RKD STUDIES

A survey of paintings by the Hals workshop from the late 1650s and early 1660s reveals a number of related compositions whose painterly execution nevertheless clearly varies. The patrons must still have been content with such second hand achievements.

A portrait pose Frans Hals used repeatedly, depicts a seated figure who turns around over the back of a chair to face a viewer coming towards him. This is precisely the opposite of a formal pose: a snapshot of momentary attention. Everything in Hals’s Portrait of a man with a slouch hat in Kassel [339] is orientated towards this fleeting impression: the contours, repeatedly broken by diagonal lines of color, the casual pose, and the facial expression captured in swift brushstrokes. The focus is on the face which stands out brightly, while the visual appearance becomes more elusive towards the edges of the painting. The logic of this transitory impression is pervasive in the Kassel portrait. Nothing comparable appears in the Portrait of a seated man from the Parisian Museé Jacquemart-André [340]. Hard contours do stand out there as well, but often in the wrong place. One wonders why the folds of the sleeve or the heavy right hand need to have such deep folds and outlines [341] [342] [343] [344]. In contrast to this coarse execution, Hals extrapolates his patterns from actual visual impressions. He succeeds in creating an accurate sketch regardless of its ephemerality. The imitator never truly experienced the visionary character of such moments, even though he sometimes manages to capture fragments of it. However, he lacks the precision in reducing a visual appearance to those elements which fascinate in the briefest moment of experience. This difference can be perceived distinctly across the picture production of the Hals workshop. Examples are the execution of hands, and just as clearly, the treatment of the strings and tassels on collars [345] [346] [347]. Yet nothing proves as challenging as determining the facial expression. The fleeting appearance of the Kassel face is modelled by means of tones of varying brightness, subdued with grey [348]. The Paris face, then again, indeed displays brushwork that seeks to imitate Hals’s style, yet still remains focused on the objective contours of the nose, mouth, lower lip, eyelids and chin. Only in the shade below the chin, the artist has painted with bolder movements, even though the hard black line in that passage appears arbitrary [349].

339
Frans Hals (I)
Portrait of a man with a slouch hat, c. 1663-1664
Kassel, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister (Museumslandschaft Hessen Kassel), inv./cat.nr. GK 219
Photo: Ute Brunzel
cat.no. A1.130

340
workshop of Frans Hals (I), possibly Frans Hals (II)
Portrait of a seated man, c. 1660
canvas, oil paint, 69 x 60.5 cm
Paris, Musée Jacquemart-André, inv.no. 427
Institut de France © Studio Sébert Photographes
cat.no. A4.3.52

A contrast between two different abilities of perception and expression is not only found in a juxtaposition of individual paintings, but also within one of Hals’s most famous works, the late group-portrait Regents of the Old Men’s Almshouse in Haarlem of 1663-1664 [350]. Hals was at least eighty years old when he accepted the commission, and he called upon the help of an assistant for the execution. Seen from nearby, this contribution becomes recognizable. Today’s appearance of the painting is affected by the darkening of the background and shaded areas as well as by individual discolorations. In addition, there are interventions by a second hand involved in the execution, which weaken the character of the painting as it was intended by Hals. The saponification of the lead white, which was mixed in with most of the colors, has caused a loss of opacity in many of the nuanced tones, sinking them into the darker background. The white only maintained its opacity in places where it was either applied more thickly, or mixed in in sufficient quantities. As a result, the heads, collars, hands and cuffs stand out strongly from their dark surrounding as bright islands. Just how much more clearly pronounced the overall figures were originally, and how much more three-dimensional they appeared, becomes apparent in comparison with the watercolor copy by Wybrand Hendriks (1744-1831) [351], created c. 1780-1820. Comparison of the same detail from the painting and the drawing illustrates the differences between the original appearance as reported by Hendriks [352], and the current situation, where the gradation of grey shades has become barely recognizable due to lead white saponification [353]. During the research and conservation of the painting it was discovered that the tablecloth, which is now dark brown, was originally green. It is not clear whether the seating cushions of the men were originally green or carmine red.¹

The cleaning and examination of the painting in the conservation workshop of the Frans Hals Museum in 2017 permitted the first inspection in a long time, of the darker areas of the costumes. Under strong lighting of the cleaned surface, the brushwork became visible in those passages. It revealed the handling in the black-grey areas of the clothing of the seated gentlemen, whose folds only seem coherent in the upper bodies of the three men on the right. In contrast, in the lower half of the composition and in the two sitters on the left the rendering is hard and anatomically incorrect, carried out with repeatedly interrupted brushstrokes. This treatment differs from Hals’s confident modelling of shapes and his rhythmical structuring throughout. These weaknesses become especially apparent in the black clothing of the man seated on the far left. There, an arbitrary zigzag of brushstrokes was used to model the highlighted and shaded edges of the folds in the black costume, an approach that was largely copied in the Hendriks drawing [354] [355]. In addition, the regent’s upper arm comes out flat and much too small in comparison with the foreshortened lower arm. This hesitant and jittery brushwork continues in the hand closest to the observer, which provides another demonstration of the difference between master and assistant, as it is positioned just below the other hand that was probably executed previously – by Hals himself. The form of the latter, marked by a few lines, shows Hals’s concentrated approach, which is also tied in with the rhythm of the diagonal parallel lines. In contrast, the anatomically awkward search for the correct shape and the application of multiple layers of paint in the other hand betray the assistant’s lack of orientation [356].

350
Frans Hals (I) and workshop
Regents of the Old Men’s Almshouse, c. 1663-1664
canvas, oil paint, 172.3 x 256 cm
Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum, inv.no. OS I-115
cat.no. A3.62

351
Wybrand Hendriks
Regents of the old men’s alms house, c. 1780-1820
Haarlem, Teylers Museum, inv./cat.nr. W 045
cat.no. D32

It follows that the composition was begun by executing the head and hand areas, followed by the bodies of the figures and the spatial background. The sequence of sitters would have depended to a large extent on the overall concept, but also on the sitters’ individual availability to sit for Hals. In any case, it seems as if the heads of the three seated gentlemen in the right half of the picture were finished first. They are also designed with the greatest attention to detail. Behind – that is, above this trio – a servant is captured in a more subdued lighting, with his head, collar and hands modelled in a few confident accents. His mischievous smile counterbalances the gravitas in the presentation of the three distinguished personages in the foreground. From a perspective of social history, this light-hearted establishment of contact with the viewer by an anonymous marginal figure is notable. The two sitters on the left were probably added to the already finished group on the right. The second head from the left was probably executed last, and clearly by another hand. Once again, the difference lies in the detachment of light values and color tones from the representational objective [357]. Also, its undisciplined paint application differs strongly from the independence of the rhythmically structured brushstrokes in the face of the man to his left [358]. The listless modelling of the hair and the face, especially the blurry characterization of the eyes, differ from the other portraits and bring to mind the facial features in the family-portraits in Madrid and London (A4.3.19, A4.3.24). The same painter is likely to have executed these as well, probably Hals’s later assistant, his son Frans II (1618-1669). In contrast, the face of the man on the outer left, with its angular and rhythmical execution, displays the characteristic approach of Hals himself. As Liesbeth Abraham pointed out, it remained unfinished in the shaded area to the right of the bridge of the nose.² The sparing contour lines in the area of the eyes demonstrate Hals’s particular grasp of characterization. There are few paintings where the contribution by an assistant and the handwriting of the master are so clearly juxtaposed. The latter’s ‘lion’s paw’ has long been recognized, especially in the hands, gloves and cuffs in the center of the composition and on its right side. All these rhythmically arranged, abstract figures are likely to form part of the final phase of the execution that Hals undertook personally. An area that was probably left unfinished, is the left hand of the second regent from the right, which is not clearly defined and somewhat too small.

These observations suggest a strenuous, highly focused approach by the painter, as he designed the composition and laid out at least five faces and several hands in color himself. The collars, hands, gloves, and the faces of the man on the far left and the servant – which are reduced to merely lighter and darker strokes of color – reveal a kind of angular abbreviation which may have been caused by a loss of strength in the over-eighty-years-old Hals, but at the same time is entirely in keeping with the master’s bold brushwork. This abbreviation appears spontaneous and therefore as if painted directly onto the canvas in front of the sitters. It was easier to do so for the figures placed on the edges of the composition, than for those positioned more towards the center of the large picture plane. The faces of the group on the right could have conceivably been created on the basis of separate intermediary facial studies that were afterwards included by Hals in the correct format. In this process, the face of the third figure from the right has come out slightly too large. In the right hand part of the painting, Hals’s compositional rigor is self-evident [359]. A pyramid structure binds all movements together and is repeated in individual shapes, beginning with the knee of the regent on the outer right hand edge. In contrast to all former group-portraits, the proportions of the hands and faces are no longer coherent: the hands of the man seated behind the table are too small, for instance.

On closer examination of the faces in the right hand group, it is notable that some of the features were reworked. Softly rubbed paint covers the corners of the mouths of all three sitters, but also parts of the eyes, especially the shaded eye of the man seated in the center. There is also overpainting in the facial features of the regents at his right. Thick, impasto paint is apparent in the corners of the mouth, along the ridge of the nose and around the eyes. Zooming in closer to the face of the man outer right, we observe highlights and shadow lines that have been applied with a soft brush in most of the facial area, which are contrasted by more opaque revisions in and around the lips and chin, to the right of the nose and around the right eye. The lower lip has clearly been broadened by applying a light colored brushstroke over a seemingly already finished mouth [360]. The fact that these passages cannot be considered to be modern overpaintings is testified by the watercolor copy by Hendriks, which shows the face in an identical state, with the same kind of dark corners and greyish green mass of paint around the mouth. The area between the lower lip and chin shows details in the drawing which are now retouched in the painting [361]. In all these cases it seems as if accents that appeared too harsh have been concealed at later stage in the creation process. This hypothesis is supported by the sudden disappearance of the craquelure in these areas, as if being covered by a cloud. The painting must have been completely dry at the moment of such an intervention. It is conceivable that the corrections were carried out by the assistant who was involved in the execution of large areas such as the face of the man second from the left [357], and the costume of the seated man on the outer left [354]. At the same time, it cannot be ruled out that these adjustments are fairly early corrections by a third hand, still carried out at the request of the patrons.

To differentiate between these possibilities, we need to take an unadulterated autograph painting by Frans Hals from his later career as a point of reference. Strictly speaking, there is only one artwork which is suitable for this, as it is particularly well preserved and close to the group-portraits of the regents and regentesses in terms of execution: the small Portrait of a man in the Mauritshuis in The Hague [362]. The sometimes jittery, almost dribbling manner used for depicting the cast shadows and highlights in this portrait – clearly visible in the nose, mouth and chin – differs from the swift brushstrokes observed in other late works [363]. This suggests a later date of creation than that of the Portrait of Willem Croes in Munich (A1.128) and the Portrait of a man with a slouch hat from Kassel (A1.130). The handling matches with the application of the accents in the face of the seated regent in the far right in Regents of the Old Men’s Almshouse in Haarlem (A3.62) [360], and also with the rendering of the faces of the second and third woman from the left in its counterpart, the Regentesses of the Old Men’s Almshouse in Haarlem (A3.63) [364] [365]. The painterly style in these three works is characterized by the use of tentative short and thin strokes that mark highlights and shadow edges. These are the result of working with a mahlstick to support a shaky hand. With the wrist support, the brush can only glide over short distances, a limitation that is especially obvious in the faces of the regentesses, whose portraits were Hals’s last major commission.

356
Detail of fig. 350
Frans Hals (I) and workshop
Regents of the Old Men’s Almshouse, c. 1663-1664
Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum

357
Detail of fig. 350
workshop of Frans Hals (I), possibly Frans Hals (II)
Regents of the Old Men’s Almshouse, c. 1663-1664
Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum

358
Detail of fig. 350
Frans Hals (I)
Regents of the Old Men’s Almshouse, c. 1663-1664
Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum

359
Detail of fig. 350
mainly Frans Hals (I)
Regents of the Old Men’s Almshouse, c. 1663-1664
Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum

360
Detail of fig. 350
Frans Hals (I)
Regents of the Old Men’s Almshouse, c. 1663-1664
Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum

361
Detail of fig. 351
Wybrand Hendriks
Regents of the Old Mens’s Almshouse, c. 1780-820
Haarlem, Teylers Museum

362
Frans Hals (I)
Portrait of a man, c. 1664
The Hague, Koninklijk Kabinet van Schilderijen Mauritshuis, inv./cat.nr. 928
cat.no. A1.131

In those likenesses, another deviation from Hals’s characteristic modelling can be observed: the skin tone in the faces of the second and third woman from the left has been merely applied as a delicate wash, on top of which the features were modelled with more opaque accents. Interestingly, the face of the seated woman at the outer right displays a totally different approach [366]. Thickly applied color patches prevail, characterized by a conspicuous craquelure pattern. This very two-dimensional finish was executed by a separate hand, perhaps that of the assistant of Frans Hals the Younger. Similar thick impasto paint, combined with contours of uniform thickness surrounding the woman’s fingers can be observed in this passage as well [367]. This style backslides into a clumsy approach towards the objects which are to be depicted. As such, it suggests that the artist who carried out these details had reached his limitations, just like the elderly Frans Hals. In comparison, the hands of the two sitters on the Ieft side of the male regents portrait have been modelled with a soft brush in a delicately thin layer of paint. Shakily drawn thin strokes and short swipes of color are used to suggest the anatomy of the hands and the position of the fingers [368] [369]. In addition, the surface of the gloved hand of the seated man at the outer right hand side seems to dissolve into individual segments of colors, yet still does not appear flat. The variation of tones between the fingers and the folds of the cuff create a spatial and simultaneously animated impression [370].

A restoration and examination of the Regentesses of the Old Men’s Almshouse in Haarlem [371], carried out in 2015-2016, provided clues to the painting’s original appearance. The photographs of the cleaned painting, together with the results of the analysis of the pigments, suggest an originally lighter and more colorful picture, in which the opaque whites and admixtures containing lead white have faded. The chemical paint analysis revealed that the tablecloth must have been a rather light dull green, and thus probably comparable to the now much lighter fabric in other better preserved group-portraits, such as the Regentesses of St Elisabeth’s Hospital in Haarlem of 1641 by Johannes Cornelisz. Verspronck (1600-1662).³ This information counteracts the frequently argued interpretation of the deserted and dark setting as a view into the realm of the dead. What appeared in copies by modern painters, in all book reproductions, and in many written interpretations as a ghostly appearance – Michel Foucault (1926-1984) described the picture as ‘one of the most distressing pieces ever painted in the West’ – can be reassessed in view of the formerly much brighter appearance.⁴ In addition, it can be reinterpreted in a sense that is closer to the contemporary 17th-century understanding. Even if the colors and lighting in Hals’s painting were chosen to be darker than in that of Verspronck, Wybrand Hendriks’s watercolor copy after the Regents of the Old Men’s Almshouse in Haarlem (D32) demonstrates that the background must be understood as a light colored – whitish grey or light ochre – internal wall. The sitters in their dark clothing stood out against it as distinctive silhouettes in both group-portraits of the Old Men’s Almshouse’s officials. What this may have looked like, can be seen in a suggested reconstruction of the original tonality and brightness of the Regentesses of the Old Men’s Almshouse in Haarlem [372].

The differences in execution between the portraits of the Old Men’s Almshouse’s male and female governors suggest the paintings were commissioned in sequence. Since Hals’s autograph share in the female counterpart can only be observed in traces, and it is clearly discernible in the male group-portrait, it seems likely that the latter was created earlier. The achievements of the assistant, most likely Frans the Younger, can neither be traced any further than to these two final commissions. Judging from the contributions we can assign to him, this companion of the great master had also reached the end of his abilities. Frans the Younger’s death in April 1669 did not spell the end of an independent creative individual, as can be also observed in the two family-portraits in London (A4.3.19) and Madrid (A4.3.24).

367
Detail of fig. 371
Frans Hals (I) and workshop
Regentesses of the Old Men’s Almshouse, c. 1663-1664
Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum

368
Detail of fig. 371
Frans Hals (I) and workshop
Regentesses of the Old Men’s Almshouse, c. 1663-1664
Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum

369
Detail of fig. 350
Frans Hals (I) and workshop
Regents of the Old Men’s Almshouse, c. 1663-1664
Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum

370
Detail of fig. 350
Frans Hals (I) and workshop
Regents of the Old Men’s Almshouse, c. 1663-1664
Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum