PRADO MUSEUM OPEN AIR EXHIBITION ON STREETS OF MOSTAR, BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

 Hello!  In this post, I'll share my impressions from an open air exhibition held in Mostar by the Spanish museum Prado. You can learn more about this museum by visiting their official site . Basically, what you can see on the streets of  Mostar right now is a selection of some of the museum Pardo best known works. Of course, you can also zoom in on these painting online, but it's a bit different viewing and studying them in person. To get a real feeling of a painting, it's important to see it in its original size. 

 This Prado museum open exhibition is a part of a project that is all about bringing art to the people. Mostar is not the only city where this outdoor exhibition has taken place, nor shall it be the last. In fact, the museums has been doing it for years!  This outdoor exhibition consists of high quality posters depicting art works in their original size. Below the artwork reproductions, there is information about each individual painting and painter. If the artwork is slightly larger than the poster, then a part of it is cut out but it's marked under the poster and you can see what the entire artwork looks like. You'll see what I mean if you scroll down. 

The exhibition opened on 14th of July on the Spanish square in Mostar. We visited it around noon despite the heat. I wanted to get good photographs, so we endured the heat. If you are in Mostar, you simply must come and have a look! I think one of the reasons why this location was selected was because of its name. Spanish square in Mostar is a stunning historical square that is also connected to one of the best know promenades in the city. It was renamed Spanish square in the nineties, so it makes for a perfect location.

The information about the artworks was presented in Spanish and the local language, but you can check the museums official site for information in English.

LET'S START WITH JUDITH AT THE BANQUET OF HOLOFERNES BY REMBRANDT

This is a very powerful painting with a strong theme and bold depiction. I enjoyed it a  lot. The light is masterfully portrayed. The attention rests on the protagonist Judith, but I really like how the servant girl was painted with a lot of attention. I really admire the way Rembrandt painted the braids on the girl servant.  On overall, there seems to be a lot of attention to details in this painting.  The details on the attire and the clothing is phenomenal. I also really enjoyed the way a third figure is appearing from the shadows. What to say? It's definitely a masterpiece. 

Have you seen this painting before? Do you like it? 

ALL THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE PAINTINGS WILL BE CITED FROM MUSEO NACIONAL DEL PRADO AND PUT INTO CURSIVE

Judith at the Banquet of Holofernes

1634. Oil on canvas.
Room 076

In the past various authors have expressed their scepticism about the attribution of the painting to Rembrandt. However, the Rembrandt Research Project includes it in the Corpus of 1986 as an original work, and this is supported by the technical study conducted at the Museo del Prado that year. As for the signature, the unsteadiness of the stroke and, above all, the yellow colour make it dubious. Nevertheless, the signature Rembrant without the d is found in various paintings dated 1633, in some engravings from 1632-33, and in the earliest documents signed by the painter. What is more, the date inscribed on the work is consonant with the style of painting characteristic of this stage in Rembrandt`s career.

The scene is part of a small group of allegories personified by heroic women -goddesses or heroines of Antiquity and the Old Testament painted by Rembrandt between 1633 and 1635, which reflect his confrontation with Rubens and the Flemish Baroque masters. They are all based on the same female model, traditionally considered a portrait of Rembrandt`s wife Saskia van Uylenburgh. However, following the compilation of the Corpus (1986), various authors now agree that the modelling of the face, based on marked contrasts of light and shadow with no attention to detail, indicates that this is not a portrait but a prototype. Indeed, this female type -clearly rooted in Rubens- is found in other scenes painted during these years not only by Rembrandt, but also by Jan Lievens (1607-1674) and Salomon de Bray (1597-1664).

Standing out against a dark background is the figure of a woman sumptuously attired in an embroidered dress with long, bouffant sleeves, a white silk over-gown with gold braid edging and passementerie fastenings, and a large ermine collar adorned with a gold chain encrusted with rubies and sapphires. She wears a pearl bracelet, double stranded necklace and earrings. Her hair tumbles over her shoulders and is adorned with a string of pearls and a gold chain. She is seated in a violetblue velvet armchair of which only the front of the arms is visible, beside a table covered in a damask cloth on which lies an open book with writing. Her body is turned slightly to the left and her head titled to the right. She leans her left hand on the table and presses her right hand to her breast. Aservant girl who kneels before her with her back to the viewer but in lost profile offers her a goblet consisting of a nautilus shell mounted on a gold stem which contains wine (or at least a pinkish liquid). Both figures are life-sized and depicted three-quarter length. The powerful presence of the main figure is emphasised chiefly by its high perspective with respect to the servant girl -and the viewer- and also by the dramatic use of light and shadow to structure the composition.

The light entering from the left falls directly on the body of the seated woman, transforming the white over-gown into a powerful glow which in turn illuminates with its reflection the profile of the servant girl, the goblet and the book, while the rest remains in semidarkness. The background is very dark and largely lost owing to the chemical breakdown of the pigments used in that area or to restoration carried out in the late nineteenth or early twentieth century. All that is clearly visible today is the figure of an elderly servant woman located between the seated woman and the young girl with the goblet; she wears a white toque and holds with both hands a cloth from the left of which hangs a cord. On the right, behind the seated woman, the folds of a dark red curtain can be made out. However, an early photograph, hitherto unpublished, clearly shows that there was once a damask curtain similar to the tablecloth between the girl with the goblet and the old servant woman, and that the cloth held by the elderly servant is a half-open sack with a tasselled cord hanging down on one side.

Stylistically, the painting combines the formal monumentality that is a feature of Flemish tradition with the characteristically Dutch taste for detail and virtuosity in the rendering of different materials and textures. The small, tight brushstrokes used to model the figures` faces and hands and the goblet contrast with the broad, sweeping strokes employed for the rest of the elements.

The X-ray image reveals a major compositional change. In the original layout the space between the two figures is occupied by a female figure, also life-sized and three-quarter length, who gazes at and leans towards the seated woman. Her hair is covered by a toque and she holds an oblong object in her right hand. The outer edge of this object is interrupted by the head of the servant girl, indicating that this figure is part of the original composition; the inner edge is also interrupted by a rectangular element not visible in the painting (perhaps the arm of the chair). Clearly perceptible on the right side of the composition, behind the seated figure, is an undulating form that could be a canopy. The head of the main figure is surrounded by a large, dark silhouette. The authors of the Corpus mention the possibility that it may be a space reserved for the hair. In the opinion of Diéguez Rodríguez (2004), it could be due to an alteration in the position of the head, which would initially have been shown in profile. It seems more likely, as Carmen Garrido points out, that it is the space the painter set aside for the figure. The X-ray image likewise shows a minor modification in the upper edge of the book, which is also part of the original composition. In front of the book it is possible to discern a goblet, later eliminated. Furthermore, in the wrist of the left hand there are overlapping layers of paint owing to a modification in the position of the pearl bracelet. It was initially located just above the hand and was later positioned at the edge of the dress sleeve. This superimposition of paint layers explains the marked craquelure of the paint surface in this area.

The original background was subsequently painted over and replaced by a curtain on either side of the composition -visible in the old photograph mentioned above- and the figure of the elderly servant woman holding a sack. The X-radiograph therefore raises two essential questions -who made this compositional change and why- which are directly related to the iconographical interpretation of this scene, the most controversial aspect of the painting both in the past and even today.

The type of the old servant woman, the sack, the maid with the goblet, the main figure`s rich attire, the background curtains (visible in the early photograph) and the open book on the table thus allow us to put forward a new iconographic interpretation of the scene: Judith at the banquet of Holofernes. From a historical viewpoint, such an interpretation would be justified by the self-identification of the Dutch, in their struggle for liberation, with the Hebrew people. In this connection, Judith was one of the biblical heroines who best symbolised their patriotic claims vis-àvis the Spanish.

This interpretation furthermore fits in with the description of the painting in the early inventories, a piece of documentary evidence not taken into account until now: in the first inventory of the possessions of the Marquis of Ensenada (1754) it is listed as a half-length Judith.

Although in the second inventory (1768) Mengs describes it as Rembrandt, Anoble matron and a maid, in the inventory of Charles III (1772) it is referred to as Ensenada -Apicture showing Judith to whom some maids serve a goblet and on a round table an open book, figures of more than half length, an original by Rembran [sic] seven spans long and one and a half varas high, a description maintained by Bayeu and Goya in the inventory of Charles IV (1794). In the latter, the picture, then in the queen`s boudoir, is followed by a painting illustrating another scene from the story of Judith: Another of the same size as the previous one Judith putting away the sack with the head of Holofernes = Rembrand = 4,000, now attributed to Adam de Coster (1585-1643) and also from the collection of the Marquis of Ensenada.

However, as stated earlier, the X-ray image raises two crucial questions. First, was the compositional alteration due to an iconographical change or to stylistic reasons? The supporters of the interpretation of the figure as Artemisia take the object held by the servant in the background of the X-ray image to be a platter from which Mausolus`s ashes fall. However, Taco Dibbits (2006) proposes it be identified as a mirror in which Artemisia gazes at herself -a hypothesis that seems more in consonance with the clearly outlined, rigid, oval form (unlike ashes or a liquid falling). In this respect the original composition would tie in with the tradition of domestic scenes of a woman at her toilette which are so characteristic of Dutch painting and were used by various painters of Rembrandt`s milieu for the iconography of the scene of Esther grooming herself before going before Ahasuerus to beg him to protect the Jews (Esther 5:1), a theme that was widely disseminated in Holland as an example of patriotic conduct.

Indeed, precisely in two of these scenes, one by Salomon Koninck and the other by Willem de Poorter, the kneeling maid who holds the mirror bears a close resemblance to the maid with the goblet in Rembrandt`s composition, both in type and pose. What is more, the maid in the painting by Salomon Koninck serves the same compositional purpose of framing the scene, albeit in this case on the right. However, the goblet is alien to the iconography of Esther and, therefore, the fact that in Rembrandt`s painting the maid with the goblet belongs to the original composition rules out the possibility that the picture was initially intended to represent Esther.

That said, the oblong object held by the maid may be interpreted as a serving platter which she tips towards Judith, as if to show her its contents. This, together with the maid holding out the goblet containing a pinkish liquid, allows the original composition to be identified with the biblical passage in which Judith, after arriving at Holofernes`s camp, is brought before him. In the light of this, the canopy visible on the right in the X-ray image would represent the hangings that adorned Holofernes`s tent as described in the Bible text (Judith 10:20); what is more, Judith`s gaze and gesture appear to fittingly express her reply to the enemy general; finally, the book, as was frequent in seventeenth-century Dutch history paintings, would be an allusion to the Bible and, by extension, to the Lord`s designs.

Rembrandt would thus initially have intended to depict the novel theme of Judith on her arrival at Holofernes`s camp, which had no iconographic tradition (at least none has yet been identified). However, the very absence of such a tradition made this theme very difficult to recognise, impairing the viewer`s grasp of the meaning of the painting, which was none other than the exaltation of a heroic and, accordingly, exemplary conduct. Therefore, the compositional modification may have stemmed from the wish to facilitate the identification of the story.

Indeed, when the servant in the background of the original composition is replaced by the old woman with the sack, the scene immediately becomes recognisable as a depiction of Judith at the banquet of Holofernes (Judith 12:17-19) while her servant awaits her outside the tent holding the pouch in which she later places the head of the enemy general (Judith 13:9-10). In fact, the early photograph of the painting shows that the old woman was indeed positioned behind a curtain, that is, outside the banquet scene, and held a half-open sack, a scene for which there was, in fact, an iconographical source: an engraving by Georg Pencz, Judith at the Banquet of Holofernes, featuring a goblet on the table and a maid holding a receptacle sitting at the entrance to the tent. In this connection, Judith`s sarcastic gaze and gesture would reflect her reply when she accepts the drink Holofernes offers her: Holofernes said to her: Drink now, and be merry with us!, Judith replied: I will drink now, my lord, because my life is magnified in me this day more than all the days since I was born. (Judith 12:17-18).

Rembrandt thus transforms Pencz`s illustration into a Baroque composition which, as often occurs with his history paintings, blends into one what are in fact two consecutive scenes, making it necessary to decipher the work by means of the narrative elements, which are reduced to a minimum here: Judith`s sumptuous attire, the luxurious goblet held out to her by an also richly dressed maid, the curtains (no longer visible) and the elderly servant woman with the sack. The second question that now arises is whether the compositional alteration was made by Rembrandt or his workshop or whether it dates from a later period.

The analysis of the samples taken for the purpose of the present catalogue show, first of all, that the main figure, the maid with the goblet and the table are painted over the ground layer, which consists of two coats: an underlying coat of red, and on top a coat of grey. Second, the original background is concealed by two paint layers without varnish between them: the first is predominately copper pigment (azurite and black), and the second enamel blue. The figure of the elderly servant woman is painted over this second coat. The current condition of the painting makes it impossible to ascertain whether the background figure was painted by Rembrandt. Whatever the case, the pigments used to conceal the original background indicate that the compositional change was made in the seventeenth century, as copper pigment ceased to be employed in the eighteenth century. Both the copper and the enamel blue pigment undergo chemical breakdown over time and turn black, and this would explain in part the phantasmagorical appearance of the maid, who seems to emerge from the darkness. Nevertheless, the current black background, without highlights or modelling, appears to be a later addition dating from the late nineteenth or early twentieth century (perhaps the restoration work referred to on the label glued to the back).

It is therefore reasonable to conclude that Rembrandt, as was common practice among Dutch painters when addressing themes from the Bible, chose to depict a moment in the history of this biblical heroine that is not dealt with by Italian and Catholic iconography, namely Judith`s arrival at the camp of Holofernes. However, the absence of an iconographic tradition could have made the composition difficult to understand for the viewer, and it was therefore decided to repaint the background and add the figure of the elderly servant woman with the sack so as to transform the scene into a depiction of Judith before Holofernes, for which there was an existing iconographic tradition. Furthermore, within the same group of paintings, Rembrandt would also have painted the more traditional scene, as the X-radiograph of Saskia van Uylenburgh in Arcadian Costume (Flora)? reveals that the composition originally showed Judith holding Holofernes`s head.

A FIFTHEEN CENTURY ALBRECHT'S SELF-PORTRAIT !

Moving onto the next painting, A Self-portrait by Dürer! 

WHAT IMPRESSED ME THE MOST ABOUT THIS PAINTING WERE THE HUNTING EYES

This self-portrait is one of the smallest paintings in this exhibition, but it's simply splendid!

Self-portrait

1498. Oil on panel.
Room 055B

In the same year that he published the Apocalipsis cum figuris, Dürer painted himself as a gentleman, dressed in light toned clothes and looking his best. He wears an open black and white doublet with a striped cap in the same colours, an undershirt trimmed with gold and a silk cord of blue and white threads holding up a grey-brown cloak that falls over his right shoulder. Dürer has sheathed the hands that he uses to paint in grey kidskin gloves indicative of high rank with the aim of elevating his social status from that of craftsman to artist and of locating painting among the liberal arts, as in Italy.The artist chose a half-length, three-quarter format with two focuses of attention: the face and hands. He located himself in a room that opens onto the outside through a window in the back wall, following Dieric Bouts’ Portrait of a Man of 1462 (London, National Gallery), a format that was subsequently widely adopted in Flanders and Italy. Basing himself on this Flemish format, Dürer added an Italian monumentality in the verticals and horizontals that create the window surround, also evident in the arrangement of his body which repeats the ‘L’ shape of the window in the bust, firmly supported by the arm leaning on the foreground ledge.

Also present in this work is a characteristic of all Dürer’s exquisitely detailed portraits, namely his powers of psychological analysis, evident in the contrast between the sensual features and the cold, penetrating gaze. A painter, printmaker and art theoretician, Albrecht Dürer was born in Nuremberg, gaining fame in his own lifetime through his prints. Dürer trained under the influence of Flemish painting while his two trips to Venice (1494–5 and 1505–7) allowed him to discover the secrets of Renaissance art. A successful portraitist and printmaker, he worked for the Emperor Maximilian I who granted him a pension in 1515, which was renewed by Charles V in 1520. In 1636 the City Council of Nuremberg gave this Self-portrait to Charles I of England. Following Charles’ overthrow and execution, it was sold at his posthumous sale in 1651. The Spanish ambassador Alonso de Cárdenas acquired it for Don Luis de Haro, who gave it to Philip IV in 1654. It remained in the Spanish royal collection until it entered the Museo del Prado in 1827 (Silva Maroto, P. en: El retrato del Renacimiento, 2008, p. 486). FIND OUT MORE

https://www.museodelprado.es/en/the-collection/art-work/self-portrait/8417d190-eb9d-4c52-9c89-dcdcd0109b5b

SO WE TALKED ABOUT TWO PAINTINGS, BUT WE STILL HAVE MANY MORE TO GO!

The next painting could be described as a painter's painting. 

THIS PAINTING WAS BEYOND IMPRESSIVE IN ITS MASTERY!

The skill it must have taken to paint this! One of the most impressive paintings in the exhibition. 

The Archduke Leopold William in his Picture Gallery in Brussels

1647 - 1651. Oil on copperplate.
Room 077

Depictions of painting galleries became popular in the Netherlands at the beginning of the 17th century. The exhibition of paintings and other artistic or natural objects was originally a way of manifesting the high social standing of an eminently bourgeois class with a strong desire to ennoble itself. In many cases, the paintings did not rigorously reflect the client’s collection, but served instead as metaphorical allusions to his artistic interests and standing as an art lover. They bore witness to his intellectual and cultural commitment and, in that sense, they were very efficient propaganda tools.

The protagonist of this example is the Archduke Leopold William of Habsburg, governor of the Netherlands from 1647 to 1656, who appears alongside other members of his court on the right. His chamber painter, David Teniers, appears on the other side, with the Count of Fuensaldaña, who participated in the acquisition in England of most of the works visible on the walls. The personages and artworks visible here make this one of the few paintings to depict a concrete, extant collection -a sort of catalog painting of the pictorial wealth built up by the archduke at his palace in Brussels. Most of the works are Italian, but the few Flemish paintings are very important conceptually and symbolically. On the left, Jan Gossaert’s (1478-1532) Saint Lucas Painting the Virgin identifies Teniers’ artistic roots while, on the right, Anton van Dyck’s (1599-1641) Portrait of Isabel Clara Eugenia alludes to Leopold’s position as heir to the government of Brussels. This painting does not convey the idea of a quest for ennoblement common in other galleries, as Leopold was a Habsburg by birth, and this is reinforced by the presence of customary symbols of power, including a sword and dogs. It does, however, justify princely power as manifest in the enjoyment of an exquisite collection of paintings, which the archduke was capable of appreciating for their own merits. This explains why his gaze is directed at Raphael’s Saint Margaret.

By the mid 17th century, painting had triumphed over the other arts and was the leading element of courtly representation -even more so than arms. A prince’s power was no longer measured exclusively in terms of military valor, but also through his taste and appreciation of painting. Teniers painted several similar works for Leopold that were sent to different courts to impress them with his virtues as an art lover possessed of magnificent pictorial treasures. Thus, by sending this work to Philip IV soon after it was painted, the archduke seems to have wanted to honor his uncle as a lover of Italian painting, imitating the collections at Madrid’s Alcázar Palace. He may also have desired to challenge him by showing that the works at his palace in Brussels were able to compete with the King’s collection in Madrid (Text drawn from Pérez Preciado, J. J.: El arte del poder. La Real Armería y el retrato de corte, Museo Nacional del Prado, 2010, p. 126).

WHAT FOLLOWS IS ANOTHER SELF- PORTRAIT! HOWEVER, THE PAINTER IS IN SOMEONE'S COMPANY

AGAIN, THE DETAILS ARE SIMPLY MESMERIZING! 

ENDYMION PORTRER AND ANTHONY VAN DYCK

The painting is so beautiful. I could stare at it all day. How do you like it?  I liked the contrast between the black and white attire. The clothing is painted so beautifully. The faces look so alive as well, but also relaxed and natural. I loved it!

Endymion Porter and Anthony van Dyck

Ca. 1633. Oil on canvas.
Room 016B

A protector and friend of Van Dyck, Endymion Porter (1587–1649) was secretary to the Duke of Buckingham and an important diplomat in the English Court. A great lover of the arts, he was in charge of acquiring works for the collection of King Charles I, and was one of Van Dyck´s greatest supporters during the latter´s stay in London.

The aristocrat is shown from the front, wearing white satin, while the painter, dressed in black, is shown in profile and shorter, so as not to stand out over a member of the aristocracy. Porter is depicted with Van Dyck in this painting, the only one known in which the artist is depicted in the company of another person.

Despite the circumstances that led the painter to produce this painting being unknown, its style shows that it was executed between 1632 and 1635 approximately, during the early years of his stay in England or during the months he spent in the Spanish Netherlands in the winter of 1634–1635, when the painter was around thirty–five and Porter was forty–seven. It is possible that the artist carried out this portrait –which extols the friendship between the English aristocrat and the Flemish painter– in appreciation of Porter´s support for the painter in London, which enabled him to become court painter to Charles I.

The rock on which the two figures rest a hand is a symbol of the firmness of their friendship. The oval format of the painting continues the theme, helping to create a sense of proximity between them. On the other hand, the privileged position of the aristocrat, who appears frontally while the painter is shown in profile, reflects the social protocols of the society of the time. In addition to the typical refined elegance of the artist´s portraits –which define the poses, hands and stylised features, as well as the curtain and column that serve as a backdrop to the scene–, the exquisite execution and the harmony between the composition and the oval format of the painting complete one of the most beautiful portraits by the great Antwerp portraitist.

WHAT FOLLOWS IS A RATHER DRAMATIC PAINTING! 

THE TRIUMF OF DEATH IS AN INCREDIBLY DETAILED AND POTENT PAINTING!

...AND MORE PAINTINGS TO COME!

I'm going to have to return to this post in order to finish it, as it's almost 1am. So, I'll just finish my impressions about the other paintings tomorrow.

I THOUGHT THIS ONE WAS VERY RELAXING FOR SOME REASON, MAYBE BECAUSE OF THE BOAT AND WATER!

I'M PRETTY SURE I WAS FAMILIAR WITH THIS PAINTING, BUT IT STILL IMPRESSED ME.

The depiction of the birds is my favourite thing about it. 

I SPEND A LOT OF TIME STUDYING THIS PAINTING. Beside the Christ figure, I also found the women depicted to be fascinating. 

ANOTHER FANTASTIC PAINTING WITH A GREAT USAGE OF LIGHT AND SHADOW!

FRA ANGELICO'S THE ANNUNCIATION IS A BREATH-TAKING PAINTING! 

THE DETAILS ON THE ANGEL'S WINGS ARE SO INTRICATE AND BEAUTIFUL. I SPEND A LOT OF TIME STUDYING THIS ONE. 

The Annunciation

Ca. 1426. Tempera on panel.
Room 056B

This altarpiece was painted for the monastery of Santo Domenico in Fiesole, near Florence. The central panel shows the Archangel Gabriel’s Annunciation to Mary under a portico. On the left, Adam and Eve are being expelled from Paradise. The damnation and salvation of Humanity. The predella has scenes from the life of the Virgin; Mary’s Birth, Her Wedding with Saint Joseph, Mary’s Visit to her cousin Saint Elisabeth, the Birth of the Christ Child, the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple and the Dormition of the Virgin with Christ receiving her soul. Fra Angelico, also known as Blessed Angelico, dedicated his work exclusively to religious subjects as he understood art to be an aspect of religious devotion. He was particularly meticulous in the details and qualities of Nature and of the objects and persons depicted. In his style, Fra Angelico merged the late Gothic Italian style with the new language of the Renaissance. An example of this is the architecture’s spatial depth, which, while in keeping with Brunelleschi’s recommendation to occupy the center of a square and unadorned stage, nevertheless shows some of the errors present in Angelico’s early works.

A BEAUTIFUL HISTORICAL LADY....AND AN EQUALLY BEAUTIFUL PAINTING! What an accomplished portrait. She looks so alive and cheerful. As a viewer, I had a feeling I could talk with her. 

AMALIA IS STUNNING! I ALSO LOVE HOW HER BLUE DRESS WAS PAINTED! 

Amalia de Llano y Dotres, Countess of Vilches

1853. Oil on unlined canvas.

This is a masterpiece of Spanish Romantic portraiture and the most attractive of Madrazo’s female portraits. It is undoubtedly the most emblematic work of the 19th-century collections of the Museo del Prado. Amalia de Llano y Dotres (Barcelona, 1821–Madrid, July 6th 1874) was thirty-two years old when Madrazo painted her portrait. On October 12th 1839, she married Gonzalo José de Vilches y Parga (1808–1879), who was to become the first Count of Vilches in 1848. Two portraits of him (P002879 and P002887) are located in the Museo del Prado. The Countess of Vilches was an outstanding defender of the monarchist cause since the fall of Isabella II, Queen of Spain. Furthermore, she was an amateur writer and also published the novels Berta and Lidia. She was a close friend of Federico de Madrazo, which could explain the unique beauty and exquisite refinement that the painter achieved in this portrait. The Countess frequented the Madrazo house, especially on their musical soirées, in which she even sang accompanied by the piano.

In this portrayal, Madrazo succeeds in perfectly combining all the artistic resources he had developed throughout his mature period. The artist, with this painting, reached his most painstaking refinement, at the service of one of the most beautiful and charming women of Isabelline Madrid. The portrait is imbued with a distinctive French flair, very much suited to the elegance of the model. Madrazo learnt this technique during his training period in Paris with French painter Ingres. The lady’s pose conveys a degree of sensuality quite foreign to the Spanish tradition. However, the model’s flirtatious pose is informal, which provides the work with a sense of graceful movement duly calculated detail by the artist. Due to the illumination used by Madrazo, the whiteness of the female complexion both stands out against the marked darkness of the background and highlights the chromaticism in the overall tone. The culmination of the accomplishments of this superb portrait lies in the subtlety of some of the model’s gestures, such as the delicacy with which she holds the fan, the almost imperceptible contact of her fingers with her oval face and her charming smile, mirrored by her seductive gaze.

FANTASTIC! I WISH I COULD SEE IT IN FULL SCALE!

The Immaculate Conception of Los Venerables

1660 - 1665. Oil on canvas.

Murillo created a highly successful formula for representing the Immaculate Conception, with the Virgin dressed in blue and white, her hands crossed over her bosom and her gaze directed at the heavens as she stands on the moon. He presents her with a clearly upward impulse that situates her in a celestial space filled with light, clouds and angels. That was the artist’s manner of combining two different iconographic traditions: the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. One of the finest examples is the present canvas, which was commissioned by Justino de Neve for the Hospital de los Venerables Sacerdotes in Seville. 

The Immaculate Conception had already been a growing object of devotion for a century and a half when this work was painted, and it eventually became one of the main collective identity traits. It was one of the most genuinely local subjects, as Spain was the leading advocate of the Immaculate Conception, and the country that most insistently fought to convert that mystery into a dogma of faith. For two centuries it was a sort of paradoxical dogma observed specifically by the Spanish, who even had to swear a vow of Conceptionist faith in order to belong to professional or municipal corporations, while its status as dogma was not established in the rest of the Catholic world until the 19th century (Portús, J.: Guía, 2001).

Over the course of his career, Murillo painted around two-dozen Immaculate Conceptions, possibly more than any other Spanish painter of his time. He even created his own iconography for it, eliminating the superfluous -symbols of the litanies and of the Virgin’s purity- but maintaining the angels and the symbols of the Apocalypse, such as the crescent moon and the enveloping golden color, which symbolizes that the Virgin is dressed in sunlight. The present work differs from most of Murillo’s Immaculate Conceptions in its triumphant attitude and its considerable upward movement, as well as its absolute lack of traditional attributes. The Immaculate Conception at the Hermitage Museum has a similar iconography and the same sensation of rapid ascension and may therefore have been painted around the same time. In the present work, the absence of the Virgin’s traditional attributes -the tower of David, the sealed fountain or the palm and cypress trees- may have to do with their presence in the frame described by Torre Farfán, which is still at the Hospital. They may have been included in the frame to provide the symbolism lacking in the painting (Text drawn from Cenalmor, E. in: Murillo y Justino de Neve. El arte de la amistad, Museo Nacional del Prado, 2012, pp. 114-117).

A VERY FAMOUS PAINTING THAT I STUDIED IN THE PAST, AND IT WAS SO FUN SEEING IT HERE!

Las Meninas

1656. Oil on canvas.

This is one of Velázquez`s largest paintings and among those in which he made most effort to create a complex and credible composition that would convey a sense of life and reality while enclosing a dense network of meanings. The artist achieved his intentions and Las Meninas became the only work to which the writer on art Antonio Palomino devoted a separate section in his history of Spanish painters of 1724, entitling it In which the most illustrious work by Don Diego Velázquez is described. Since then the painting has never lost its status as a masterpiece.

From Palomino we know that it was painted in 1656 in the Cuarto del Príncipe in the Alcázar in Madrid, which is the room seen in the work. He also identifies most of the figures of the court servants grouped around the Infanta Margarita, who is attended by two of the Queen`s meninas or maids-ofhonour: María Agustina Sarmiento and Isabel de Velasco. In addition to that group, we also see the artist himself working on a large canvas, Mari Bárbola and Nicolasito Pertusato, the latter provoking a mastiff, and the lady-in-waiting Marcela de Ulloa next to a guardadamas (attendant), with the chamberlain José Nieto standing in the doorway in the background. Reflected in the mirror are the faces of Philip IV and Mariana of Austria, the Infanta`s parents who are watching the scene taking place. The figures inhabit a space that is modelled not just through the laws of scientific perspective but also through aerial perspective. In the definition of this space the multiplication of the light sources plays an important role.

Las Meninas has one meaning that is immediately obvious to any viewer: it is a group portrait set in a specific location and peopled with identifiable figures undertaking comprehensible actions. The painting`s aesthetic values are also evident: the setting is one of the most credible spaces depicted in western art; the composition combines unity and variety; the remarkably beautiful details are divided across the entire pictorial surface; and finally, the painter has taken a decisive step forward on the path to illusionism, which was one of the goals of European painting in the early modern age, given that he has gone beyond transmitting resemblance in order to successfully achieve the representation of life or animation. However, as is habitual with Velázquez, in this scene in which the Infanta and the court servants pause in their actions on the arrival of the King and Queen, there are numerous underlying meanings that pertain to different fields of experience and which co-exist in one of the masterpieces of western art that has been the subject of the most numerous and most varied interpretations. One study, for example, has focused on the royal status of the Infanta, which thus endows the entire painting with a political content. There are also, however, important references of an art-historical nature that are expressed through the presence of the painter himself and the paintings hanging on the rear wall, while the inclusion of the mirror makes this work a consideration on the act of seeing and ensures that the viewer reflects on the laws of representation, the limits between painting and reality and his or her own role within the painting.

This richness and variety in the content, combined with the complexity of the painting`s composition and the variety of actions depicted, make Las Meninas a portrait in which the artist deploys representational strategies and pursues aims that go beyond the habitual ones in this genre, bringing it closer to history painting. In this sense, it is one of the key works through which Velázquez championed the potential of the pictorial genre to which he had devoted his activities since he arrived at court in 1623.

Portús Pérez, Javier, Diego Velázquez 'Las Meninas'. en: Velázquez y la familia de Felipe IV [1650-1680], Madrid, Museo Nacional del Prado, 2013, p.126-129 n.16

AGNUS DEI IS A BEAUTIFUL PAINTING!

A WONDERFULLY SIMPLE DEPICTION THAT ALMOST HIDES ITS RELIGIOUS MESSAGE

Another small frame that is very impressive. 

Agnus Dei

1635 - 1640. Oil on canvas.

A dark background and a gray table are the setting for this painting’s only motive: a merino lamb between eight and twelve months old. Still alive, it lies with bound feet in an unmistakably sacrificial posture curiously reminiscent of famous images of martyred saints like Stefano Maderno’s moving sculpture of Saint Cecilia at the basilica of Santa Cecilia in Rome. The painter draws on Zurbarán’s peerless capacity to reproduce textures, a very calculated and directed light that creates broad areas of shadow, and a meticulous technique to concentrate the viewer’s attention on a lamb that seems to meekly accept its fatal destiny.

This is not Zurbarán’s only painting of this subject. The existence of five other versions by his hand with some iconographic variants indicates that such representations were well accepted, probably by private clients. Three of those versions are dated 1631, 1632 and 1639, respectively. Painter and writer Antonio Palomino reflected the fame acquired by these works in 1724, when he wrote: An art lover in Seville has a lamb by this maker’s hand [Zurbarán], painted from life, which he says he values more than one hundred living rams. The version at the Museo del Prado is considered the finest of the five, as it best combines technical mastery, descriptive capacity and expressiveness, as well as the greatest emotional subtlety. Historians agree that it dates from the fourth decades of the 17th century, and most specify 1635-1640, when the painter was at the height of his career.

Some of the known versions include iconographic elements that call for a religious interpretation, such as a halo around the lamb’s head or inscriptions alluding to its sacred character. Others, like the present one, lack those attributes. While this lack of rhetorical content has led some to consider it a still life, most scholars correctly interpret it as an Agnus Dei. It is true that there are no elements here except the lamb itself, but the association of this animal with Christ -Jesus sacrificed as the Lamb of God, as the liturgy puts it- was so widespread that is seems highly improbably that a 17th-century Spaniard could avoid those religious connotations and contemplate this work exclusively as a wonder of pictorial mastery or a succulent culinary promise. The representational formulas used here by Zurbarán -the contrived isolation of the motive and a focus on the transmission of its volume and textures- are typical of still lifes. And it is precisely this borderline condition that determines the confluence of religious painting and still life, making this an important work in the history of the latter genre, as a demonstration of the degree to which the borders between genres can be blurred.

El Prado en el Hermitage, Museo Estatal del Hermitage: Museo del Prado, 2011, p.130-131

AND BELOW IS A MUCH LARGER PAINTING!

HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE COLOURS IN THIS ONE? 

THIS ONE IS SO GRAND!

Saint Dominic of Silos enthroned as a Bishop

1474 - 1477. Oil on panel.

This iconic image was intended as the central panel of the church of Santo Domingo de Silos (Daroca). While the face and bodily posture are dominantly and hypnotically hieratic, the minute rendering of the rich episcopal vestments (pluvial cope, mitre, book and crozier) and the gilded microarchitecture of the monumental throne reflect a pictorial illusionism of Flemish inspiration. This surprising juxtaposition of fiction and realism is repeated in the confrontation between the painted architecture of the throne and the free-standing traceries and pinnacles of the altarpiece. Flanking the saint are some colourful female figures representing allegories of the theological and cardinal virtues. These evoke his moral perfection and help to define one of the most representative images of Spanish Gothic painting.

WHEN DID THE FASHION ILLUSTRATION TRULY START? WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK? OF COURSE, THIS IS A SERIOUS PAINTING BUT ISN'T LACE DEPICTED SO BEAUTIFULLY?

EVEN THE HORSES ARE DEPICTED WITH CHARACTER IN THIS PAINTING!

WHEN A PAINTING ALMOST GLOWS....

GOYA JUST HITS DIFFRENETLY, DOESN'T HE? 

The Parasol

1777. Oil on canvas.

This tapestry cartoon depicts a young woman. She is sitting, with a dog on her lap, and is accompanied by a Majo who protects her from the sun with a parasol. This work's format and bottom-to-top perspective indicates that it was intended to hang over a window. It's pyramidal composition, with the figures in the foreground, reflects the influence of classical Italian painting on Goya, as well as his mastery at painting light and shadows. The resultant tapestry was intended to hang in the dining room of the Prince and Princess of Asturias (the future Carlos IV and his wife Maria Luisa de Parma) at the Monastery of El Escorial. 

This work was part of a decorative series of ten cartoons for tapestries on “countryside” subjects. Goya, himself, invented the specific composition of the present one. This work entered the Prado Museum Collection in 1870 by way of Madrid's Royal Palace. Access to the series of ten tapestry cartoons destined for the dining room of the Prince and Princess of Asturias at the palace of El Pardo: The Picnic (P00768); Dance on the Banks of the Manzanares (P00769); A Fight at the Venta Nueva (P00770); An Avenue in Andalusia or The Maja and the cloaked Men (P00771); The Drinker (P00772); The Parasol (P00773); The Kite (P00774); The Card Players (P00775); Children blowing up a Bladder (P00776); Boys Picking Fruit (P00777).

...AND ONE MORE PORTRAIT! RAFAEL'S EL CARDINAL I.E. THE CARDINAL IS ANOTHER LOVELY PORTRAIT!

The Cardinal

1510 - 1511. Oil on panel.

Since the moment when it was decided that the present work is by Raphael but that the sitter is not Antonio Granvela, art historians have expended considerable efforts on identifying the sitter.The most credible candidates would seem to be Cardinal Bendinello Suardi (painted by Del Piombo,Washington, National Gallery of Art), and even more probably Cardinal Giovanni Alidosi (depicted on a medal and also in the Disputa in the Stanza della Segnatura), due to the latter’s clear resemblance to the present sitter. However, neither can be clearly identified with the features of this cardinal. Aside from the high quality of the execution, the most striking aspect of this portrait is Raphael’s astonishing natural perceptiveness which results in the definitive and universal image of a Renaissance cardinal (this painting is always referred to as The Cardinal rather than ‘Portrait of a Cardinal)’.The artist achieves this, however, without renouncing a depiction of the individual nature of this sitter, using his way of ‘painting people as more real than they are’, in Bembo’s words. This ability to imitate nature derives from the Flemish portrait, which Italian painters of the second half of the Quattrocento studied with enormous interest. Flemish influence is evident in the masterly modelling of the face, for example in the way that Raphael moved the left eye (a pentimento now visible to the naked eye) to achieve a more penetrating gaze through the contrast with the direction of the turn of the head.The bold handling of the textures of the clothes, such as the sheen on the red silk cape, reveals a direct knowledge of Venetian painting. A point of reference may well be Lorenzo Lotto’s presence in the Vatican in 1509, and his influence on Raphael in the portraits of the figures on the right-hand side of The Mass at Bolsena has been noted on various occasions. In addition, the geometrical rigour of Lotto’s portrait of Bernardo de Rossi may have inspired the markedly hieratic nature of the present cardinal. The painting can be dated to around 1510, the year in which Alidosi died, through its similarity to Raphael’s portrait of Leon X in the National Gallery, London. Its triangular composition clearly derives from Leonardo, in particular the Mona Lisa, evident in the (slightly incorrect) placement of the arm in the foreground whose intention is to diminish the distance between sitter and viewer.The cardinal’s body is reduced to a pyramidal form which acts as a mere support for the head in the manner of Quattrocento Florentine sculpted busts, which do not include arms or other details that detract attention from the face. In this way, and with the figure emerging from a black background that emphasises the sense of his real presence, Raphael imbued his sitter with the solemnity of a statue, creating an unforgettable image in which this individual (as this is, after all, the physical and psychological representation of an individual) becomes the paradigm of the ecclesiastical dignitary that he represents. This is so much the case that art historians attempting to identify the sitter have frequently consulted biographies of cardinals of the day to find one with the refined, astute and impenetrable character of this figure, who certainly corresponds well to Bembo’s description of Cardinal Alidosi:‘for whom faith and religion were never by any means certain, pure or sacred.

Falomir, Miguel (ed.), El retrato del Renacimiento. El retrato del Renacimiento, Museo Nacional del Prado, 2008, p.212-213

THIS IS WHAT THE OPEN AIR EXHIBITION LOOKS LIKE! 

Have you enjoyed it? I certainly have. I definitely feel inspired seeing the work of all these great masters.

Thank you so much for visiting and reading!