Download - Boime - Manet's Lost Infanta
-
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