RKD STUDIES

At some point between 1630 and 1632, the Amsterdam portrait painter Nicolaes Eliasz. Pickenoy (1588 – c. 1650/1656) set out for the neighboring town of Haarlem, where he visited the meeting halls of the two civic guard companies. What he saw there must have made an enormous impression on him. Apart from several other group portraits, he encountered three large-scale paintings by Frans Hals, created in the years 1616, 1626, and 1627 (A2.0, A1.30, A2.8A). Pickenoy himself had completed a group picture with 25 nearly life-size members of an Amsterdam civic guard in 1630 [57] and was due to take on another such project, featuring 22 individuals [58]. The latter project was just as substantial, since it involved members of the most prominent families, closely tied to the clientele for his previous group portrait. Nevertheless, its final product looked entirely different. It is not known whether this turnaround was solely prompted by Pickenoy’s discovery of Hals’s paintings or whether it had been suggested by his patrons. In any case, Pickenoy studied the Haarlem group portraits extensively, and many of their elements turn up in his compositions of 1632 and 1639.¹

One of such elements is the group of men seated around a table that is laid with a still-life of food, plates and drinking vessels, one of them ready to carve the cooked chicken [59][60]. Even though both areas in the two paintings feature the same motifs, they also display a very different approach towards the depictions of the men’s faces. In Pickenoy’s painting, the face are much more uniformly and brightly lit, whereas Hals employed lateral lighting, which causes pronounced shadows on the faces. In each individual face, Pickenoy rendered the hair of the moustache and the folds in the collar with the same definition and precision. For the viewer, such a wealth of visual information relies on an extended process of perception – without prioritizing. In one face, Pickenoy incessantly combined many delicate observations, thus achieving a sophisticated representation of his sitter. Nevertheless, in some areas, such as the transition from light to darker areas on the forehead, temple, above the nostril and by the ear, he very gently imitated the hatched brushwork of Hals [61]. In contrast to Pickenoy, Hals’s portraits generally captured one characteristic aspect of the sitter, and limited himself to the representation of momentary attention. His portraits are snapshots which initially seize a strong visual impression, before the eye bring all details into focus. From a patron’s perspective, much of their familiar mirror-image was neglected by Hals, and light and shadow were distributed unilaterally. In this particular portrait [62], the collar is only rendered fleetingly by means of light edges and deep shadows. Some reddish and ochre lines swirl around the left eye, which is sharply defined and stands out in the strongest possible contrast. This observation of a vivid, moving, instant will certainly have been fascinating of artists such as Pickenoy, yet it did not embolden him to attempt a similarly daring feat. The still life on the table in Pickenoy’s painting is the area closest to Hals’s earlier painting [63][64]. Pickenoy would have only been able to achieve such similarities in motifs, coloring and modelling after intense observation of the Haarlem example. It is likely that he also created sketches and color studies which captured movements of the hands and lighting effects. A very typical part in his painting, is the naturalistic depiction of skin, both in the chicken and in the men’s fingers. Pickenoy took particular notice of the bones in the fingers and of the light reflections on the nails. This approach is quite different from Hals’s manner, which focuses largely on visual suggestion. While Hals captured the fingers with anatomic precision, their shape is merely indicated through brushstrokes of different tones and a few shadow accents.

57
Nicolaes Eliasz. Pickenoy
Civic guardsmen of district V from the company of captain Matthijs Willemsz. Raephorst and lieutenant Hendrick Lauwrensz., 1630
Amsterdam, Amsterdam Museum, inv./cat.nr. SA 7312

58
Nicolaes Eliasz. Pickenoy
Banquet of civic guardsmen of district IX from the company of captain Jacob Backer (1572-1643) and lieutenant Jacob Rogh (1586-1670), 1632
Amsterdam, Amsterdam Museum, inv./cat.nr. SA 7313

59
Detail of fig. 58
Nicolaes Eliasz. Pickenoy
Banquet of civic guardsmen of district IX, 1632
Amsterdam Museum

60
Detail of cat.no. A2.0
Frans Hals (I)
Banquet of the officers of the St George civic guard, 1616
Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum

61
Detail of fig. 58
Nicolaes Eliasz. Pickenoy
Banquet of civic guardsmen of district IX, 1632
Amsterdam Museum

62
Detail of cat.no. A2.8A
Frans Hals (I)
Banquet of the officers of the Calivermen civic guard, 1627
Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum

63
Detail of fig. 58
Nicolaes Eliasz. Pickenoy
Banquet of civic guardsmen of district IX, 1632
Amsterdam Museum

64
Detail of cat.no. A2.0
Frans Hals (I)
Banquet of the officers of the St George civic guard, 1616
Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum

The blend of Hals’s manner of representation with Pickenoy’s own refined ‘fijnschilder’ manner of execution is highly suggestive. The latter style can be understood as the audience’s preference at the time, similar to the manner of Pieter Soutman (c. 1593/1601-1657) and Jan de Braij (c. 1626/1627 – 1697). While Pickenoy adopted Hals’s spatial arrangement, the distribution of the faces in the picture plane, as well as the grouping and dynamic positioning of the figures, he did not abandon what he offered in his individual portraits: slender, beautified facial features, elegant hairstyles, and the display of exquisite clothing. Societal rank and income became evident in these outward appearances, which needed to be well lit and sufficiently recognizable from the perspective of the viewer. Pickenoy’s commissions were a hallmark of his success: in 1642 and 1645 he created two more large-scale civic guard portraits.² Most portrait commissions at the time included the prominent representation of elaborately detailed clothing, which required time-consuming rendering of filigree areas of bonnets and collars, cuffs and bodices. This was a particular strength of Pickenoy’s which he cultivated to the level of presenting exquisite optical illusions of surfaces with stupendous trompe l’oeil effects [65], while Hals would tie in such motifs more closely with the overall appearance of the sitter as decorative elements. Nevertheless, Hals’s virtuoso depictions of such passages are no less astounding than Pickenoy’s [66], as they reverse the trompe l’oeil effect and show the accents of light and shade as paint flatly applied by the brush. Hals thus makes clear that any representation, be it as impressive as it may, is merely an optical illusion achieved with the tools of an artist.

The composition of Hals’s momentary representations remain centered on the sitter’s face. The facial expression and the movement of arms and hands were coordinated as a plausible observation of an instant, even when the portrayal was as formal as that of Aletta Hanemans (1606-1653) [67]. There, the sitter peers out of her corset in an acquiescent, almost imploring manner, while Pickenoy’s ladies emphatically parade their finery [68]. Close comparison of details from these portraits reveal similar observations are described above. In Pickenoy’s portrait, the perfection of the surface rendering makes the skin appear like polished wood, and the lace of the cuff as wire netting [69]. Hals’s looser brushwork and the unequal thickness and brightness of the lace’s threads convey a seemingly informal impression of the fabric [70]. The brushstrokes are not smoothed out in the shadows between the fingers and the glove. Because of this, the representation remains more two-dimensional and thus retains the lightness of a fleeting impression.

But were others as impressed by Hals like Pickenoy, as is apparent in the latter’s his militia paintings of 1632 and 1639? Did Pickenoy pass something on to his friends and clients that would have generated commissions for Hals? Nothing of the kind is known, and neither is it clear whether Pickenoy pointed out Hals to Hendrick Uylenburgh (c. 1587-1661), or vice versa, with Uylenburgh directing Pickenoy to Haarlem. It can only be established that Pickenoy adopted Hals’s interpretation of group portraits as snapshots and animated his own work by inserting individual turns and twists which he had taken from the model. Hals’s paintings are a fairly uncompromising example of what one can really see and fixate as a sustainable impression. When Balthasar de Monconys (1611-1665) wrote ‘Hals, who is admired by the greatest painters with good reason’, he hit the mark.³ Artists such as Pickenoy, but also Jan van de Cappelle (1626-1679), Johannes Cornelisz. Verspronck (c. 1600/1603-1662), and Jan de Braij were able to recognize Hals’s exceptional qualities, but patrons and buyers could not.

65
Detail of fig. 58
Nicolaes Eliasz. Pickenoy
Banquet of civic guardsmen of district IX, 1632
Amsterdam Museum

66
Detail of cat.no. A2.0
Frans Hals (I)
Banquet of the officers of the St George civic guard, 1616
Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum

67
Frans Hals (I)
Portrait of Aletta Hanemans (1606-1653), dated 1625
The Hague, Koninklijk Kabinet van Schilderijen Mauritshuis, inv./cat.nr. 460
cat.no. A1.18

68
Nicolaes Eliasz. Pickenoy
Portrait of Johanna le Maire, echtgenote van Pieter van Son, c. 1622
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv./cat.nr. SK-A 4957

69
Detail of fig. 68
Nicolaes Eliasz. Pickenoy
Portrait of Johanna le Maire, c. 1622
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum

70
Detail of fig. 67
Frans Hals (I)
Portrait of Aletta Hanemans, 1625
The Hague, Mauritshuis