Skip to content

Posts tagged ‘Conservation Science’

The Painting Under the Painting – Picasso’s Old Guitarist

Partial grazing light image of Picasso’s “The Old Guitarist” as it hangs at The Art Institute of Chicago

It is not uncommon for artists to rework or even reuse canvases.  Careful examination with scientific techniques can offer glimpses of pasts images buried beneath the surface.  But sometimes you don’t need sophisticated instruments; sometimes the underlying image is very obvious looking at the final piece.  This was my experience with Pablo Picasso’s “The Old Guitarist” and the ghostly woman’s face in the top center of the painting.  Looking at it from the side and letting the light graze the image, you can see the depth of her face very clearly.

“The Old Guitarist” is probably the most iconic painting of Picasso’s “Blue Period” (approximately 1901-1904) when he was living in poverty and emotional turmoil.  In addition to their obvious monochromatic blue palette, these works have an overall atmosphere of melancholy and seem to focus on poverty, desolation and isolation.  The composition of “The Old Guitarist” is a significant shift from the contemporary Impressionism toward emotional Expressionism.  I am struck by the unnaturalness of the old blind beggar.  His legs are not correctly folded under him, his neck hang as if close to snapping off and his emaciated hands barely seem capable of holding the instrument.  It’s a stark and powerful image but was only the final image finally painted on this particular canvas in 1903.

Looking closely at the image above you can see the curve of a woman’s neck and jaw imbedded in the old man’s neck and then also two legs extending vertically through his shin.  In 1998 conservators recollected higher resolution infrared and x-ray images to decipher what lay beneath.

Infrared Reflectogram of The Old Guitarist (Art Institute of Chicago)

Infrared reflectogram of The Old Guitarist (Art Institute of Chicago)

X-ray diffraction image of The Old Guitarist (Art Institute of Chicago)

X-ray diffraction image of The Old Guitarist (Art Institute of Chicago)

Research from the Art Institute of Chicago and a 2001 exhibit at the Cleveland Art Museum sought to decipher the under-painted images.  The most obvious features include a woman’s head looking left, an outstretched arm with an open hand to the right and shins which (especially in the x-ray image) appear to be in a seated position.  This is the well defined figure of a young woman.  In the x-ray image there is another face at the young woman’s neck which looks to the right.  Mary Mathews Gedo at the AIC connects this to a Picasso sketch dated 1902/03 now in Barcelona depicting a seated penitent old woman with arms outstretched.  After even closer examination of the x-ray image, there appears to be the torso, feet and profile of a child nursing at the young woman’s left.  William Robinson, Associate Curator of Paintings at the CMA, located a letter from March 1903 in which Picasso describes to a friend the same scene apparently here of mother and child with a bull and calf which can just barely be observed on the right of the painting.

old guitarist IR with outline

I have highlighted the unique elements which can be observed in the IR image

old guitarist xray with outlines

I have highlighted the image elements which are obvious in the x-ray image

Likely preparatory drawing: Pablo Picasso “Figure, head and guitar” 1902/1903 (Museo Picasso, Barcelona). Reproduced from ref. 1.

Since the IR and x-ray images detect not only outlines but the amount of paint applied to a canvas, I think we can made some inferences about the progression and timeline for the creation of these proposed pre-”Old Guitarist” images.  I think the earlier date (1902/1903) on the sketch of the old penitent woman is very convincing.  This appears to be the original source material for the painting.  However, the very minor outline of the head and missing evidence of her corresponding completed torso suggests that this design was altered almost immediately. The shoulders and arms of the upright woman are set higher than where the shoulder’s of the old woman would have been which indicates that the painting was heavily reworked just after beginning.  The heaviness of the upright woman’s head, torso and legs by IR and x-ray imaging indicates that work on this composition progressed very far.  I think ultimately the bold face and posture of the woman seemed awkward seated in a chair and so the painting was discarded.  Picasso then went on to create the “Blue Nude” (1903) which is a very similar figure only now standing.  In an attempt to save an expensive canvas, he may have returned to the seated woman and tried to incorporate a knelling child.  Given the fainter outline and fill by x-ray analysis of the boy and the obliteration of the young woman’s left breast, I don’t think this image progressed to completion.  At this point, the scene was abandoned and “The Old Guitarist” was painted over the canvas in 1903-1904.

Pablo Picasso "Blue Nude" 1903

Similar figure to the over-painted young woman: Pablo Picasso’s “Blue Nude” 1903 (Museo Picasso, Barcelona) Reproduced from ref. 1.

We can still see the remnants of the young woman today because the blue period paints have faded.  Picasso did not white-wash his canvas before starting a new composition while makes the effect even more intense now.  While “The Old Guitarist” is a masterpiece, I find it even more interesting to follow how young Pablo Picasso composed and reworked his canvases.  It is sometime the process that is just as interesting as the finished artwork.

Reference:

[1] Mary Mathews Gedo, “A Youthful Genius Confronts His Destiny: Picasso’s ‘Old Guitarist’ in The Art Institute of Chicago” Art Institute of Chicago Museum Studies, 12(2), 1986, p. 152-165.

Statue Conservation in Action at the MFA Boston

Roman Juno statue

Juno in her former home, a suburban Boston estate garden (Photo: MFA)

The Museum of Fine Arts in Boston is hosting an interesting conservation project.  An impressive Trajanic or Hadrianic Period (early second century A.D.) statue of Juno was moved into the George D. and Margo Behrakis Gallery of ancient art this week.  Given its massive size of 13ft and 13,000 lbs, conservator will be examining, cleaning and repairing the work in situ.  Recently donated to the Museum of Fine Arts, the statue has spent the last 100 years in an estate garden just outside of Boston.  The resulting wind, snow, freeze-thaw, biological and vandal damage has taken a toll on the piece.  The Museum is raising money to support the conservation.  You can learn more about this on-going project at the MFA’s website.

I’m particularly interested in the analysis of the head.  It is clear that it was reattached at one or more times in the piece’s history; however, it also seems that the head and body are not the same marble and may have been united at a later time.  Given that little historical information exists about the piece prior to the 17th century, curators and conservators will have to rely on scientific analysis to understand the past of this statue.

Juno's head was removed to protect it during transport (Photo: MFA, Boston)

Layers of plaster and glue illustrate past repairs to the neck of Juno. (Photo: MFA, Boston)

roman statue repair with iron pin

Close up of the iron pin holding the right arm in place. (Photo: MFA, Boston)

Reconstructing Art: Duccio’s Maesta

1878 Iguanodon

In1878 this seem like a fine reconstruction of an Iguanodon, despite the fact that its tail would be broken in this posture. (Photo: University of Bristol, Earth Science Dept.)

Walking through the ruins of the Acropolis and looking over the plaster copies of the Parthenon Frieze this last fall, I tried to put it all back together visually.  Thankfully there were digital reconstructions to look to, but I got to wondering if wholesale reconstruction of a work of art is even possible.  In most cases, pieces can be broken or destroyed and critical details of the overall assembly can be lost.  (It’s a tangential example but I’m thinking of all the miss-assembled Victorian dinosaur skeletons.)  Then I remembered Duccio’s Maestà in Siena.

The Three Marys at the Tomb by Duccio, part of the Maestà altarpiece in Siena (Photo: Web Gallery of Art)

Duccio’s expansive Maestà Altarpiece was installed in the Siena Cathedral on June 9, 1311.  The double sided piece is estimated to have been 4.7 by 5 meters in dimension.  It was composed of a central panel (The Virgin and Christ Enthroned with Saints and Angels) and over 70 smaller scenes depicting New Testament iconography.  Sadly this grand style of altarpiece went out of fashion and in 1711, the panels were dismantled, sawed apart, and dispersed.  Most of the pieces are now back in Siena. Careful scholarship, analysis, and restoration has shed light on its original construction and composition.

Maesta alterpiece

Virgin and Child panel of the Maesta alterpiece by Duccio, Museo dell'Opera, Siena (Photo: profzucker, Flickr)

The Maestà altarpiece is not displayed in its reconstructed state which allows for better viewing of the visually rich story panels.  These were likely executed by Duccio’s workshop but are all interesting.  The central Virgin and Child panel alone is incredibly impressive.  I remember seeing it at the Museo dell’Opera del Duomo in Siena.  The room was fairly dark with a few spotlights on the panel which made the gilding glow.

Duccio Maesta front panel

Duccio Maestà front panel reconstruction with missing pieces shown in gray (Image: DaydreamTourist)

On the front of the altarpiece would have been a Marian cycle in the pinnacles and the birth and childhood of Jesus in the lower predella. The reverse panel depicts the Passion sequence in the main section and scenes from the ministry of Christ along the pinnacles and predella. In the reconstruction images above and below, panels not presently in Siena are shown in black and white (missing panels are not shown).  You have to actually go to Washington DC and Madrid respectively to see two of my favorites: the Nativity with Isaiah and Ezekiel and Christ and the Samaritan Woman.  It is also possible to appreciate how pieces may have been shaved and shaped since being freed from the altarpiece frame.  I have also accepted the interpretation that a piece showing the coronation of the Virgin now in Hungry was featured in the central front panel pinnacle.  This makes sense thematically in the context of the smaller pinnacle images showing the life of Mary and would be appropriate subject matter for the period and location.  The reconstructions also assumes that the pinnacle angels mirrored each other since only 4 of the 12 total exist today.

Duccio Maesta back

Duccio's Maestà back panel assembly with missing pieces noted in gray (Image: DaydreamTourist)

Viewed as a whole, the complexity and ambitiousness of the project is evident.  Whether or not the framing decorative elements are exactly correct is a moot point given the wealth of visual story-telling and the fairly confident reconstitution of the narrative flow.  It’s amazing that almost all of the panels have survived.  The Maestà demonstrates that reconstruction, at least digitally, goes a long way in understanding the artist’s intentions, the work’s visual impact, and how contemporary viewers would have encountered the piece.

Reconstructions adapted from the Web Gallery of Art.

Reference: Siena, Florence and Padua: Art Society and Religion 1280-1400, Volume II: Case Studies, edited by Diana Norman, 1995.

Fakes, Mistakes and Discoveries Exhibit – National Gallery

If you are near London, you have 2 weeks left to see the exhibit Close Examination: Fakes, Mistakes & Discoveries at the National Gallery.  If you are like me and can not make it, they thankfully have a very cool set of case studies on-line to compliment the exhibit.

Conservation Science is the application of chemical and biological techniques to the study of paintings and art objects.  Analysis and identification of an artist’s materials is beneficial for conservators who must select the best processes for cleaning a work.  However, a lot of other information can be gained which helps art historian understand the “life” of the work such as where and when it was executed, how the artist completed the piece and if later additions were made.  For example, x-ray analysis can show places in which a part of a painting, like a hand or face, was reworked.  Sometimes this is done by the artist, or as the National Gallery shows in some examples, by later owners to suit the period’s tastes or possible make the painting more desirable to buyersFour Figures at a Table by The Le Nain Brothers (below) is a really striking example of how much more we can learn about a painting through scientific analysis.

What could be underneath the pleasant country scene in the Four Figures at a Table by The Le Nain Brothers? (Photo: The National Gallery, London)

We take it for granted now that an artist would sign his or her work but this was not always the case.  Carefully connoisseurship of an artist’s style can help attribute paintings but sometimes it is scientific analysis that can either rule out a great master or identify a painting’s creator.  The fakes section of the National Gallery’s on-line exhibit is great too!  In the end, scientific evidence will always trump exquisite craftsmanship.

It looks right, but how would you know if Botticelli painted Madonna of the Veil? (Photo: The National Gallery, London)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 590 other followers

%d bloggers like this: