Volume 4, Issue 2 (Summer 2012) Drawing → Underdrawing → Painting: Compositional Evolution in the Working Process of Joachim Beuckelaer Margreet Wolters Recommended Citation: Margreet Wolters, “Drawing → Underdrawing → Painting: Compositional Evolution in the Work- ing Process of Joachim Beuckelaer,” JHNA 4:2 (Summer 2012), DOI:10.5092/jhna.2012.4.2.2 Available at https://jhna.org/articles/drawing-underdrawing-painting-compositional-evolu- tion-working-process-joachim-beuckelaer/ Published by Historians of Netherlandish Art: https://hnanews.org/ Republication Guidelines: https://jhna.org/republication-guidelines/ Notes: This PDF is provided for reference purposes only and may not contain all the functionality or features of the original, online publication. This is a revised PDF that may contain different page numbers from the previous version. Use electronic searching to locate passages. This PDF provides paragraph numbers as well as page numbers for citation purposes. ISSN: 1949-9833 JHNA 4:2 (Summer 2012) 1 DRAWING → UNDERDRAWING → PAINTING: COMPOSITION- AL EVOLUTION IN THE WORKING PROCESS OF JOACHIM BEUCKELAER Margreet Wolters This article compares a number of drawings and related paintings by the Antwerp artist Joachim Beuckelaer: three drawings of the Adoration of the Shepherds and two related painted versions of the same subject; two oil sketches on paper, each depicting half of a Crucifixion scene, and the associated painting; and a drawing and painting both repre- senting Isaac Blessing Jacob. The paintings were examined with infrared reflectography (IRR), revealing for study the important intermediary step of the underdrawing. The article demonstrates how the artist began with a design on paper and worked toward the final paint stage in a continuous and supple design process that incorporated numerous shifts and changes in composition. It also shows that the use of squaring on drawings and paintings is not as straightforward as might be expected. Similarly, the deft handling of workshop models, as well as certain procedural idiosyncrasies, indicates that in most cases, instead of acting at the behest of his patrons, Beuckelaer himself was the one responsible for the changes. 10.5092/jhna.2012.4.2.2 1 esearch with infrared reflectography (IRR) has revealed that underdrawings in the paint- ings of Joachim Beuckelaer (Antwerp, ca. 1535–1575) often have a sketchy and sponta- neous character.1 While this might indicate that the artist was working out the first ideas Rfor his compositions directly on the support, this was certainly not always the case.2 In Beucke- laer’s atelier there must have been a selection of drawings, sketches, studies, and models that were consulted during the painting process.3 Some of these shop drawings have in fact been preserved,4 and it is also known that Beuckelaer used other outside models during the creation of his works, such as compositions by his uncle and master Pieter Aertsen,5 the architectural books of Sebastia- no Serlio and the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili.6 Still, the models that are known to us are probably only a portion, if not a tiny fraction, of what the artist assembled to support the production of paintings.7 2 Various sources report the use of such models in sixteenth-century workshops. An often-cited example is the legal case between Gerard David and Ambrosius Benson involving two trunks with working drawings and models for paintings and miniatures. The documents deriving from the lawsuit show how much importance was attached to this material.8 Similar items were also frequently listed in the inventories of painters’ shops.9 Moreover, IRR research has brought to light ample evidence for the use of models.10 JHNA 4:2 (Summer 2012) 1 3 We know that Beuckelaer’s master, Pieter Aertsen, used models in his shop. Not only did Van Mander mention that cartoons existed for twenty-five of Aertsen’s altarpieces,11 Yvette Bruijnen’s research has also shown that Aertsen reused the same partial cartoons for certain still-life motifs that repeated from one painting to another.12 Thus, Beuckelaer almost certainly became acquaint- ed with the handling of models during his apprenticeship.13 Unfortunately, most of this working material has been lost over time.14 4 A number of Beuckelaer’s surviving drawings can be related to paintings. There are three draw- ings and two paintings depicting the Adoration of the Shepherds (figs. 1–3, 11, 12); two oil sketches on paper, each with half of a Crucifixion scene, both related to a representation on panel (figs. 17a, 17b, 18); and a drawn sheet that can be linked to a painted composition with Isaac Blessing Jacob (figs. 25, 26).15 IRR has detected underdrawings in the paintings, revealing the es- sential step between the design on paper and the finalized work and elucidating how the drawings functioned as models. By setting up the comparisons discussed in this article, information can be obtained showing how these models were assimilated into the creative process. As will become apparent, it was typical of Beuckelaer to adapt and revise in each compositional stage as he worked toward the end result. Before beginning the analysis, however, it is necessary to provide a short introduction to Beuckelaer’s drawings. Beuckelaer’s Existing Drawings 5 n the 1989 volume of Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek, Wouter Kloek published a study Idevoted to the drawings of Aertsen and Beuckelaer in which he assembled Beuckelaer’s drawn oeuvre and noted important characteristics of the artist’s works on paper. He determined that all of the drawings originated between 1560 and 1565/7, with most done in the first three years of the decade. Five of the fourteen sheets derive from 1562. Half of the drawings were designs for stained glass, both monumental as well as smaller windows. Two even included options for carry- ing out the window as either a round or a square shape. Kloek also described another completely new and significant aspect of Beuckelaer’s studio practice: the making of oil sketches. Six sketch- es--a series of four sheets and the two loose Crucifixion halves--were executed with oil paint on paper.16 Kloek assumed that the four Old Testament sketches, with one in the series dated 1565, were intended as designs for prints. Furthermore, the author noted that squaring occurred on five of the drawings.17 6 Kloek’s completely justified de-attribution of the Market Scene in the Lugt collection led to anoth- er important finding.18 With the exception of two sheets with possible historical subjects,19 all of Beuckelaer’s drawings depict religious scenes. For a painter who is seen primarily as a specialist in market and kitchen scenes,20 this is not an insignificant observation and indicates that Beuckelaer was not working exclusively in this genre during the first half of the 1560s. The Relationship between the Existing Drawings and Paintings Adoration of the Shepherds 7 The first instance of a drawing, which is associated with a painting, is the Adoration of the Shep- herds, dated 1560, in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (fig. 1).21 This drawing is Joachim Beucke- laer’s first known work, deriving from the same year during which the artist married and enrolled JHNA 4:2 (Summer 2012) 2 as a master in Antwerp’s Guild of St. Luke.22 Beuckelaer’s first paintings appear the following year and are dated 1561.23 Kloek suggested that the drawing may mark the development of a new prototype intended for later production. Although he attributed the drawing to Beuckelaer, he still assumed that it was executed in Aertsen’s workshop.24 This new composition does indeed pay tribute to Aertsen’s paintings of the same subject, such as the Adoration of the Shepherds in the Amsterdams Historisch Museum and the one in the Musée des Beaux-Arts, Rouen.25 Another drawing, which appeared on the market not so long ago and is now in the Teylers Museum in Haarlem, depicts the same subject and is stylistically related to the 1560 drawing;26 it represents a subsequent phase in the genesis of this composition (fig. 2). Since it seems to be a step farther in the direction of the final work, to be discussed below,27 it seems logical to assume this drawing was made following the one done in 1560. Since there are no indications for window subdivisions in either drawing, both must have been made as preparatory designs for painting. Fig. 1 Joachim Beuckelaer, Adoration of the Shepherds, dated 1560, Fig. 2 Joachim Beuckelaer, Adoration of the Shepherds, pen in pen in brown ink, with gray washes, squaring in red chalk, 175 x 157 brown ink, squaring in red chalk, 180 x 162 mm. Haarlem, Teylers mm. New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art (Bequest of Harry G. Museum (collection Matthijs de Clercq), inv. no. KT 2011:031 Sperling 1975), inv. no. 1975.131.137 (artwork in the public domain) (artwork in the public domain) 8 In elucidating how Beuckelaer gradually worked toward the final composition, the two drawn versions must first be compared before determining their relationship to the version on panel. Both drawings show small changes.28 Most are slight revisions, such as the adjustment of Mary’s headdress in the 1560 drawing or the ox’s hoof in the second sketch.29 The way the artist adapted the composition in the second drawing relative to the first one is indicative of his approach. The composition is made more compact overall, and the figures are pulled closer together. The seated shepherd on the left side and the donkey in the background have both been omitted. The stand- ing shepherd’s position has been adapted to the new situation, and he now holds a shepherd’s crook in his right hand.