<ref>Van Leyden and van der Weyden were often mistaken for each other due to the similarity of their surnames, both of which have many different spellings in the historical and art historical record.</ref><ref name="b203">Borchert, 203</ref> Bouts studied under van der Weyden, and was strongly influenced by his work.<ref name="C41"/><!-- The figuration and pose in ''The Entombment'' is probably informed by a [[relief]] seen in the arch of the central panel of van der Weyden's ''Miraflores Altarpiece''.<ref name="C41"/><ref>Koch, 515</ref> --> The painting arrived in London from Milan in 1861. It was not attributed to Bouts until 1911. Two copies exist: an unsophisticated panel was sold in Munich to a private collector in 1934, and an oak panel attributed to a follower of Bouts is in [[Kreuzlingen]], Switzerland.<ref name="C38"/>
+The companion pieces in the Guicciardi collection (''Annunciation'', ''Adoration of the Kings'', and ''Resurrection'') were similar works in glue size, though of lesser quality; Eastlake's notebooks mention that they were "not so good (not so well preserved)".<ref name="k514"/> Their tone and size are similar to ''The Entombment'', suggesting that they were most likely pieces that would have formed part of the larger polyptych.<ref name="C40"/> ''The Entombment'' was attributed to [[Lucas van Leyden]] at the time,<ref>Macfall, Haldane. "A History of Painting: The Renaissance in the North and the Flemish Genius Part Four". Whitefish, Montana: Kessinger Publishing, 1911. 34</ref> though Eastlake thought that, given its emotional power, it might be a van der Weyden.<ref>Van Leyden and van der Weyden were often mistaken for each other due to the similarity of their surnames, both of which have many different spellings in the historical and art historical record.</ref><ref name="b203">Borchert, 203</ref> Bouts studied under van der Weyden, and was strongly influenced by his work.<ref name="C41"/><!-- The figuration and pose in ''The Entombment'' is probably informed by a [[relief]] seen in the arch of the central panel of van der Weyden's ''Miraflores Altarpiece''.<ref name="C41"/><ref>Koch, 515</ref> --> The painting arrived in London from Milan in 1861. It was not attributed to Bouts until 1911. Two copies exist: an unsophisticated panel was sold in Munich to a private collector in 1934, and an oak panel attributed to a follower of Bouts is in [[Kreuzlingen]], Switzerland.<ref name="C38"/>
 ==References==