Beyond the Exhibition Carel Fabritius (1622-1654)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Carel Fabritius: Beyond the Exhibition Carel Fabritius (1622-1654) left a small number of paintings of certain attribution. But in his short life he produced some of the finest examples of Dutch seventeenth- century painting, including such works as The Goldfinch, in the Mauritshuis, The Hague, and The Sentry, in the Staatliches Museum, Schwerin. To mark the 35oth anni- versary of the artist's death, these two museums joined forces and set out to organise the first monographic exhibition dedicated to Fabritius.' The aim of the organisers was to bring together all the 'certified' works, as well as the most important attribu- tions, in order to enhance our view of Fabritius's artistic development. This resulted in an impressive exhibition, which was a treat for the eyes, and gave art historians a good opportunity to compare recent attributions with works that are indisputably by Fabritius, several of which were conserved and restored for the exhibition. The conservation and restoration itself led to some interesting discoveries, such as the deceptively realistic nail, which was exposed in the background of the Portrait of' Abraham de Potter (see p. 8 7, fig. 2I), and the legs of a soldier walking along the wall behind the archway in Tbe Sentry (see p. ioo, fig. i). In addition, the selected works were subjected to a thorough art-historical and (where possible) technical investiga- tion. The outcome of these investigations was published in the exhibition catalogue, which contains an extensive introductory chapter by Frits Duparc; the catalogue entries were written by Gero Seelig and Ariane van Suchtelen.' The exhibition and its catalogue were certainly not intended to provide a defini- tive answer to the many questions surrounding Fabritius's oeuvre, but aimed rather to provide a starting point for further research. This led the Mauritshuis and the Netherlands Institute for Art History (RKD) to hold an international symposium at the time of the exhibition in The Hague, in order to stimulate an exchange of ideas.3 In the course of this two-day symposium, on i and 2 December a lively (and sometimes heated) discussion ensued about paintings which had recently been added to, or removed from the oeuvre. The first day, which took place in the Mauritshuis, was for a select group of participants only, in order to allow discussion directly in front of the paintings. There was a series of brief presentations of the technical find- ings that emerged from the restoration of a number of Fabritius's paintings prior to the exhibition.4 The second day, which was held at the RKD, was a public event; the programme consisted of a series of talks by specialists who focused on various aspects of Fabritius's work. In the aftermath of this successful symposium, it was decided to invite some of the speakers to convert their talks into articles for this special issue of Dud Holland. Frits Duparc, who initiated the exhibition, has written an article based on his own talk, and that of Jorgcn Wadum, then Chief Curator at the Mauritshuis. In it he makes the case for several recent attributions to Fabritius, which remain the subject of controversy, using the sometimes remarkable results of the technical research done 73 during the exhibition. Volker Manuth, in his article, offers important new informa- tion about the provenance of The Sentry, and also suggests a possible identification for the archway featuring in the image. Walter Liedtke calls for a reconsideration of some works which the organisers of the exhibition no longer regarded as by Fabritius, and which were accordingly left out of the selection. (Two of these were, in fact, later shown at the second venue, in Schwerin.) Peter Schatborn endeavours to attribute a group of drawings to Carel Fabritius on purely stylistic grounds, an aspect, which be- cause of its speculative character, could not be accommodated in the exhibition itself. Christopher Brown, author of the most recent monograph on Fabritius, published in i98i, was invited to give a personal evaluation of the exhibition and the catalogue. In addition to these lectures, we have included three further essays, which were written directly in response to the exhibition. J. Bruyn draws our attention to the presence of two early works by Fabritius in Paris auction catalogues of the second half of the eighteenth century. Gero Seelig suggests that the artist arrived in Rembrandt's workshop at a considerably earlier date than was hitherto assumed, a hypothesis he first put forward at a second Fabritius symposium in Schwerin, on 28 May 2005. Jonathan Bikker discusses the provenance and attribution of the Beheading ofjohn the Baptist in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam (see p. m, fig. i), a painting long thought to be by Fabritius, but rejected by the exhibition organisers and shown only in Schwerin. The symposium in The Hague offered a great deal more than we are able to include in this special double issue. Ernst van de Wetering gave a lively account of Rembrandt's workshop, talking about how it could have functioned and what role the young Fabritius might have had there. Jeroen Giltaij and Albert Blankert reiter- ated their strong doubts concerning the authenticity of Mercury, Argus en Io (see p. 76, fig. i), which each had voiced separately in earlier publications (of 1988 and i992-i993): despite the signature Carolus Fabritius, they feel that for stylistic reasons this work cannot be regarded as by Carel Fabritius.5 On the same grounds, they argue that other early works grouped around this painting - Mercury and Aglauros (see p. 80, fig. 7) and the so-called Hera (see p. 85, fig. 15) - should also be disregarded. One painting that gave rise to particular controversy, was the portrait from the Alte Pinakothek, Munich (see p. 87, fig. 18), described in the catalogue as a Self- Portrait by Carel Fabritius. In the recent past, most writers (including Brown and Sumowski) have attributed this work to Carel's brother, Barent, describing it either as a self-portrait, or a portrait of Care1.6 During the discussion in front of the actual painting, experts expressed strong doubts not only about its identification as a self- portrait, but also about its attribution to Carel.' It was agreed that a restoration of this canvas, in combination with a thorough, technical examination, would be highly desirable, and could shcd new light on the question of its attribution. The attentive reader studying the articles in this issue will notice that a consensus is still a long way off on some issues. Works that have been rejected by one expert are reinstated by the next - a case in point is the Man in a Helmet in Groningen (see the article by Brown, p. i4o, fig. i). The editors have made no attempt whatsoever to reconcile the diverse opinions, but want rather to offer a platform for art-historical debate. We hope that this special Fabritius issue will contribute to the ongoing dis- cussion about one of the most intriguing artistic personalities of the Dutch Golden Age, about whose life and work much is still to be uncovered. We would like to thank the contributors, and the staff of the Mauritshuis for their ready help in putting together this special issue. The Hague, October zoo6 Rudi Ekkart, director, RKD Edwin Buijsen, editor of this special issue 74 .