Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and Objects of Cultural Interest, note of case hearing on 10 October 2019: Portrait of a Lady by Frans Hals (Case 14, 2019-20)

Application

1. The Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and Objects of Cultural Interest (RCEWA) met on 10 October 2019 to consider an application to export Portrait of a Lady by Frans Hals. The value shown on the export licence application was £7,398,000 which represented an agreed sale price. The expert adviser had objected to the export of the painting under the second Waverley criterion on the grounds that its departure from the UK would be a misfortune because (ii) it was of outstanding aesthetic importance.

2. Six of the regular eight RCEWA members were present and were joined by three independent assessors, acting as temporary members of the Reviewing Committee.

3. The applicant confirmed that the value did not include VAT and that VAT would be payable in the event of a UK sale. The applicant also confirmed that the owner understood the circumstances under which an export licence might be refused and that, if the decision on the licence was deferred, the owner would allow the painting to be displayed for fundraising.

Expert’s submission

4. The expert adviser had provided a written submission stating that Portrait of a Lady c.1625 was oil on canvas, measuring 116.7 by 91.5 cm. It was a rare example of a particularly fine and characteristic life-size, three-quarter- length portrait by Frans Hals, widely acknowledged to be one of the most important portrait painters in Western art. There were some areas of damage, particularly in the background, but these had been skilfully restored. However, visually these areas of restoration were very good. The sitter had been identified in an article published by Marieke de Winkel in 2012 as Cunera van Baersdorp (1600–1640). This painting, with the possible pendant, now at the Taft Museum of Art, Cincinnati (USA), was most probably painted to commemorate the marriage of Michiel de Wael and Cunera van Baersdorp in 1625.

5. Cunera van Baersdorp’s pose echoed that of her husband, who also had his left arm akimbo. Her right arm hung down beside her body and she held her gloves between two fingers. The imitation or mirroring of gestures was a device that Hals frequently employed in pendant portraits to great effect, with a daring that made him stand apart from his fellow portrait painters. The details of the dress were depicted in exquisite detail but without ever looking stiff, thanks to Frans Hals’s unique bravura brushwork. The stomacher, and also the exact shape of her cap, could be specifically dated to the middle of the 1620s, as not long after the appearance of both changed significantly.

6. The portrait was made when Frans Hals was at the height of his powers and popularity, and its exceptional attraction partly derived from the unorthodox pose; it was the only existing portrait by Hals showing a lady with her arm akimbo, a pose found in many male portraits by Hals and was something of a trademark of the painter. The pose was in fact highly unusual in female portraits throughout the 17th century. Moreover, she wore a resplendent dress, with the various subtle gradations in the blacks of the costume unusually well preserved. Although there were some outstanding works by Frans Hals in British collections, there was only one other three- quarter-length female portrait in a British public collection.

Applicant’s submission

7. The applicant had stated in a written submission that they did not consider that the painting met any of the three Waverley criteria. Regarding the first Waverley criterion, the applicant stated that the work was painted in the first half of the 17th century but it only came to the UK relatively recently - after 1910, according to the known provenance. Whilst in the UK, it had largely been unexhibited publicly, and neither the artist nor the sitter had connections to the UK, its history, nor British national life.

8. Regarding the second Waverley criterion, the applicant stated that whilst this was a large-scale fully attributed portrait by Frans Hals, the sitter was actually unknown, the condition was compromised having been significantly damaged in the upper half by bomb damage during WWII, and it also pre-dated the artist’s most famous period - recognisable for its loose brushwork and bold colours. Further to this, its effect was diminished by its being evidently one half of a pair of portraits.

9. Regarding the third Waverley criterion, the applicant stated that further to the reasons listed above, it should be noted that the UK was particularly rich in this artist’s work, and principally in individual portraits of this kind, with plentiful examples found in both public and private hands.

10. In response to the expert’s statement regarding the identity of the sitter, the applicant stated that they did not agree that the identification by Marieke de Winker was definitive. As such, in their opinion, the known provenance of the painting could only be definitively be traced back to Galerie Charles Sedelmeyer, Paris, by 1899.

Discussion by the Committee

11. The expert adviser and applicant retired and the Committee discussed the case. It was agreed that this was a visually imposing and attractive picture with great dignity and presence. They observed the painting included several individual elements for which Hals was known, especially the fantastic treatment of the drapery, and the layering of black on black. However, despite these elements, they agreed that overall the painting was not typical of the artist’s work.

12. The Committee discussed whether this was indeed a wedding portrait, and potentially the pendant to the picture at the Taft Museum of Art, Cincinnati. They agreed that portraits by Hals had greater impact in pairs, and that this was most likely a wedding portrait. However, they asserted that it was not possible to definitively state that this was the pendant to the Cincinnati picture. They further noted that UK collections were rich with Hals’s paintings, most of which were more representative of the artist’s style.

13. In regard to the condition of the painting, the Committee noted damage had occurred mainly at the top left of the painting in a relatively unimportant area. They agreed the painting had been expertly restored, however these issues had to a certain extent compromised the work, which was no longer comparable in quality to Hals’s paintings already in UK public collections. The Committee concluded that, while it was an interesting picture which displayed some very accomplished passages of painting, it was not of outstanding significance and did not meet any of the three Waverley criteria.

Waverley Criteria

14. The Committee voted on whether the painting met the Waverley criteria. No members voted that it met the Waverley criteria. The painting was therefore not found to meet any of the Waverley criteria.

Communication of findings

15. The expert adviser and the applicant returned. The Chairman notified them of the Committee’s decision on its recommendation to the Secretary of State.