RKD STUDIES

To date, few observers of Hals’s paintings have taken note of a kind of ‘Cubism’ in the exaggeration of contours and angular shapes in the long folds of dark clothing. Correspondences keep appearing in the diagonal flow of shadow bands and lighter edges. Even in some fairly conventional and smoothly executed portraits by Hals, impressive abstract compositions can be isolated in the grey scales of the costumes. In principle, the emphasis is similar to that of the white to light grey areas of the collars and cuffs, but the folds there are more shallow. In the dark costumes, Hals could sculpt in a more vigorous sense, a such leaving a mark of his own in his paintings, whilst otherwise staying true to his subject. Once we are aware of this peculiarity of Hals’s style, it becomes unmissable and can be used as an argument for attributions to him. For example, a drawing by Jan Gerard Waldorp (1740-1808) renders the composition of a seated elderly woman which resembles Hals’s pictures and also shows a pattern of edgy folds in the skirt [99][101][102]. This typical feature marks the drawing as a document of a lost original.

99
Jan Gerard Waldorp
Portrait of a seated old woman
Groningen, Groninger Museum, inv./cat.nr. 1931.0240
Photo: Marten de Leeuw
cat.no. D44

100
Frans Hals (I)
Portrait of a woman, dated 1633
Washington (D.C.), National Gallery of Art (Washington), inv./cat.nr. 1937.1.67
cat.no. A1.57

Conversely, a different brushstroke in the clothing areas of portraits attributed to Hals can reveal an execution by a different hand. This is the case in the two portraits of the couple Nicolaes van der Meer (c. 1574-1637) [105] and Cornelia Claesdr. Vooght (* c. 1587) [106], both dated 1631. The female portrait shows a typical imitation of Hals’s edgy style in the folds of the clothing [107], which nevertheless does not render the shape of these folds in the same brushstroke. While with Hals the painterly stylization remains imaginable as a three-dimensional shape [108], here we find mostly ‘floating reflections’ – that is black and grey lines which seem unattached, without any underlying structure and lacking Hals’s rhythmical rigor. A similar rough execution in hard lines, but different in style, can be found in the skirt of Maritge Claesdr. Vooght (1577-1644) [109][110]. Here, we can assume reworking has taken place, in connection with the overpainting of the face.

107
Detail of fig. 106
workshop of Frans Hals (I)
Portrait of Cornelia Claesdr. Vooght, 1631
Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum

108
Detail of fig. 100
Frans Hals (I)
Portrait of a woman, 1633
Washington, National Gallery of Art

A cautionary signal such as this will prompt any connoisseur to investigate the remaining picture plane for further traces of a different hand, and at the same time to establish comparisons with confirmed autograph executions by Hals. The result is unequivocal in the portrait of Cornelia Claesdr. Vooght [106], and also in its pendant [105]. The rendering of the hands and cuffs of the woman, as well as the hands of the man – excluding the white reflexes on the fingernails – matches with Hals’s manner of painting. The composition of the figures, the shape of their faces, and the modelling of nearly all areas in the two pictures are so close to Frans Hals that we may suppose that he probably recorded these onto the supports in an initial design. Taking into account the large size of the two panels, it can also be assumed that he made separate preliminary sketches of the faces which were transferred as detailed models onto the panels. Nevertheless, the use of colors in the rendering of the faces is unimaginable for Hals, especially in the female portrait [111]. As ‘Halsian’ the distribution of light and shadow and the movement of her facial expression with the raised brows may seem, as stylistically different is the brushwork. The face is depicted using a soft brush – rather than a hard brush which can draw sharp edges and contours – and the paint has been applied uniformly opaque. As a result, the shadows on the temple and nasal root appear dull and patchy, when compared to the crisp brushstrokes in the face in the Portrait of Sara Wolphaerts van Diemen (A1.63) [112]. The execution of the white ruffs is also different. In the male portrait [113], it is coarse and almost clumsy, compared to the motif resembling it most closely from the same period: the ruff in the Portrait of an elderly man in the Frick Collection (A1.41) [114]. The collar of Cornelia Claesdr. Vooght [115] is routine template work with little regard for the variation in lighting, while that of Sara Wolphaerts van Diemen [116] – which also has a sequence of many small units by the nature of the object – does observe the gradual changes in lighting at all levels.

111
Detail of fig. 106
workshop of Frans Hals (I)
Portrait of Cornelia Claesdr. Vooght, 1631
Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum

112
Detail of cat.no. A1.63
Frans Hals (I)
Portrait of Sara Wolphaerts van Diemen, c. 1634
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum

113
Detail of fig. 105
workshop of Frans Hals (I)
Portrait of Nicolaes Woutersz. van der Meer, 1631
Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum

114
Detail of cat.no. A1.41
Frans Hals (I)
Portrait of an elderly man, c. 1627-1628
New York, The Frick Collection
© The Frick Collection

115
Detail of fig. 106
workshop of Frans Hals (I)
Portrait of Cornelia Claesdr. Vooght, 1631
Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum

116
Detail of cat.no. A1.63
Frans Hals (I)
Portrait of Sara Wolphaerts van Diemen, c. 1634
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum

This reevaluation of the 1634 Portrait of Sara Wolphaerts van Diemen inevitably leads to a critical reinspection of Cornelia Claesdr. Vooght’s pendant as well, the 1631 Portrait of Nicolaes van der Meer. For this portrait’s facial features [117], a comparison lends itself with the depiction of the same sitter in the 1616 Banquet of the officers of the St George civic guard (A2.0) [118], even though the earlier representation was painted on canvas and the later on panel, and even though the 1616 portrait suffered from damage and retouching (on the ear, in the hair, in the shadow zone of the face, most of all in the collar area). The two heads – painted fifteen years apart – are highly consistent in the side lighting and the way the features are captured. Yet, the hatching paint application in the 1631 portrait stands out as atypical for Hals, and the scratched-in and brightly superimposed beard hairs are an irritating element. Also to be mentioned are the two carved lion heads on the chairs in both portraits of 1631, which diverge stylistically from the sequence of comparable motifs in other works by Hals. The light reflexes were applied with a wider brush and are strongly contrasting – consistently in both pictures of the couple. Overall, the paint application is more creamy and thicker than in the paintings that are securely attributed to Hals.¹

The conclusion of this critical review of the Van der Meer and Vooght portraits can be stated as follows: these are works mostly designed by Hals, with their main elements laid out by him in paint, but then completed by an assistant in all areas. The paint application is thicker than Hals’s own manner, and the light reflections sit abruptly as thick stripes on top of the paint layer. What is missing, are few selected accents that are clearly drawn, and their rhythmical arrangement. The lackluster gaze from the man’s eyes that are set close together, and the rigid area around his mouth set the 1631 portrait apart from the amused and dynamic facial expression of 1616, in which the eyes, while still shaded, convey cheerfulness.

This being said, there are also opposite discoveries to be made by brightening dark areas of clothing on a computer screen. While this simple procedure applied to the Portrait of Lucas de Clercq [119] does not reveal the ‘27 blacks’ which Vincent van Gogh (1853-1890) saw in the work of Frans Hals in 1885, it does expose the compositional design, as well as the brushstrokes in the areas which have darkened over time [121].² The visually compelling diamond-shaped composition stands out, with the head and ruff as the crowning element at the top. Traces of raised brushstrokes depicting the diagonal interior folds are still visible in the dark grey areas. The chemical changes of the pigments, the slightly flattened and abraded paint surface, and the disturbance of the facial expression caused by the wrongly retouched right eye, all compromise the original fabulous impression of this painting. In all recognizable details it shows the pure authentic brushwork of Frans Hals.

Next to the benchmark-quality of the De Clercq portrait, I had long considered its pendant, the Portrait of Feyntje van Steenkiste [120], as bland. It is dated 1635 and thus later than the male portrait, which fits stylistically into the period of 1626, the year of the couple’s marriage. It is unknown why the portrait of the wife, while matching in size, was painted nine years later. In any case the weave of the canvas and the ground layer are different, which is generally not the case with commissions that were received at the same time. Due to the similarly flat rendering of the face in the Self-portrait by Judith Leyster, I assumed that this frequent imitator of Frans Hals could have executed the portrait of Van Steenkiste.³ But the detailed images available today do not support this theory. Zooming in into the Leyster portrait demonstrates how much her manner of painting differs from that of Hals [125]. The detailed inspection of the portrait of Van Steenkiste surprises with the quality of execution in the hands and clothing. When brightening the image, subtly gradient paint layers of black-grey with confidently applied black contours can be discovered [122]. A particularly well-preserved female portrait from 1637 offers a striking comparison. Here, as well as in the Van Steenkiste portrait, we encounter Hals as an observer of silk surfaces who suddenly breaks a delicate grey in grey surface with hard black contours [123]. This is done in such a subtle capturing of nuances and at the same time with such a confident emphasis on individual sharp accents, that none of Hals’s assistants can be considered as the author of this clear and angular, semi-abstract design.

119
Frans Hals (I)
Portrait of Lucas de Clercq (....-1652), c. 1627-1628
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv./cat.nr. SK-C-556
cat.no. A1.42

120
Frans Hals (I)
Portrait of Feyntje van Steenkiste (1603/1604-1640), dated 1635
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv./cat.nr. SK-C-557
cat.no. A1.72A

121
Frans Hals (I)
Portrait of Lucas de Clercq, c. 1627-1628
oil paint, canvas, 121.6 x 91.5 cm
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv.no. SK-C-556
cat.no. A1.42
brightness increased digitally

Van Steenkiste’s hands are also depicted with a few brushstrokes and can be attributed to Hals himself, as can the sitter’s bonnet and her ruff [124]. This only leaves open the question of who painted the face, which certainly differs from Hals’s manner [126]. The differences become especially apparent in comparison to other female portraits by Hals form the same period. Created in the same year, there is the portrait of an unidentified woman in the Frick Collection in New York [127]. Possibly also from c. 1635 is another portrait which probably represents Maria Larp [128] – there, the modelling of the face has been preserved better, in spite of the retouchings on the shaded right side of the nose, along the cheekbone and at the lower part of the nose. Based on the execution of these two portraits it can be established that there are narrow islands in Feyntje’s face where Hals’s manner of representation is still recognizable. These are the two eyes, the eye sockets and eyebrows as well as the lower lid on the right, shadow of the nose and the right nostril. In the mouth, only the central line remains. Everything else is covered by a whitish layer of paint which creates a flat and rigid effect. Even the left lower lid was overpainted, as was the white skin of the right eye. The modelling of the corners of the mouth and the nasal fold were entirely eliminated.

124
Detail of fig. 120
Frans Hals (I)
Portrait of Feyntje van Steenkiste, 1635
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum

125
Detail of: Judith Leyster
Self-portrait, c. 1630
Washington, National Gallery of Art

126
Detail of fig. 120
Frans Hals (I)
Portrait of Feyntje van Steenkiste, 1635
Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum

Hals’s ability to create abstract patterns with folds of clothing and to generate lines, and entire sequences of lines out of light edges and cast shadows for his compositions, enlivens his pictures and injects a semblance of movement. But his greatest skill as an artist was the ability to assemble contrasts of light and shadow in his faces. These were the center and pivotal point of his orderly structured compositions. It is a daring feat to combine this highly expressive dimension with the soft skin of human facial expression. Faces such as that of the 56-year-old unidentified woman from 1635 illustrate how this can succeed [127]. As a whole, her features are very well preserved in their modelling – with the unfortunate exceptions of a pale pink retouching on the right nasal fold (a popular area for modern plastic surgery) and slight coverings of the lower lids.