9.3. Regents of the Old Men's Almshouse C. 1664

Home , Christina of Denmark, Madame de Pompadour

SESSION 16 Portraits 1400-1800 (Monday 7th October & Tuesday 3rd September)

1. The Wilton Diptych (left panel) Unknown master, (36 x 26 cm) Tempera on oak panel National Gallery 2. Jan van Eyck 2.1. Man in a Red Turban 1433 Oil on panel (25 x 19 cm) National Gallery 3. Pierro della Franseca 3.1. Double portrait Duke of Urbino c1465 Tempera on panel (33 x 47cm) Uffizi, Florence 4. Leonardo da Vinci 4.1. Ginerva de’ Benci c1474 Oil on panel (43 x 37cm) NGA, Washington 5. Hans Holbein the Younger 5.1. Christina of Denmark 1538 Oil on oak (178 x 83cm) National Gallery 6. Bronzino 6.1. Portrait of a Young Man c1530s Oil on wood (96 x 75cm) New York 7. Velazquez 7.1. Pope Innocent X Oil on canvas (141 x 47cm) Doria Pamhilj Gallery , Rome 8. Van Dyck 8.1. Venetia Stanley (Digby) on her Deathbed 9. Frans Hals 9.1. Banquet of the officers of the St George Civic Guard of Haarlem. 1627 Oil on canvas (179 x 257cm) Frans Hals Museum, Haarlam 9.2. Regentesses of the Old Men’s Almshouse c. 1664 9.3. Regents of the Old Men’s Almshouse c. 1664 10. Rembrandt 10.1. The Prodigal Son in the Tavern 1635 Oil on canvas (161 x 131cm) Dresden 11. Joshua Reynolds 11.1. Kitty Fisher as Cleopatra 1759 Oil on canvas (76 x 63cm) Kenwood House 12. François Boucher 12.1. Madame de Pompadour 1756 Oil on canvas (212 x164cm) Alte Pinakothek 12.2. Portrait of Marie-Louise O'Murphy c1752 Oil (60 x 74cm) Wallraf–Richartz Cologne 13. Marie-Guillemine Benoist 13.1. Portrait of a Negress 1800 Louvre

European painting in the medieval period was largely confined to religious subjects for display in churches; portraits of living people were unnecessary. From around 1400, International Gothic [Session 1] artists were employed by the elite to produce works of both secular or religious subjects– and their vanity might demand that their image was included. The exact early history of The Wilton Diptych is unclear but probably it was a devotional object for King Richard II by an unknown French (probably) artist. His is shown kneeling in front of his three favourite saints with their iconographic identifiers; Edmund the Martyr holds an arrow, Edward the Confessor holds a ring he gave a disguised John the Evangelist, and John the Baptist holds the Lamb of God. Other iconography includes the white hart of Richard & the cross of St George. Typically for the period the background is patterned gold leaf. Although we may assume the figure has Richard’s likeness, the cleanshaven youth would be not reflect the bearded king of the time the painting was created.

Northern Renaissance artists such as the Flemish Jan van Eyck [Session 1] led the way in creating more realistic secular portraits, giving his subjects a personality that engages with the viewer, made easier by the use of oil paints. Perhaps we are so familiar with three-quarter head and shoulder portrait of Man in a Red Turban, and the eyes that look directly at us, that we may not appreciate its significance in this development of art. The luminosity is achieved by van Eyck’s masterly use of thin glazes of oil paint, perhaps most apparent with the eyes; the difference in focus between the left and right eye giving support to the belief that this is a self-portrait painted with the aid of a mirror. The ‘turban’ is a chaperon (short hood) that has been tied up on the top of the head – sensible if one wished to avoid splashing it with paint.

Early Italian Renaissance artists such as Francesca della Piero [Session 2] were still using tempera and the fashion remained for portraits in profile (reminiscent of how royalty were portrayed on coins?) so despite the undoubted skill, I think this limited portraits to likenesses without insight into personality. The Duke & Duchess of Urbino are shown in an elevated view over their sprawling estates, fading into the distance with atmospheric perspective. Duke Federico de Montefeltro, a mercenary soldier, had lost his right eye and a chunk of his nose so the left profile avoided some problems, and the duchess died before the portrait was completed – is the pale pallor because it was painted from a death mask?

Leonardo da Vinci [Session 3] was still an apprentice when he painted the 16 year old Ginerva de’ Benci, probably on the occasion of her engagement. We might speculate that her sulky expression was because of her forthcoming marriage to a man twice her age but I like to think it is an intellectual teenager’s irritation with the artist at having to sit for the portrait. Leonardo has included one of his visual puns – the juniper being a symbol of chastity and also a play on her name. The use of oil paints in the Italian High Rennaissance was comparatively new – which makes the hazy background landscape the more impressive.

Hans Holbein [session 4] was a master at portraits – in both paint and drawing. He was sent by Henry VIII to Brussels to paint the 16 year old Christina of Denmark, already in mourning for her first husband, the Duke of Milan. The artist showed the king his sketches, who was delighted with his possible new bride, but the marriage failed to take place because, in part, because of her family’s close links to the Lutheran Church.

Bronzino’s [Session 4] subject in Portrait of a Young Man adopts the studied sprezzatura (nonchalance) of the 16th century Italian elite, a common feature of stylish Mannerist portraits. Holding a book of poetry (Bronzino was himself a poet) and his colour co-ordinated & fashionable clothes all add to the image he would have wanted to portray.

According to legend, when the Pope Innocent X saw the finished portrait he exclaimed nervously "Troppo vero!" (too real!). In any event, the pontiff rewarded Velazquez with a valuable gold chain as well as membership of the Academies he was trying to join. . But perhaps a better indicator of the pope's reaction to the portrait lies in the fact that it was not exhibited in public during the 17th or 18th centuries but hidden away. For me, it is the intelligent gaze of the pope observing us that is compelling.

Venetia Stanley (1600-33) was famous for her dazzling beauty and notorious for the sexual licence of her youth. Sir Kenelm Digby, a poet and scientist of distinction, fell so completely in love with her that in 1625 he married her in secret and against the wishes of his family. When Lady Digby died unexpectedly in her sleep, Sir Kenelm was so distraught that he summoned Van Dyck [Session 5] to record the transitory beauty of her corpse, and always kept this portrait with him.

Portraits were very popular during the Dutch Golden Age (Dutch Realism) [Session 6] and were commonly of the newly affluent middle classes. The Regents & The Regentesses of the Alms House are the last two major works by Frans Hals, then over 80 and destitute – he had been in debt most of his life. In the winter of 1664, the year he started these works, he might well have died from the cold if public charity hadn’t provided him with three loads of peat; so, we are left to judge if this affected his portrayals. The loose painting style of the Regentesses in particular was much admired by Impressionists such as Manet and by Van Gogh.

If a portrait is assumed to be a faithful likeness of the subject, then Rembrandt [session 6] may have complicated the genre. He delighted in theatricality, often dressing up his subjects, including himself for self-portraits, as in The Prodigal son in the Tavern (Brothel) he and his first wife Saskia. There was a fashion for “Arcadian’ portraits of displaying respectable women as courtesans and for pictorial representations of the Prodigal Son in taverns.

Kitty Fisher was a surprising early example of a phenomenon that we generally consider very modern – a celebrity mainly for being famous rather than for any particular achievement. The high class prostitute seems to have been adept at using the ‘mass media’ of the time to promote herself; engravings of Joshua Reynold’s [session 7] painting Kitty Fisher as Cleopatra sold in the thousands. Reynolds’ success was based on being a prolific portraitist of the rich and famous, using the Grand Style which idealised the subject.

Francois Boucher [Session 7] was one of the Rococo artists favoured by the court of Louis XV. Some of the king’s mistresses had well-appointed apartments in the palaces, and Madame de Pompadeur loved to decorate hers with Rococo paintings and furnishings. This portrait is a deceit – it shows her not as she was aged 37 but as she had been. Her complexion rather than white like porcelain was sallow and wrinkled, which she attempted to conceal below dense layers of white & red paint. Boucher has lied about the eyes too, their lovely, deep, doe-like symmetry; according to a contemporary account, her eyes were not large. Critics accused Boucher of trying to distract the viewer with the array of accessories which he painted with consummate skill.

The ‘lesser mistresses’ (petites maîtresses) were housed close to the palace, and the very young Marie-Louise O’Murphy (Morfi) was in this category. One version of the narrative says Casanova arranged to have a portrait painted by Boucher, known for painting licentious nudes with no mythological content, of the young and very poor girl . Probably the painting was sold to Madame de Pompadour’s brother who then showed it to the king, who then wanted to meet the model.

Marie-Guillemine Benoist was a pupil of Elisabeth Vigée-Lebrun and then Jacques-Louis David [both discussed in Session 8], and later (1793) David was to sign the arrest warrant for her husband – who is fortunately in India. Like her tutors’, her work can be classified as Neo-Classical, with a simplified background, minimal use of props and sculptural modelling of the figure. Benoist painted it during the short period when slavery had been abolished in the colonies and women were enjoying relative advantages, changes reversed by Napoleon and art historians continue to debate the political significance of the portrait. The title has recently been changed to ‘Portrait of Madelaine’ to reflect modern sensibilities but, personally, I think this detracts from some of its historical significance. Her naked breast refers to the symbolic Marianne, the Revolutionary foster mother of the French people.