RKD STUDIES

Numerous portraits were painted by Hals and his workshop during the early and mid-1640s. Apart from absolute gems created by the master throughout, this group comprises many workshop products created in his style, mostly marked with his monogram. These works can only be vaguely categorized into individual types of approach. Characteristic for all is the imitation of the master’s manner, which gains slightly more freedom in less risky areas such as the clothing. Telltale features of workshop products are the mistakes in the anatomical proportions. None of the assistants demonstrates the profound skill that can be observed in Hals’s handling of proportions and foreshortening of the body, especially the hands, which Hals used as independent means of expression [286]. While Hals used all possible poses and perspectives to disassemble the appearance of a sitter into visual impressions, captured as patterns of brushstrokes[289], the imitators merely aimed at objectively tracing the hands and their fingers, even in foreshortening [290] [291]. One of the examples for this type of Hals-inspired portraits is the Portrait of a man holding gloves in the National Gallery in London [286]. The man’s face is the most natural and credible part here, and was probably based on a separate preparatory sketch or a first design on the canvas by Frans Hals [292]. Yet hesitant contours in the face and equally angular reflections separate it from the master’s painterly approach, which is always focused on the overall visual appearance, and emphasizes the facial features in a sparse and distinct manner. A comparison with the face in the 1645 Portrait of Willem Coymans (A1.114) [293] results in the London picture displaying an undecided, patchy suggestion of facial features, while the Coymans portrait has the sharpness of a caricature. When the painter of the London painting did decide to hazard bolder brushstrokes, these prove unnecessary for the representation of the motif and are pushed aside to peripheral elements like the otherwise detailed rendering of the collar or the hand on the lower right, which is too wide and needlessly dominant [291]. This mixture of tentativeness and boldness, and the missing correlation between the hand and the face can also be found in signed portraits by Jan Hals (c. 1620-1654), such as the 1644 Portrait of a man in Detroit [287] [290]. Again, too many brushstrokes have been interspersed, which do not contribute to the definition of shapes either.

286
possibly Jan Hals (I)
Portrait of a man holding gloves, c. 1645-1648
canvas, oil paint, 78.5 x 67.3 cm
London, National Gallery, inv.no. NG2528
cat.no. A4.3.18

287
Jan Hals (I)
Portrait of a man, dated 1644
Detroit (Michigan), Detroit Institute of Arts, inv./cat.nr. 52.144
cat.no. A4.3.13

288
Detail of cat.no. A1.86
Frans Hals (I)
Portrait of a man, c. 1637-1638
Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans van Beuningen

289
Detail of cat.no. A1.113
Frans Hals (I)
Portrait of Adriaen van Ostade, c. 1645
Washington, National Gallry of Art

290
Detail of fig. 287
Jan Hals (I)
Portrait of a man, 1644
Detroit Institute of Arts

291
Detail of fig. 286
possibly Jan Hals (I)
Portrait of a man holding gloves, c. 1645-1648
London, National Gallery

Imitations of Hals’s free brushstrokes always become problematic in cases where they are not essential for the actual representation. Then, they turn into disruptive passages, as is clearly demonstrated for example in the Portrait of an unknown woman in St Louis [295] and its pendant in Kansas City [294]. While Hals used singular accents to emphasize light and shadows for the purpose of three-dimensional modelling and decorative effect, the workshop assistants proved unable to accomplish this. They drew sharp contours along the known outlines of the eyes, nose, mouth and chin, rather than following the visible contrasts between these features [296] [297]. The result of such a more drawn than painted portrait is a frozen smile, and not the vitality of the striking momentary snapshot of a facial expression. A similarly tentative approach was employed for depicting the folds in the black-grey clothing. They are structured in rigid, regular parallel lines and do not become credible three-dimensional visual impressions [298] [299].

Hals’s paintings are dated up to 1645. The portraits that were made in quite rapid succession up to that year attest to a fairly decent market position for the painter. After 1645, noticeably fewer pictures were made, yet as before, the majority of them were carried out by assistants. This is especially true for two major commissions, the anonymous family portraits in the National Gallery in London [300] and in the Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza in Madrid (A4.3.24) which are closely related stylistically. The London painting was reduced in size at a later stage along the upper and lower edge – probably by about 15 cm – which resulted in today’s visually constrained composition. The painterly style reminds of Hals’s manner, but is entirely different at the same time, lacking his skilled observation of anatomy and sensitive awareness of lighting. A glance at the details illustrates this gap. The two-dimensional treatment of the costumes resembles the approach in the single portraits in St Louis and Kansas City [301]. In these paintings, the contours of motifs such as the hands are overemphasized [302] [303] and a sequence of parallel diagonals is employed to organize the composition. This compositional structure may be the only element in the London family portrait that is fully consistent with Hals’s approach. Most probably, the master himself was responsible for the overall design of the commission, leaving the final execution to his assistants.

The 2018-2019 exhibition of family portraits by Hals in Toledo, Brussels and Paris juxtaposed the large painting of the Van Campen family from 1623/1624 (A2.3, A2.4, A2.5) with those from London and Madrid, clearly marking the latter two’s idiosyncrasies and parallels. Just as all late paintings from the Hals workshop, the faces and costumes are marked by a two-dimensional approach with coarse brushstrokes. The same anatomical mishaps can be observed, especially in the clumsy execution of the hands. Even though the rendering of the collars and cuffs reveals some bold brushstrokes, they lack the refined variations in brightness and thus the three-dimensionality that Hals knew how to suggest in such a virtuoso manner is missing as well. Finally, the landscape background of the London family portrait was only added once the figures were complete, as MacLaren noted.¹ The backdrop of trees – which has darkened considerably since – and the view into the distance on the left were probably largely designed by Hals, in agreement with the patron. Building forth on Gratama’s attribution of the background in the 1639 Officers and sergeants of the St George civic guard (A2.12) to Cornelis Symonsz. van der Schalcke (1617-1671), we can recognize the same style in the landscape backgrounds of both late family portraits.² More specifically, there are correspondences in the color mood and the design of the trees and clouds.

300
workshop of Frans Hals (I), possibly Frans Hals (II), and Cornelis Symonsz. Van der Schalcke
Portrait of a family, c. 1645-1648
canvas, oil paint, 148.5 x 251 cm
London, National Gallery, inv.no. NG2285
cat.no. A4.3.19

301
Detail of fig. 300
workshop of Frans Hals (I), possibly Frans Hals (II)
Portrait of a family, c. 1645-1648
London, National Gallery

302
Detail of fig. 300
workshop of Frans Hals (I), possibly Frans Hals (II)
Portrait of a family, c. 1645-1648
London, National Gallery

303
Detail of fig. 300
workshop of Frans Hals (I), possibly Frans Hals (II)
Portrait of a family, c. 1645-1648
London, National Gallery