| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
 |
|
|
On a stretch, is it possible that Patenson means Father-Son?
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Tilo Rebar
In: Sussex
|
|
|
|
| Hatty wrote: | Could this be a self-portrait?
Hans Holbein
 |
Wow. Great find, Hatty - so now we have 3 Henry VIII, only 5 more to discover!
Interestingly, history admits that Henry VIII was a noted artist (musician) and also a profligate fool with money. Seems the trinity plays an important role in history.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Old hands at this game will be interested in this
| The Holbein original painting, from which it is presumed to have been copied, is believed to have been destroyed by fire in 1752 at Kremsier, Germany |
As we all know by now, "originals" -- that is the one thing that can or cannot validate the whole shooting match -- have a habit of disappearing in convenient fires. And why this time particularly? Well, it is because that is the time that the Winn family decided it would like to have its own Thomas More picture when it married into the More family.
| The Winn family have been in possession of the Nostell portrait since the marriage of Sir Rowland Winn to a Roper heiress in the eighteenth century. |
Some time later somebody thought it would be amusing (or profitable?) to have an actual Holbein in the family and the following tall-tale was launched:
| At that time it was taken from Well Hall, Eltham, to Yorkshire. The family tradition has held the painting to be a Holbein |
But originally, being honest four-square Yorkshire types, they had only arranged for a professional pasticheur to knock up a 'group portrait' of their illustrious forbears:
| An infra-red photograph, taken in 1951 at the National Portrait Gallery, revealed interference and a partially disfigured date, possibly 1752. An examination by microscope in January 1987 by the Courtauld Institute indicated that an original eighteenth century date had apparently been changed by additions of brown/grey and blue/black semi-transparent << overpaint >> to create the 1530 or 1532 now visible | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| An examination by microscope in January 1987 by the Courtauld Institute indicated that an original eighteenth century date had apparently been changed by additions of brown/grey and blue/black semi-transparent << overpaint >> to create the 1530 or 1532 now visible |
So scholars no longer consider this to be a Holbein?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Angus McOatup
In: England
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | Old hands at this game will be interested in this
| The Holbein original painting, from which it is presumed to have been copied, is believed to have been destroyed by fire in 1752 at Kremsier, Germany |
As we all know by now, "originals" -- that is the one thing that can or cannot validate the whole shooting match -- have a habit of disappearing in convenient fires. And why this time particularly? Well, it is because that is the time that the Winn family decided it would like to have its own Thomas More picture when it married into the More family.
| The Winn family have been in possession of the Nostell portrait since the marriage of Sir Rowland Winn to a Roper heiress in the eighteenth century. |
Some time later somebody thought it would be amusing (or profitable?) to have an actual Holbein in the family and the following tall-tale was launched:
| At that time it was taken from Well Hall, Eltham, to Yorkshire. The family tradition has held the painting to be a Holbein |
But originally, being honest four-square Yorkshire types, they had only arranged for a professional pasticheur to knock up a 'group portrait' of their illustrious forbears:
| An infra-red photograph, taken in 1951 at the National Portrait Gallery, revealed interference and a partially disfigured date, possibly 1752. An examination by microscope in January 1987 by the Courtauld Institute indicated that an original eighteenth century date had apparently been changed by additions of brown/grey and blue/black semi-transparent << overpaint >> to create the 1530 or 1532 now visible | |
...A most erudite intervention from our leader.....
....However this 'Rowland Lockey' appears to be just as brilliant at constructing homophonic rebus's as Holbein does in other works such as his portrait of Anne of Cleves, visually insinuating she was clumsy etc....Maybe rebus's were a general stock in trade of Megalithia Inc ?
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Angus McOatup
In: England
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | An examination by microscope in January 1987 by the Courtauld Institute indicated that an original eighteenth century date had apparently been changed by additions of brown/grey and blue/black semi-transparent << overpaint >> to create the 1530 or 1532 now visible |
So scholars no longer consider this to be a Holbein? |
the canvas has been carbon 14 dated to between 1400 and 1520....but this date has been disputed by art experts ..who aren't scientists etc...But Mick is entirely correct in assuming it could indeed be by a real Rowland Lockey...But this doesn't dispel the rumours about the Princes in the Tower, or Holbein's use of rebus's or Lockey's brilliant use of the same highly personal rebus's etc....If only Jack Leslau was still alive. .Perhaps his son will publish his father's work on Holbein's hidden rebus's?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tilo Rebar
In: Sussex
|
|
|
|
Today I had the pleasure of visiting a Constable Exhibition of Sussex water colours and a few oils at Petworth House. It also gave free access to the art collection of the 3rd Earl of Egremont, who still lives in a large part of these NT owned premises.
Apropos the topic in hand, I was lucky enough to see two Titians, which weren't, and an unattributed copy of the centre panel of an Hieronymus Bosch triptych called The Adoration of The Magi. This painting could have been done by Bosch, but as the original is still in the Prado its provenance is doubtful - perhaps a good fire needed to get the price moving in the right direction.
Finally, an excellent painting by Constable of the Sussex coast, which looked much like a Canaletto - interesting name for someone who was born in Venice and is noted for his excellent canal scenes - 'real name' Giovanni Antonio Canal.
Also interesting that Petworth house was the haunt of many artists over the years, with a large atelier - now converted to a library. They apparently came to the place to look at the large collection of Renaissance artworks and to paint using the excellent Sussex light. I couldn't help some idle speculation about just how many 'old masters' I'd been viewing in the galleries below had actually been knocked out in this very studio.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tilo Rebar
In: Sussex
|
|
|
|
| Angus McOatup wrote: | | the canvas has been carbon 14 dated to between 1400 and 1520... |
I wouldn't put too much stock in this result as carbon dating is a tricky thing.
It seems that when something is carbon dated those who pay for it to be done usually get the answer they expect - very strange.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Tilo Rebar wrote: | | It seems that when something is carbon dated those who pay for it to be done usually get the answer they expect - very strange. |
Yes. According to Fomenko, carbon dating labs will refuse to test a sample unless a suggested date is attached.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
It is strange that only one person in the universe knows this and that person is someone with a theory most in need of carbon dating being radically unsound.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Here is a picture of Silenus (the companion and tutor (tudor?) of Dionysus).
Here is another picture, evidently of the same character.
OOOooops!!! Sorry. That is King Henry VIII.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| An infra-red photograph, taken in 1951 at the National Portrait Gallery, revealed interference and a partially disfigured date, possibly 1752. |
With reference to this dating malarkey, 1752 is perhaps by coincidence the year the British calendar switched over to the Gregorian calendar which was taken up in 1582 in most of Europe. Would 1532 be 1582?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Hatty wrote: | | With reference to this dating malarkey, 1752 is perhaps by coincidence the year the British calendar switched over to the Gregorian calendar which was taken up in 1582 in most of Europe. Would 1532 be 1582? |
What a brilliant observation! But whatever could it mean!?!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | But whatever could it mean!?! |
Perhaps the stopped clock is alluding to the resetting of time?
If 1532 is correct, it's significant as the year that Thomas More left office, the consequence of his refusal to subscribe to the proposed Act of Royal Supremacy. Thomas Cromwell, also painted by Holbein, became Henry's chief minister the same year. Another change-over.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
