boime - manet's lost infanta

Upload: diego-fernando-guerra

Post on 01-Jun-2018

221 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/9/2019 Boime - Manet's Lost Infanta

    1/14

    Manet's Lost Infanta

    Author(s): Albert Boime and Alexander KossolapovReviewed work(s):Source: Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, Vol. 42, No. 3 (Autumn -Winter, 2003), pp. 407-418Published by: The American Institute for Conservation of Historic & Artistic WorksStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3179864 .

    Accessed: 14/08/2012 14:59

    Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

     .JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

    of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

     .

    The American Institute for Conservation of Historic & Artistic Works is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

    preserve and extend access to Journal of the American Institute for Conservation.

    http://www.jstor.org

    http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aichttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3179864?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3179864?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aic

  • 8/9/2019 Boime - Manet's Lost Infanta

    2/14

    MANET'S

    LOST

    INFANTA

    ALBERT BOIME

    AND ALEXANDER

    KOSSOLAPOV

    ABSTRACT-The

    scientific

    examination

    of

    the

    privately

    owned

    painting (fragment/copy

    after

    Velizquez's

    Infanta

    Maria

    Margarita

    rom he

    Louvre

    collection)

    has been

    completed.

    Based

    on

    docu-

    mented historical

    evidence,

    stylistic

    nd chemical

    analysis

    of

    paints,

    and individual technical features

    revealed

    by

    x-rayradiography

    nd

    infrared

    hotogra-

    phy (IR), the paintinghas been attributed o the

    French

    painter

    Edouard Manet and dated fromthe

    beginning

    of

    the 1860s.

    TITRE-L'Infante

    perdue

    de Manet.

    RESUME--

    L'examen

    scientifique

    d'une

    peinture

    d'une

    collection

    particulire

    a

    ete effectu&.

    l

    s'agit

    d'un

    fragment/copie

    e l'oeuvre de

    V6lasquez

    intitul~e

    l'Infante

    aria

    Margarita

    ans a

    collection du

    Louvre.

    A

    l'aide

    de

    documents

    historiques, d'analyses

    stylistiques

    et

    chimiques

    de

    la

    peinture,

    et des

    caract&ristiquesechniques

    rv~kles par

    les

    rayons

    X

    et la

    photographie

    l'infra-rouge,

    a

    peinture

    a

    ete

    attribuee u

    peintre

    franCais

    douard Manet

    et

    dat&e

    du debut des annees

    1860.

    TITULO-La

    infanta

    perdida

    de

    Manet.

    RESUMEN-Se

    ha

    completado

    el

    examen

    cientifico

    el cuadro

    perteneciente

    un

    coleccionista

    privado

    (fragmento/copia

    e

    Infanta

    Maria

    Margarita

    de

    Velisquez

    de la

    colecci6n

    privada

    del

    Louvre).

    Sobre la base de

    evidencia hist6rica

    ocumentada,

    el

    anilisis

    quimico y

    estilistico

    e

    la

    pinturay

    los

    rasgos

    tecnicos ndividuales eveladospor radiografiasrayos

    X)

    y fotografias

    nfrarrojas

    IR),

    el

    cuadro ha sido

    atribuido

    l

    pintor

    frances douard Manet

    y

    fechado

    en el

    comienzo de los

    afios 1860.

    TITULO-A

    Infanta perdida

    de

    Manet.

    RESUMO-O

    exame

    cientifico

    da

    pintura

    de

    propriedade particular

    fragmento/c6pia

    a obra de

    Velasquez Infanta

    Maria

    Margarita,

    a

    coleCdo

    do

    Museu do

    Louvre)

    foi

    concluido.

    Com

    base

    nas

    evidencias

    hist6ricas

    documentadas,

    na

    anilise

    estilistica

    quimica

    da

    pintura

    e nas

    caracteristicas

    t&cnicas

    ndividuais reveladas

    atraves

    de

    radiografia

    com

    raio-X

    e

    fotografia

    nfra-vermelha

    IR),

    a tela

    foi

    atribuida ao

    pintor

    frances douard

    Manet e

    datada

    do inicio dos anos 1860.

    1.

    INTRODUCTION

    The

    subject

    of

    this

    study

    s

    an oil

    painting,

    6.0 x

    38.1 cm (fig. 1, see page 442), a fragmentarynd

    unsigned copy

    of

    Velizquez's

    familiar

    nfanta

    Maria

    Margarita

    fig.

    2,

    see

    page

    442),

    which has

    been

    widely

    admired since its arrival

    n the Louvre

    in

    1816. The

    provenance

    of this

    painting

    is obscure

    prior

    to

    1967,

    when an American

    lawyer briefly

    working

    in

    Amsterdam

    bought

    it

    and three

    other

    paintings

    from a small

    basement

    gallery

    on

    the

    Rozengracht.The

    owner

    of

    the

    gallery nitially

    den-

    tified the

    Infanta

    painting

    as a

    Diego

    Velizquez

    (1599-1660)

    in

    the

    certificate"

    iven

    to

    its

    purchaser

    at the time. He

    claimed to have discovered

    t

    years

    ago

    in Paris with ts

    background fully

    ainted

    over"

    (Brainerd

    1988,

    73).

    He

    subsequently

    removed the

    overpainting.

    In

    1968-70 various

    professionals

    o whom this

    Infanta

    was

    shown

    unanimously recognized

    it

    as a

    copy

    after

    Velizquez,

    dating

    to

    approximately

    1850-70.The

    chief onservator f theArt

    nstitute

    f

    Chicago,

    Alfred

    akstas,

    or

    example

    (Brainerd

    1988),

    concluded from a

    lengthy

    examination,

    with no

    techniques

    other than

    x-rays,

    inocular

    microscope,

    and

    visual

    analysis,

    hat

    t

    could be

    dated

    unequivo-

    callyto"third uarter, 9thcentury." nother onser-

    vation

    report,

    dated

    May

    1970,

    found

    it

    was

    "probably painted

    in

    19th

    century"

    and otherwise

    described ts

    condition as follows:

    Unframed,

    unsigned

    oil

    painting

    on

    fabric

    depicting

    a

    copy

    of a

    Young

    Girl's

    Portrait

    by

    Velizquez,

    size

    181/2"

    15"

    stretched

    n

    a five-

    piece

    stretcher

    ith a

    horizontal

    crosspiece..

    There is a

    great

    deal of

    debris

    lodged

    between

    the rear of

    the canvas

    and the

    bottom stretcher

    piece

    (cobwebs,

    int

    etc.)

    . .

    The

    canvas is

    dry

    and brittle. here

    are

    holes

    in

    the canvas

    which

    had been

    crudely "repaired"

    and are

    located as

    JAIC

    42

    (2003):407-418

  • 8/9/2019 Boime - Manet's Lost Infanta

    3/14

    408

    ALBERT BOIME AND ALEXANDER KOSSOLAPOV

    follows: /2"diameterole at H5" W2" exten-

    sively

    verpainted

    n the

    front,

    aper-like

    ate-

    rial

    glued

    on

    the

    back.

    1/2" diameter ole at

    H1 1"

    W41/2"

    just

    to the eft

    f

    the

    girl's

    heek

    in

    the hairline. his had been

    extensively

    ver-

    painted

    nd

    crudely atched

    n the rear

    with

    paper-like

    aterialnd

    glue.

    1/2"

    diameter

    ole

    at H14"

    W11"....

    There

    re abouthalf

    dozen

    paint

    marks

    5

    white

    1

    red)

    n the

    upper

    right

    quadrant

    nd

    similar

    hite nd

    ight

    lue

    point

    marks

    long

    the

    top edge

    of

    the

    picture.

    hese

    seemto be original aint hough.Quotedin

    Brainerd

    988,

    4)

    It

    may

    be concluded

    from he conservators'

    reports

    hat he tate

    f

    preservation

    f the

    painting

    wasrather

    oor

    nd,

    what

    s more

    ignificant,

    hat

    he

    paint

    tains nd

    unprofessionalepairs

    ere

    well

    n

    line

    with he

    earlier

    tatement

    f the owner f

    the

    Amsterdam

    allery.

    n the back

    of the horizontal

    stretcher's

    rosspiece

    the

    word "Bertram"

    or

    "Bertran")

    s handwritten

    ith a brushlike

    nstru-

    ment.

    his

    inscription

    an

    scarcely

    e taken s

    an

    indication

    f

    authorship

    or womain easons:

    First,

    he mission

    pectrum

    nalysisby

    Bernard

    Hauser

    f

    Spectro-Chemical

    esearch

    aboratories,

    Chicago,

    aboratory

    o.

    23548,

    of

    November

    0,

    1970)

    hows

    hat he

    nscription

    aterial

    iffersrom

    any

    black

    on the

    painting

    tself.

    he latter ontains

    lead,

    whilethe former

    oes not. his

    finding ight

    be taken

    s

    a

    good

    indication

    f

    its

    not

    being

    oil

    color,

    utrather

    type

    f

    nk

    Brainerd

    988).

    Second,

    there re

    ust

    two artists

    earing

    he

    name

    Bertram(n)

    ho areknown

    n

    the

    econd

    half

    of

    the

    nineteenth

    entury:

    bel

    Bertram,

    French

    landscapertistorn n1871 1871-1954), ndPablo

    Maria Beltran

    Tintore,

    lesser-known

    ate-19th-

    century

    panish

    rtist

    nown

    mostly

    or

    is

    religious

    scenes

    n

    the

    Cathedral

    f

    Salamanca,

    ho studied

    under

    Henri

    Gervex

    n

    Paris nd

    exhibited

    isworks

    in

    Madrid

    n 1892 and

    whosename

    was

    sometimes

    spelled

    Bertan"

    Thieme-Becker

    909;

    Saur

    1995).

    Neither

    f those rtists

    an

    reasonably

    e

    associated

    with he

    present

    nfanta

    ther han

    s a

    prior

    wner

    or handler.

    Persistently

    ebuffed

    n his

    attempt

    o

    vindicate

    therelationshipoVelizquezbya datingnconsis-

    tency hatwasundeniable,he awyer isplayedhe

    painting

    o a

    number

    f

    professionalersons

    nowl-

    edgeable

    n French rt

    f

    he

    period. nevitably,

    uch

    studies urned oward

    he

    Spanish

    Revival

    period

    (1845-1865)

    and

    to one of

    its

    main

    exponents,

    EdouardManet

    1832-1883).

    On

    June

    8,1970,

    ne

    of

    the

    recognized

    douardManethistorians

    n

    the

    United

    tates,

    ohn

    ichardson,

    hen

    with

    Christie's

    in NewYork nd

    having

    een he

    photographs

    f

    he

    Infanta

    ith nother

    anet

    xpert,

    rofessor

    eorge

    Heard

    Hamilton,

    rote

    letter o theowner

    tating

    that" fterxaminingt ength.. the arioushoto-

    graphs

    f

    your

    Manet

    ..,

    we bothfeel t wouldbe

    rash

    o dismisshe

    possibility

    f

    ts

    being

    n authen-

    tic

    arly

    work"

    quoted

    n

    Brainerd

    988,

    5).

    Other

    Manet

    xperts,

    ome

    fwhom

    Richardson

    ad

    den-

    tified,

    ere then

    consulted,

    nd

    in

    a short

    ime t

    became

    pparent

    hat bout

    1860 Manethad

    n

    fact

    executed

    copy

    of the

    nfanta

    hat ad

    been ostor

    thought estroyed

    ong ago.

    One

    possible

    laimant

    for he ostwork dvanced

    yJacques

    Mathey

    ad

    long

    been

    challenged

    or ts

    flaccid

    ualities

    nd

    consequently

    as

    placed

    utside ontention

    fig.

    ).

    Whilethe rthistorians

    ere

    niformlyeceptive

    o

    at

    east he

    possibility

    f the

    present ainting'seing

    attributed

    o

    Manet,

    years assed

    nd

    interest

    n

    it

    subsided,

    ntil

    1977,

    when Anne CoffinHanson

    included

    he

    painting

    n

    her

    eminal

    ork,

    Manet

    nd

    theModern

    radition,

    dentifying

    t s

    the

    product

    f n

    unknown rtist

    ut nonetheless

    probably

    he best

    contestant"

    or

    he

    ost Manet

    Hanson

    1977,

    156

    and

    fig.

    9).

    2.

    ART

    HISTORICAL VIEW

    Perhaps

    o

    other

    modern

    rench

    ainter

    as

    been

    submitted

    o

    as

    much ntensive

    crutiny

    s Edouard

    Manet.

    very

    onceivable

    spect

    fhis ife nd

    work

    seems

    o

    have

    been

    exhaustivelyxplored,

    eaving

    little

    resh

    round

    or ither he

    aspiring

    cholar

    r

    seasoned

    eteran

    o

    cultivate.

    et

    despite

    he ardent

    devotion f

    cholar nd

    critic o Manet nd his

    work

    as a

    pathway

    o

    modernity,

    here

    emain

    onspicuous

    gaps

    n

    the record,

    specially

    oncerning

    is

    early

    efforts

    o

    modernize

    anonicalmodels.

    t is incon-

    testablehatManetdeliberatelyetout to challenge

    JAIC

    42

    (2003):407-418

  • 8/9/2019 Boime - Manet's Lost Infanta

    4/14

    409

    MANET'S LOST

    INFANTA

    Fig.

    3. EdouardManet

    previously

    ttributedo

    Manet),

    L'Infante

    arie-Marguerite,

    il on canvas n wooden

    board,

    33 x

    24.8

    cm,

    rivate

    ollection,

    aris

    the Old Masters

    on

    their

    own

    turf nd remained

    committed o

    measuring

    his efforts

    gainst

    he

    vari-

    ous

    traditions

    hroughout

    his career. He

    systemati-

    cally

    made

    copies

    of

    drawings, eproductions,

    nd

    originalpaintings

    f the canonical

    masters,

    nd recent

    research as

    uncoverednumerous

    new sourcesforhis

    work

    during

    his visit o

    Italy

    n

    1857

    (Meller 2002).

    What is crucial

    n

    these

    findings

    s the disclosureof

    Manet's

    process

    of

    appropriating

    usable

    past

    forhis

    personal

    projects;

    thus,

    tracing

    his sources is tanta-

    mount to

    uncovering

    fresh material

    about

    the

    content of his

    originalproductions

    Fried 1996).

    Perhaps

    one of the most

    vexing

    lacunae

    in

    Manet's oeuvre has been the

    presumed physical

    absence of the

    copy

    that we know he made of

    Velazquez's

    notorious

    nfanta

    Maria

    Margarita

    nd for

    which

    he

    registered

    n

    the Louvre to

    copy

    in

    the

    period

    1859-1860.

    (We

    may mmediately

    ismiss he

    spurious

    claim of the notorious

    forger,

    Eric

    Hebborn,

    that

    his

    teacher,W.A.

    uthbertson,

    ainted

    this

    opy

    from

    as Meninas

    n

    the

    Prado;

    n

    Las

    Meni-

    nas

    the

    Infanta faces

    in

    the

    opposite

    direction and

    wears a differentostume

    [Hebborn

    1991,

    45-47]).

    Although

    the

    painting

    nder discussion

    was

    an excel-

    lent

    contenderfor the

    missing icture

    nd had been

    proposed

    by

    Andrew Brainerd

    for

    several

    years,

    ts

    lack

    of

    provenance

    nd

    signature

    ad

    cast a

    dubious

    pall

    over its

    origins.

    The oil

    study

    set forward

    by

    Brainerd

    as the lost Manet was first

    ublished by

    Anne CoffinHanson in 1977 in her pathbreaking

    Manet and the Modern

    radition,

    here the

    copy

    was

    considered

    likely

    contestant" orwork

    ong

    known

    to

    have existed but

    never

    ocated and

    presumed

    ost

    or

    destroyed

    Hanson

    1977).Although

    she

    added

    that

    it

    was

    impossible

    n the

    present

    tate

    of

    knowledge

    to

    firmly dentify

    he

    picture

    and so

    consigned

    it to

    unknown

    authorship,

    he

    argued

    that f

    all

    the

    copies

    after he

    popular image

    that

    had

    surfacedover

    the

    years,

    his was the one

    example

    that came closest

    to

    approximating

    he methods and

    colors as well as the

    freshnessnd vivacity f Manet'stechniqueand style.

    The hesitation f Hanson and others o

    assign

    n

    unequivocal

    attribution

    was

    understandable,

    iven

    the absence of

    provenance

    and

    signature,

    wo

    exis-

    tential onditions he want of which

    naturally

    ender

    any

    work

    problematic.

    ince Hanson

    published

    the

    painting,

    however,

    the work has been

    rigorously

    submitted o state-of-the-artcientific

    nalysis.

    he

    results

    f this

    crupulous

    xamination

    atify

    hat the

    heart has known all

    along,

    and at

    long

    last

    we can

    statewith a comfortable

    egree

    of

    certainty

    hatthe

    outcome

    of

    the

    application

    of

    the

    latest scientific

    methods to

    this

    picture

    has eradicated whatever

    reservations

    pecialistsmay

    have felt over the

    years

    absent the two conditionsnoted above.

    Although

    rt

    historians nd art

    experts

    eem to be nervous about

    relying

    oo

    heavily

    n

    the

    application

    f conservation

    science for

    authentication,

    n a

    case

    of this sort

    conservation cience should be seen as the inevitable

    and

    necessary adjunct

    to sound

    connoisseurship.

    Regrettably, any

    art

    experts

    tillmistrust he meth-

    ods

    of

    the

    scientist,

    ut it is

    our firm

    elief

    that not

    only

    is this

    gulf

    not

    unbridgeable,

    n future this

    collaborationwill be the norm. t has

    always

    been

    a

    JAIC

    42

    (2003):407-418

  • 8/9/2019 Boime - Manet's Lost Infanta

    5/14

    410

    ALBERT

    BOIME

    AND ALEXANDER

    KOSSOLAPOV

    given hatn a situation here rovenancend igna-

    ture

    re

    bsent,

    he

    onvergence

    f

    greement

    n

    the

    part

    f

    both rt

    xpert

    s to

    style

    nd

    physicalppear-

    ance

    (what

    has

    been called the

    work's nternal

    evidence)

    nd

    conservationcientists to technical

    and

    physical

    roperties

    the

    xternal

    vidence)

    stab-

    lishes

    authenticity.

    e believe that now we have

    reached his evel of assurance

    n

    the case of the

    Itnfanta

    aria

    Margarita-thanks

    o the

    combined

    talents nd

    impeccable

    echnical

    nalyses

    f Walter

    McCrone nd one ofthe uthors fthis rticle.

    Previously,numberfManet pecialistsnter-

    tained he

    possibility

    f

    this

    ketch/copy'seing

    a

    Manet

    imply

    n thebasis f urface

    ppearances

    nd

    the historicalecord.

    ndeed,

    n the

    basis

    f nternal

    evidence-style, aint ayer,

    nd

    physical

    tructure-

    there asnever

    een

    ny

    olid

    rgument

    ustered

    y

    the critics nd historians

    gainst

    Manet dentifica-

    tion

    n

    the case of the

    nfanta,

    nd now that ll the

    scientificatahave

    been ssembled

    nd

    nalyzed,

    he

    attribution

    eems o us

    ndisputable.

    here s no

    need

    to

    rehash he

    abundant istorical ata

    of

    Manet's

    profound

    ebt

    o

    the

    Spanish

    master

    o

    amply

    ocu-

    mented

    n all

    the

    monographs.uring

    his

    trip

    o

    Spain

    n

    September

    865,

    he wrote f

    his

    dmiration

    for

    elizquez

    n

    rapturous

    erms,

    he mere

    ight

    f

    whose

    work

    eemed fulfillment

    f

    his most her-

    ished deals f

    painting.

    e know hat e

    registered

    to

    copy

    t theLouvre

    n

    July

    ,1859,

    nd wo

    opies

    after

    aintings

    ttributed

    o

    Velizquezbelong

    o that

    period:

    Reunion

    f

    he hirteen

    avaliers,

    sually

    ated

    1859-1860,

    nd the

    nfanta

    aria

    Margarita,eport-

    edly

    executed

    concurrently

    ith

    Edgar Degas's

    (1834-1917)

    reproduction

    fthe amework

    n

    1859

    (Reff 964;Boggs1958).Vekizquez'sortraitf the

    Infhnta

    aria

    Margarita

    as

    been

    ocated

    n

    theSalon

    Carre f

    he

    LouvreMuseum

    n Paris ince

    816,

    nd

    it

    became

    an

    object

    of

    great

    nterest

    uring

    he

    Second

    Empire

    t

    the

    height

    fthe

    panish

    evival.

    Manet

    did not

    fail

    o

    acknowledge

    his onnection

    with

    Velizquez's portrait

    n

    his

    most

    provocative

    Salon

    display

    f

    the

    period,

    he

    Olympia

    f

    1863;

    he

    slyly

    ransferredhe

    pink

    lower rom heheadof he

    innocentnfantao thehead

    of his

    brazen

    ourtesan

    to

    complicate

    isvisual ssociations ith he

    past

    nd

    parodic hallengeotradition.

    Manet's emulation f Velizquezhas recently

    been made the

    centerpiece

    f a

    major

    exhibition,

    Manet/

    eldzquez:

    he

    Frenchaste

    or panish ainting,

    organized

    n

    2002 at theMusee

    d'Orsay

    n Paris

    nd

    shown t the

    Metropolitan

    useum f

    Art,

    March

    through une

    003.The show eatured

    elizquez

    nd

    Manet ide

    by

    ide,

    emonstrating

    hefullmeasure f

    the

    mpact

    f the

    Spanish

    master n Manet's evel-

    oping

    ensibility.

    ere theviewer ad the

    opportu-

    nity

    o witness

    irectly

    hatManet's aste or

    uizzical

    visual

    urpriseully xploited elizquez's aradoxical

    imagerySchjeldahl002).

    Manet's

    araphrase

    f the

    nfanta

    ses a smaller

    portion

    f the actualwork

    n

    the

    Louvre,

    urning

    what is

    essentially three-quartersength

    f the

    figure

    nto

    portrait

    ust hat

    conically

    enters he

    object.

    What s

    remarkable

    n

    both the drawn nd

    painted

    opies

    of his

    early hase

    s his

    tendency

    o

    reduce he ctual orsos fthe

    originals

    o

    primarily

    head and

    shoulders-typical

    f his

    master homas

    Couture's

    drawing tyle-and

    to centralize hem

    (Meller 002).

    Manet's ortrait

    f

    Roudier

    Cabinet

    es

    dessins,

    usee du

    Louvre,

    aris)

    f

    1860,

    or xam-

    ple,

    howing

    ead and shoulders

    nly

    of the

    sitter,

    could

    asily

    ass

    or

    hemaster's ork

    Boime

    1980).

    The residualnfluence

    f

    Couture

    n

    his

    disciple

    s

    perfectly

    nderstandable

    iven

    Manet's

    relatively

    recent

    eparture

    rom he

    studio

    where he

    spent

    almost

    six

    years

    (1850-56).

    Couture's

    recipes,

    however,

    eft

    n

    ndelible

    mpression

    n

    Manet,

    who

    continued his

    practice hroughout

    most

    of his

    career,

    s seen

    n

    a series f

    quick

    tudies

    f females

    in

    the

    early

    880s

    Rouart

    ndWildenstein

    975).

    Some

    of

    he

    most

    tartlingxamples

    fthis

    pproach

    are thedrawn ortraitsf Gustave ourbet, laude

    Monet,

    nd

    Edgar

    Allan

    oe,

    nd the tched

    ortrait

    in

    profile

    f

    Charles audelaire

    ca. 1862-65),

    ll of

    which

    dramatically

    ttest o

    this

    endency

    Rouart

    andWildenstein

    975,

    ol.

    1,

    nos.

    0,

    55).

    In

    the case

    of

    the

    nfanta,

    anet's

    killful

    rop-

    ping adapted

    n off-center

    igure

    o

    his favorite

    centering

    ode.Andrew rainerd

    as

    analyzed

    his

    tendency

    o

    compositional

    entrality

    nd

    symmetry

    in

    Manet's

    arly

    ortraiture

    nd

    copying ractice

    n

    whathe describes

    s

    the Manet

    Matrix"

    Brainerd

    1988,41).Althoughn bothhis watercolorfig. )

    JAIC

    42

    (2003):407-418

  • 8/9/2019 Boime - Manet's Lost Infanta

    6/14

    411

    MANET'S LOST

    INFANTA

    and

    etching fig.

    5)

    of the

    Infanta,

    resumably

    one

    after the

    painted

    copy,

    Manet has

    more or less

    included the entire

    igure

    with

    ome

    slight

    ariations

    in

    the

    positioning

    f

    the

    Infanta),

    n

    these cases he is

    striving

    or

    reproductive

    ccuracy

    rather han

    para-

    phrasing

    for

    study purposes.

    The

    sketch/copy

    f a

    type typical

    f studio

    practice

    n

    the

    period

    aimed

    at

    a shorthand

    penetration

    of a

    master's

    conceptual

    grasp

    of a

    subject

    and often assumed a

    fragmentary

    appearance

    (Boime 1971).

    In

    the

    case

    of

    the water-

    color

    and

    etching,

    Manet was

    striving

    or

    ompletion

    probablyforpurposesof reproductivellustration r

    some

    type

    of documentation.

    Michael Wilson first called attention to

    the

    singularprocess

    of

    scraping

    n

    Manet's

    methods,

    nd

    since the

    publication

    of his

    study,

    ther

    cholarshave

    noted this

    propensity

    f the artist or

    scraping

    nd

    rescraping

    own to the

    ground

    Wilson

    1983;

    Bareau

    1986).The

    oil

    copy

    of the

    nfanta

    s no

    exception,

    nd

    transmitted

    ight photography

    reveals this salient

    characteristic f

    Manet's method

    in

    several

    places.

    These material

    traits substantiate the chemical

    evidence as analyzedby McCrone (Brainerd 1988),

    whose

    findings

    n the

    pigments

    n

    two established

    early

    Manet

    paintings-The Spanish

    Ballet of 1862

    (Phillips

    Collection,

    Washington,

    .C.)

    and

    Woman

    Pouring

    Water

    Ordrupgaard

    ollection,

    Copenhagen)

    of ca.

    1858-60-demonstrated

    unique

    optical

    and

    chemical

    properties

    ommon

    to all three nd

    verified

    that the lead white of the two control

    samples

    and

    that

    of the

    Infanta robably riginated

    rom

    he same

    production

    ot. This

    finding

    means that Manet and

    the

    painter

    of the

    Infanta

    sed the same

    pigments

    from he same

    supplier

    or

    suppliers

    n

    approximately

    the same time

    period.

    McCrone estimated he

    prob-

    ability fcoincidence in trace elementconcentration

    at

    one chance

    per

    billion.According

    o

    McCrone,

    the

    lead white

    in

    the The

    Spanish

    Ballet and the

    Infanta

    could not "be more similar

    f

    they

    had been

    squeezed

    from

    he same tube of

    paint"

    (Brainerd

    1988,

    174).

    McCrone further found that the

    agreement

    of

    pigment composition

    n

    all three

    examples provides

    strong

    upport

    n

    favor f

    dating

    he

    Infanta

    ear

    the

    middle of the 19th

    century. inally,

    he

    scrupulous

    x-

    ray radiography

    nd

    special photographic analysis,

    detailed

    below,

    further confirm the

    validity

    of

    McCrone's findings Brainerd 1988) in revealing

    aspects

    of

    methods-preparatory painted

    contours,

    Fig.

    4.

    Edouard

    Manet,

    'Infante

    arie-Marguerite,

    a.

    1861,

    watercolorn

    paper,

    ith ead

    white,

    1

    x

    27

    cm,

    ocation

    unknown

    Fig.

    5. Edouard

    Manet,

    'Infante arie-Marguerite,tching,

    1861,

    23

    x

    19

    cm,

    National

    Gallery

    f

    Art,Washington,

    D.C.,

    1951.10.341

    JAIC

    42

    (2003):407-418

  • 8/9/2019 Boime - Manet's Lost Infanta

    7/14

    412

    ALBERT

    BOIME

    AND ALEXANDER

    KOSSOLAPOV

    thescrapingown to thedarkernderpaintingthe

    ebauche),

    he

    modeling

    rush

    trokes,

    eavilympas-

    toed

    ight

    reas,

    brupt assages

    rom

    ight

    o

    dark--

    typical

    f otherManet

    paintings,

    ll of

    which,

    we

    may

    venture o

    add,

    gainpoint

    o the hallmarksf

    his

    master,

    homas

    Couture.

    3. NONDESTRUCTIVE

    TECHNICAL

    EXAMINATION

    It s worth

    mphasizing

    rom he

    very eginning

    hat

    as soon as thepainting as dated nd ocatednParis

    by

    McCrone's

    report,

    he

    field

    of

    contendersor

    authorship

    f the work was

    drastically

    educed.

    Althoughketch/copies

    ere tandardtudio

    ractice

    at the

    time,

    he

    example

    underconsiderationtill

    displaysingular

    raitsfexecution.

    herewere

    nly

    handfulf rtists

    ho,

    y

    1860-62,

    ad

    developed

    hat

    "advanced"

    anner

    n

    which he

    ifanta

    as

    xecuted,

    and even mere urface bservationeveals he color

    schemeof the

    Infanta

    o be an exact matchwith

    Manet's

    contemporaneous

    alette.

    We will

    not

    proceed, owever,long

    this

    ine

    of

    reasoning,

    ut

    confine urselves

    o a

    purely

    echnical

    omparison

    f

    Manet's

    roduction

    echniques

    nd

    tyle

    as

    established

    both

    by

    our

    own scientificxamination

    f his

    paint-

    ings

    reatedround

    860

    nd

    by

    he

    xisting

    iterature,

    including

    n

    particular

    ichaelWilson's

    andmark

    study

    fthe

    echnical

    ethodsnd

    procedures

    fthe

    artist ho

    painted

    his

    nfanta

    Wilson

    983]).

    1.The

    artist's

    riginal

    utline ketch

    asdoneon

    the white

    ground

    f the

    canvas,

    ainted

    n

    some

    darker olor

    with

    scarcely

    ny

    lead

    white,

    nd

    appearing

    s dark

    fragments

    e.g.,

    the

    hair,

    yes,

    mouth, tc. also look pitchy n the x-rayradi-

    ographs).

    he

    unfinished

    ortrait

    f

    George

    oore u

    Cafi

    ca.

    1878,

    Metropolitan

    useumof

    Art,

    New

    York)

    presents

    uch sketched

    utlinesmade

    n

    this

    kind

    of

    paint:

    the ines

    of the head are

    brown,

    he

    coat and

    hat are blue-black"

    Wilson

    1983,

    8).

    Manet's

    sketching rocess,

    however,

    s

    revealed

    neither n

    his

    finished

    aintings

    y x-rays,

    s the

    sketch utlines

    o not contain

    nough

    ead

    white,

    nor

    by

    nfrared

    hotography,

    s the

    material

    sedfor

    sketching

    s

    deficient

    n carbon lack.

    On the nfanta,owever,hepresencefprepara-

    tory ketchingmaybe tracedon an enlargedphoto-

    graph

    of the face

    fig.

    ,

    see

    page

    442)

    in

    those

    areas

    not built

    up

    with

    pigment during

    the

    subsequent

    modeling.

    uch areas

    may

    be

    seen,

    for

    xample,

    n her

    upper lip

    below the eftnostril nd in the

    corners

    of

    her

    mouth.

    These

    minuscule

    reas,

    f

    course,

    do not

    provide

    us

    enough

    information n the

    sketching

    method tself ut are indicative f its

    practice.

    2.

    On the finished ketch

    n

    underpainting

    i.e.,

    the

    lay-in

    of three-dimensional

    bjects) begins

    in

    darker colors

    containing

    ess lead white and

    ends

    withan almostpurewhite on thebrightestarts.The

    modeling

    brushstrokes

    an

    be

    straight

    r

    curvy,

    hort

    or

    elongated,

    s

    they

    follow the

    anatomically

    onvex

    and concave

    parts

    of

    the

    face.

    This

    same manner of

    underpainting

    s

    clearly

    een

    in

    the

    nfanta

    see

    fig.

    ,

    page

    442),

    where the darker

    nderpainting

    hows

    up

    in

    several reas.

    A

    comparison

    of

    the brushstrokesf

    the

    Infanta

    ith those of two other Manet

    paintings

    (the

    boy's

    face

    in

    The Old Musician

    [ca.

    1862,

    National

    Gallery

    of

    Art]

    and the forehead of The

    Dead Toreador

    ca.

    1862,

    National

    Gallery

    of

    Art]),

    discloses brushstrokes f the same

    type definitely

    present

    n all

    (fig.

    7)

    that

    verify

    Manet's "handwrit-

    ing"

    on the

    Infanta.

    3.

    Manet

    typically

    pplied

    his

    paint

    n

    a

    viscous,

    semidry mpasto.

    he

    tracesof

    the brush

    n

    the hair

    are

    usually

    seen

    in

    longer

    ead-white

    strokes,

    while

    the

    short ones

    generously

    used

    on

    smaller

    light

    spots/areas

    re

    less

    clearly

    resolved.These

    shorter

    strokes,

    ensely

    set

    down,

    explain why many light

    regions

    on

    radiographs

    ave

    agged,

    torn

    edges.

    The

    light,

    levated

    egions

    re modeled

    extremely oughly,

    almost

    sculpted

    rather

    than

    painted.Visually

    such

    areas, ypical orManet,maybe easily raced n figure

    6 in the

    nfanta's

    eft

    heek,

    under

    her

    ower

    ip,

    n the

    left

    part

    of her

    chin,

    under her

    right

    ye,

    nd

    so on.

    4. The

    very

    idea of

    following

    the

    natural

    ight

    distribution as alien to

    the artist.

    Manet,

    n

    princi-

    ple,

    did not care about

    the

    smooth

    transition f

    ight

    to

    shadow;

    the

    thick,

    bright-white

    rushstrokesre

    abruptly

    uxtaposed

    with the darker

    parts

    as

    if

    he

    ignores

    he

    very

    existenceof intermediate

    alftones,

    which do not

    figure

    n

    his

    palette

    t all

    (Boime

    1971;

    Wilson

    1983).

    As a

    result

    of this

    technique,

    the

    boundarybetween dark hair, ackground) nd light

    JAIC

    42

    (2003):407-418

  • 8/9/2019 Boime - Manet's Lost Infanta

    8/14

    413

    MANET'S LOST

    INFANTA

    1.

    nfanta

    2.

    Dead

    Toreador

    3.Old

    Musician

    Fig.

    7.

    Modeling

    rush

    trokes

    n

    threeManet

    paintings:

    'Infante,

    he

    Dead

    Toreador,a.

    1862,

    National

    Gallery,

    942.9.40,

    and TheOld

    Musician,

    a.

    1862,

    National

    Gallery,

    963.10.162.

    (face,

    ther

    ighter

    arts)

    s

    very

    sharp,

    nd

    any

    smooth

    ransitions absent

    oth on

    regular hoto-

    graphs

    nd

    radiographs.robably

    hose

    harp

    ound-

    aries

    here

    eferring

    o

    ight

    ontrast,

    ot o

    the

    form

    or width f the

    boundary

    ine

    tself)

    ere

    xtremely

    important

    o

    Manet,

    who

    quite

    ntentionally

    ushed

    his

    brightest

    ight recisely

    o theblack

    orders. nd

    it

    s worth

    bserving

    hat he

    ight

    ollows he

    dark,

    not to the

    contrary,

    s the

    principle

    f the

    painting

    technique

    n thewhite

    ground

    rogresses

    n

    thick-

    ness rom arkerayersothe ighternes see bove),

    i.e.,

    the

    ights

    re

    painted

    ast. n this

    way,

    he

    ight

    areas

    normally

    re

    everywhere

    hysically

    levated

    above the dark

    xcept

    n

    the nevitable

    entimenti

    (see

    below).

    And,

    inally,

    he

    high

    ontrasting

    order

    between he

    ight

    nd dark

    reas,

    ith he

    bsence

    f

    natural-looking

    ones,

    roduces

    very pecific

    ffect

    on the

    radiographs:

    ll the

    faces

    ppear

    ikemasks.

    In

    our

    investigation

    e

    carefully

    tudied he

    majority

    f

    existing -ray

    adiographs

    f the

    early

    Manet

    aintings.

    n

    this

    rticle,owever,

    e

    chose or

    technical

    omparison

    everal

    epresentativexamples

    taken

    rom he

    paintings

    ating

    a.

    1862

    fig.

    ):

    The

    Old

    Musician

    National

    Gallery,Washington),

    he

    Dead

    Toreador

    National

    Gallery),

    a Femme

    a

    la

    Crdche

    Ordrupgaard

    ollection,

    openhagen),

    he

    Spanish

    Ballet

    Phillips

    Collection),

    e

    Bon

    Bock,

    (Philadelphia

    Museum of

    Art),

    Portrait

    f

    a Man

    (Rijksmuseum,

    r6ller-Miiller,tterlo,

    Holland).

    The

    radiograph

    f

    single

    Manet

    opy

    was

    available

    to

    us,

    the

    Self-Portrait

    f

    Tintoretto

    1854,

    Musee des

    Beaux

    Arts,

    Dijon),

    a

    painting

    rucial

    for our

    purpose,

    ut

    unfortunately

    e have

    not received

    permissionoreproducet.

    We have included the

    radiograph

    f the

    Infanta's

    face in the series to show

    a

    comparison

    thatto us

    is

    self-evident: he

    Infanta

    s

    wearing

    the same

    sort of

    "mask" that

    everybody

    else

    wears

    in

    the Manet

    paintings

    llustrated.

    hat is

    especially nteresting

    n

    this

    example

    is that the

    Infanta'smask is

    formed

    by

    the borderlinebetween

    her forehead and

    her

    hair,

    despite

    her hair's not

    being

    black but of a

    lighter

    color. This feature

    ndicates that the

    forehead

    was

    joined

    to the

    black/darker air

    during

    the

    under-

    painting tage,while in thefinishing tagethehairdo

    was

    impastoed

    n

    light.

    n

    other

    words,

    t

    indicates

    that the

    artist ollowed a manner

    quite

    identical

    to

    that

    shown in the

    other Manet

    paintingspictured.

    Significantly,

    e

    may

    also

    look at the much

    later

    (1879)

    painting

    f

    Mlle.

    sabelle emonnier

    o demon-

    strate

    that

    Manet did

    not abandon his

    "masking"

    habit for

    many years

    following

    the

    period

    under

    discussion.

    5.

    Probably

    he

    most

    mportant,

    atently

    bserv-

    able characteristic

    f Manet's

    alla

    prima

    painting

    n

    thick

    mpasto this echnique mplies

    hat he

    volume

    and

    coloring

    were

    sought simultaneously

    by

    the

    artist)

    was his

    strange

    need to

    scrape away

    what he

    saw as

    unnecessary aint

    n

    order

    to revealthe more

    appropriate

    arker

    olor beneath

    t. Michael

    Wilson,

    who

    follows,

    n

    his

    turn,

    he critics

    heodore

    Duret

    and

    George

    Moore,

    has

    ably

    noted this

    peculiar

    feature: As he

    applied

    washes

    of color to his

    painted

    drawing,

    Manet would

    continuously

    revise the

    contours

    of his

    image.

    Where the

    paint

    was

    thickly

    laid on he would

    often

    scrape

    it

    away

    to allow the

    ground

    to show

    through....When

    he was

    dissatisfied

    he would

    scrape away

    and

    repaint

    over and over

    JAIC

    42

    (2003):407-418

  • 8/9/2019 Boime - Manet's Lost Infanta

    9/14

    414

    ALBERT

    BOIME AND ALEXANDER

    KOSSOLAPOV

    Fig.

    .The

    comparative

    eries f

    x-ray adiographs

    f he

    arly

    ca. 1862)

    Manet

    aintings.

    eft

    o

    right,op

    row: e Bon

    Bock,

    Philadelphia

    Museum

    of

    Art, 1963-116-009;

    The Dead

    Toreador;

    a Femme la

    Crache,

    Ordrupgaard

    Collection,

    Copenhagen,

    82WH;

    Portrait

    f

    Man,

    Rijksmuseum,

    r6ller-Miiller,

    tterlo,

    olland,

    KM

    100.854;

    bottom ow:

    L'Infante;

    Mlle.

    sabelle

    emonnier,

    879,

    Philadelphia

    Museum

    of

    Fine

    Art,

    1978-1-21;

    The Old

    Musician,

    wo

    details

    again"

    Wilson

    983,

    ).

    And well

    beyond

    what ne

    might

    ven

    magine

    rom hese

    ecitals,

    he envious

    observationf Manet's

    ister-in-law,

    ertheMorisot

    (1841-1895),

    ells s the

    magnitude

    fhis ttachment

    to this nusual

    rocess:

    At

    themoment ll his dmi-

    ration s concentratedn

    Mile

    Gonzales,

    ut

    the

    portrait

    akes

    o

    progress.

    e tellsme that e is at

    the fortieth

    itting

    nd the head has

    again

    been

    scraped

    ff"

    Wilson

    983,

    10).

    In

    inewith his

    rocess,

    e

    would

    be

    inclined o

    add one

    related

    bservation,

    hat he

    overwhelming

    majority

    f

    Manet's

    works,

    xcepting

    is

    copies,

    reveal n

    x-ray

    adiographs

    otal r local

    composi-

    tional

    hanges.

    ven on his

    copies,

    however,

    s

    we

    have

    seen,

    Manet at least

    revised

    he

    contours. o

    proceed

    long

    his

    mportant

    ineof

    nquiry,

    e must

    briefly

    omment n certain

    echnical

    spects

    f this

    scraping rocess.

    The result f the

    scraping

    f white

    ead-rich

    paint

    n the

    ontours

    ay

    notbe seenwellon

    x-ray

    radiographs

    f

    the

    scraping

    id not

    produce

    notice-

    able

    defects

    n

    the ead-rich

    round

    f

    the

    painting.

    Whatwe

    may

    e able to see on the

    radiographs

    re

    just

    a few more

    agged edges

    on the borders etween

    dark nd

    light egions,

    he effect f which can be well

    disguised by

    the technical

    featuredescribed

    above

    (3).

    The

    transmitted

    ight photographs

    (TLPH)

    and/or

    reflected nfrared

    hotographs,

    owever,

    an

    indeed revealthe

    scraping

    atherwell

    in

    cases where

    the

    underpainting

    done

    with a

    darker

    paint

    on a

    white

    background

    has been

    scraped

    away.

    As few

    specialists

    re familiar

    n

    practice

    with these tech-

    niques,

    t

    may

    be

    helpful

    o

    explain very

    briefly

    he

    difference etween

    x-rayradiographs

    nd TLPH.

    For

    x-ray,

    he main

    absorbingpigment

    n

    paint-

    ings

    s

    lead white.

    As

    a

    result,

    hat we see on a radi-

    ograph

    s the ead-white

    presence,

    r its

    distribution,

    in

    the

    painting.

    or

    TLPH,

    the main

    absorbing aints

    are those that contain

    carbon black

    (burnt

    bone,

    charcoal,

    or

    soot).

    When TLPH is

    made

    in

    the

    infrared

    egion

    (at

    wavelengthgreater

    han 1.6-1.8

    [tm),

    it reveals

    redominantly

    he

    presence

    of carbon

    black;

    when it is

    made

    in

    visual

    light,

    t reveals he

    distribution f all

    darker,

    ight-absorbing igments.

    Lead

    white,

    for

    example,

    does not absorb

    ight

    well;

    its

    hiding power"

    s based on the effective

    cattering

    JAIC

    42

    (2003):407-418

  • 8/9/2019 Boime - Manet's Lost Infanta

    10/14

    415

    MANET'S LOST INFANTA

    of

    ight

    duetothe

    big

    differencen refractivendex

    value for ead carbonate nd

    binding

    medium),

    ut

    noton its

    bsorption.

    hus this

    igment

    if

    t s

    pure

    and

    f

    ts

    ayer

    s not oo

    thick)

    ookswhite

    n

    trans-

    mitted

    ight.

    he same

    s

    true

    for

    ny

    artist's hite

    pigment

    nd forwhite

    round

    ayers

    lso.

    Reflectednfrared

    hotographs

    ork,

    n

    princi-

    ple, imilarly

    o common eflected

    ight hotography,

    except

    hat n the nfrared

    pectrum

    hecoefficients

    of

    reflection/absorption

    or rtistic

    igments

    iffer

    very

    much romhe

    orresponding

    oefficients

    n

    the

    visualrange. n particular,n the near infrared,

    absorption

    f

    a

    majority

    f

    pigments

    s

    negligible,

    unlike he visual

    egion

    to

    whichmain

    bsorption

    bands of such

    pigments

    elong,providing

    heir

    corresponding

    olors),

    nd the reflectednfrared

    photographyractically

    oes notdisclose

    bsorption

    at

    all

    for

    all

    pigments

    ith

    ust

    one

    exception-

    carbonblack-the

    pigment

    or which

    absorption

    stays igh,

    lmost he ame s t s

    n

    thevisual

    ange.

    As for he artists'

    igments'

    eflection/scattering,

    t

    falls

    pproximatelyinearly

    ith he ncrease f the

    wavelength,ndas their bsorptiontaysow, aint

    layers

    ecome more

    transparent

    lessreflective)

    he

    longer

    he nfrared

    avelength

    hosen

    or

    hotogra-

    phy.

    he carbon lack-based

    igments,hough, rac-

    tically

    o

    not

    hange

    heir

    ery igh ight

    bsorption

    in

    the near

    nfrared,

    nd

    consequently

    heir evelof

    reflectivity

    emains

    ow.Due to such

    ffects,

    eflected

    infrared

    hotographs

    an

    help

    to trace he distribu-

    tion

    fcarbon lack

    or

    pigmentsontaining

    arbon

    black)on a

    painting,evealing,y

    the

    way,

    ven he

    carbon lack

    nderpainting

    r

    underdrawing

    idden

    under

    he

    upper aint ayers.

    hus,

    n the reflected

    infrared

    photographs,

    free

    carbon-containing

    pigmentsvisuallyooking

    ark/black)

    re rendered

    black s

    they

    wouldbe

    in

    the

    common isual

    ange

    photographs,

    ut withmuch

    higher

    ontrastue to

    very

    mall

    bsorption

    f all other

    ypes

    f

    pigments

    looking

    white

    nonabsorbing).

    If

    we bear

    n

    mind hatManet

    onsistently

    sed

    white/light

    rounds

    n

    his

    paintings

    nd thathis

    individualmannerncluded he crapingf his own

    paint

    ven down

    nto the

    ground

    i.e.,

    t times

    he

    scraped way

    he

    darker,

    arbon lack

    underpainting

    as

    well),

    here re xcellent

    pportunities

    o

    view he

    scraping

    oth

    n TLPH

    and

    n

    reflectednfrared.

    n

    TLPH

    the

    crapings

    ay

    ook ikewhite

    ineswith

    jagged

    contours n the darker

    ackground,

    s the

    light assing hrough

    uch

    scraping

    s less

    absorbed

    compared

    withthe

    neighboring,

    onscraped

    ack-

    ground.

    n

    the nfraredhe

    crapings

    lso ook

    white

    because he

    well-reflectinground

    s "seen"

    hrough

    the crapings.nboth ases,crapedinesmay e situ-

    ated

    along

    the borders

    f

    light

    nd

    shadow

    ones,

    where he ontours

    llegedly

    avebeen revised."

    As we have hus stablished

    ertain

    pecific

    ech-

    nological

    riteria or he

    revealing

    f

    scraping,

    e

    may

    now

    apply

    hem o the

    nfanta.

    n

    figure

    ,

    taken

    in

    reflected

    nfrared,

    he

    craping

    the

    broad,

    ighter-

    looking

    cratch ith

    aggededges)

    an be

    definitely

    traced. he

    paint

    was

    craped

    own o the

    ground

    f

    Fig.

    9. Edouard

    Manet,

    L'Infante

    Marie-Marguerite,

    etail of

    photo-

    graphtaken n infrared.

    JAIC

    42

    (2003):407-418

  • 8/9/2019 Boime - Manet's Lost Infanta

    11/14

    416

    ALBERT BOIME

    AND

    ALEXANDER KOSSOLAPOV

    Fig.

    10.Edouard

    Manet,

    'Infante arie-Marguerite,

    etail f

    transmitted

    ight hoto.

    the

    painting

    ust

    above the

    head,

    on the borderof the

    hairdo and the dark

    surrounding ackground,

    where

    the contours of the

    head

    were revised. he

    scraping

    is also revealed

    n

    figure

    0,

    taken

    n

    transmitted

    ight.

    That

    photograph

    reveals

    scraping

    not

    only

    on the

    border

    e.g.,

    see the white ine between

    the forehead

    and

    the

    hair),

    but

    also on the left

    part

    of the

    cheek,

    where

    the white was

    scraped

    to be

    replaced

    with the

    now

    existingpink

    color seen on the same

    place

    in

    figure

    (see

    page

    442).

    At the

    same

    time,

    t is

    necessary

    o discuss

    ertain

    differences hat the Infantapresentson the radi-

    ographs

    n the

    comparative

    eries shown

    in

    figure

    .

    The difference s that the

    painting

    on the

    Infanta's

    face s somehow less

    full-bodied,

    he ead-white

    ayer

    thinner

    nd less

    sculptured"

    han n the other exam-

    ples.

    For this reason one cannot

    clearly

    see the

    modeling

    brushstrokes

    ere, nd,

    as a

    result,

    he

    face

    looks less

    spotty,

    ainted

    less

    "aggressively"

    han the

    other faces on the

    x-rayradiographs.

    Significant ompositional changes

    are absent

    as

    well.To be

    scrupulous,

    we

    must

    note that he

    model-

    ing isperformedwith a thinner rush hanwasused,

    for

    example,

    on The Old Musician.We

    believe that

    such

    differences

    ay

    be

    explained

    when we recollect

    that

    he

    painting

    nder examination s

    indeed a

    copy,

    and that the

    copying process

    may, by

    definition,

    LAS

    ...........

    .

    ........

    . .......

    ...........

    ...........

    id

    ..........

    Fig.

    11.

    Edouard

    Manet,

    L'Infante

    Marie-

    Marguerite,

    adiograph

    f the

    ower

    part

    of

    the

    painting.

    JAIC

    42

    (2003):407-418

  • 8/9/2019 Boime - Manet's Lost Infanta

    12/14

    417

    MANET'S

    LOST

    INFANTA

    partiallyuppressny painter'sreativepproacho

    the task.At the same

    time,

    very

    opyist ormally

    pays

    ess ttentiono

    secondary

    etails,

    uch

    s

    dress

    and accessories.

    ndeed,

    close

    ook at

    figure

    1,

    he

    radiograph

    f the

    nfanta's

    ress,

    eveals muchfreer

    approach,

    ore

    ecognizably

    anet,

    han een

    n

    the

    radiograph

    fthe

    face

    n

    figure

    .

    4. CONCLUSIONS

    We introducedhe reader

    o

    a

    painting

    hose

    rtist

    used both the same colorsand combinationsf

    colors,

    ven

    aints

    aken rom he ame

    actory

    tock,

    as those

    onsistently

    sed

    by

    Manet

    ca. 1860.

    t is a

    painting

    hat

    isibly

    onformso the

    arge

    ariety

    f

    criteria

    roadly

    nown o characterizehe

    working

    techniques

    nd culturalffinitiesf this

    rtist,

    own

    to the

    trange eculiarities

    f his ndividual

    anner.

    The historical

    ecord

    ocuments

    anet's

    xecution

    of an oil

    copy

    of the

    Velizquez

    nfantauring

    his

    period.

    Have we then ucceeded

    n

    establishing

    he

    authenticity

    f the

    painting?

    It

    seems

    mpossible

    o

    us

    to ascribe

    o coinci-

    dence this

    variety

    f

    astonishingongruities.

    he

    scientificxaminationescribed

    n

    this

    tudy

    eports

    findingsbjectively

    rrivedt with

    great

    aution.We

    believe

    t

    dds

    onfirmation

    o

    the

    onvincing

    actual

    aggregate

    f textualmaterial

    lready

    nown

    bout

    this

    ainting.

    ur answer o that

    uestion

    f uthen-

    ticity

    s

    consequently,es,

    his s thework

    f

    Edouard

    Manet,

    well

    beyond

    ny

    easonable oubt.

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

    The authors express their deep gratitudeto

    colleagues

    who

    supplied

    or made available

    the

    photograph

    nd

    x-ray

    ocuments sed

    n

    this

    tudy,

    or who

    spent

    heir

    ime

    n

    very

    helpful

    iscussions.

    In

    particular

    e owe

    special cknowledgment

    oAnn

    Hoeningswald

    and

    Philip

    Conisbee

    (National

    Gallery

    f

    Art,

    Washington),

    enrik

    Bjerre

    Dansk

    Museum),

    Christopher

    iopelle

    (National

    Gallery,

    London),

    Mark

    ucker nd BethPrice

    Philadelphia

    Museum

    of

    Art),

    Albert

    Kostenevitch,

    lexander

    Babin, A.

    Sizov,

    Lilia

    Viazmenskaia

    Hermitage

    Museum,t.Petersburg),ndJean-Pierreohen nd

    Regis LapassinCenter orResearchnd Conserva-

    tionof French

    Museums).

    We

    appreciate

    s

    well the

    assistance

    nd

    upport

    fAndrew

    rainerd,

    sq.,

    Dr.

    Walter

    McCrone,

    nd

    Dr. Leonard

    Reiffel.

    t

    has

    been

    through

    he

    kind nd effective

    elp

    of all these

    persons

    nd

    institutions

    hat this work has been

    accomplished.

    REFERENCES

    Bareau,

    .W.

    986.

    Thehidden

    ace f

    Manet: n inves-

    tigationf hertist'sorkingrocesses.ondon: urling-

    ton

    Magazine.

    BoggsJ.

    S.

    1958.

    Degas

    notebooks t the Biblio-

    theque

    Nationale

    I:

    Group

    B

    (1858-1861).

    Burling-

    ton

    Magazine

    00

    (June):196-205.

    Boime,

    .

    1971.The

    Academy

    ndFrench

    ainting

    n the

    nineteenth

    entury.

    ondon: haidon ress.

    Boime,

    A.

    1980.

    Thomas outurend he clecticision.

    New Haven nd

    London:Yale

    niversity

    ress.

    Brainerd,

    . 1988.

    The

    nfanta

    dventure

    nd heost

    anet.

    Long

    Beach,

    Michigan ity,

    ndiana:

    eichl

    ress.

    Fried,

    M. 1996.

    Manet'smodernism.

    hicago:

    Univer-

    sity

    f

    Chicago

    Press.

    Hanson,

    . 1977.

    Manet nd

    hemodern

    radition.ew

    Haven:Yale

    niversity

    ress.

    Hebborn,

    .

    1991.

    Drawn

    o trouble:

    he

    orging

    f

    n

    artist. rome,England, nd London:Mainstream

    Publishingrojects.

    Meller,

    2002. Manet

    n

    Italy. urlington

    agazine

    144

    (February):68-110.

    Reff,T.

    964.

    Copyists

    n

    theLouvre. rt

    Bulletin6

    (December):552-59.

    Rouart, .,

    and

    D.Wildenstein975.Edouard anet:

    Catalogue

    aisonne.ausanne nd Paris:La

    Biblio-

    theque esArts.

    JAIC

    42

    (2003):407-418

  • 8/9/2019 Boime - Manet's Lost Infanta

    13/14

    418

    ALBERT

    BOIME

    AND

    ALEXANDER KOSSOLAPOV

    Saur,K. G. 1995.Allgemeinesinstler Lexikon,ol.

    10.

    Munich-Leipzig:

    . G.

    Saur.

    41.

    Schjeldahl,

    2002.The

    Spanish

    esson:Manet's

    ift

    from

    Velizquez.

    New

    Yorker,

    ovember18:102-3.

    Manet/

    eldzquez:

    he

    French

    aste

    or

    panishainting,

    ed. G.

    Tinterow

    nd

    G. Lacambre. ew

    York:Metro-

    politan

    Museum

    f

    Art;

    New Haven:Yale

    niversity

    Press,

    003.

    Thieme-Becker.

    909.

    Allgemeines

    exikon

    er

    ilden-

    denKiinstler,ol.3. Leipzig: .A. Seemann. 12-13.

    Wilson,

    M. 1983. Manet t work. ondon:National

    Gallery.

    FURTHER READING

    Mathey J.

    1963.

    Graphisme

    e Manet.

    Vol.

    2,

    Peintures

    reapparues.

    aris:

    E

    De Nobele.

    Moreau-Nelaton,

    E. 1926. Manet

    raconte

    ar

    ui-meme.

    Paris: H. Laurens.

    Reff,

    T. 1976. Manet:

    Olympia.

    New York:

    Viking

    Press.

    Sandblad,

    N.

    1954. Manet: Three studies

    n

    artistic

    conception.

    und,

    Sweden:

    C.W.

    K.

    Gleerup.

    ALBERT

    BOIME

    earned

    his

    Ph.D.

    in art

    history

    fromColumbia

    University

    n

    1968. He

    specializes

    n

    the

    study

    of modern

    art and has

    made

    notable

    contributions

    o the

    understanding

    f art nstruction

    in the 19th century.He is currentlyworkingon a

    multivolume ocial

    History f

    Modern

    rt,

    he first wo

    volumes of which have been

    publishedby University

    of

    Chicago

    Press.

    ALEXANDER

    J.

    KOSSOLAPOV

    earned

    his

    M.S.

    in

    physics

    t

    Leningrad

    University,

    ussia,

    in

    1970,

    and his Ph.D.

    in

    physics/engineering

    n

    1980.

    In

    1972-90

    he

    was

    the head

    of the

    Laboratory

    for

    Scientific

    Examination of Works of

    Art

    in

    the

    Hermitage

    Museum,

    Leningrad.

    In

    1990 he was

    senior researchfellow in the Getty Conservation

    Institute, and in 1991-95 special Mellon

    fellow/seniorresearch fellow/scientist t the Los

    Angeles County

    Museum

    of

    Art Conservation

    Center.

    In

    1998-99,

    he held a

    position

    as senior

    fellow t the Center forAdvanced

    Study

    n

    theVisual

    Arts

    CASVA),

    National

    Gallery

    of

    Art,

    Washington,

    D.C. Since 1996 he has held the

    principal

    cientific

    museum

    position

    n

    Russia,

    as

    head of the scientific

    department

    f the

    State

    Hermitage

    Museum.

    Received

    forreview on

    September

    ,

    2002.

    Revised

    manuscript eceivedFebruary 5, 2003.Accepted

    for

    publication

    April

    23,

    2003.

    JAIC

    42

    (2003):407-418

  • 8/9/2019 Boime - Manet's Lost Infanta

    14/14

    442

    MANET'S LOST

    INFANTA

    ALBERT

    BOIME

    AND ALEXANDER

    KOSSOLAPOV

    (color

    plates, .

    442;

    see

    article

    p.

    407-418)

    Fig. 1. Edouard Manet, L'InfanteMarie-

    Marguerite,

    a.

    1859-1862,

    il on

    canvas,

    6

    x

    38.1

    cm,

    rivate

    ollection,

    nited

    tates

    Fig. 2. Diego Velizquez, InfantaMaria Margarita,

    a.

    1653,

    oil on

    canvas,

    0

    x 59

    cm,

    Musee du

    Louvre,

    941

    Fig.

    .

    Edouard

    Manet,

    'Infante

    arie-Marguerite,

    etail

    face)

    42