RKD STUDIES

The tailoring of each contradictory catalogue from 1970-1974 (Slive), 1972 (Grimm), 1974 (Montagni), 1989 (Grimm) and 1989-1990 (Slive) is based on assumptions which are now obsolete. We, former catalogue authors, as well as our critics and supporters, all essentially presumed that contemporary documentation and historical signatures, as well as the inscriptions on engravings referred to ‘authentic’ works by Frans Hals, in the modern sense of being ‘an original’ by the artist’s own hand. Nevertheless, a categorisation as ‘authentic’ or ‘fake’, respectively ‘painted by Frans Hals’ versus ‘certainly not by his hand’ failed to appreciate the conditions under which these works were created. The modern concept of being autograph was based on an ideal that had not yet existed as such in the production practice of the 17th century. Consequently, it excluded much that was probably designed in its entirety and executed in part by the master himself. Even less credit was given to artworks that the master had delegated to assistants and sometimes corrected afterwards. These were probably done to his specifications and using his designs. Many of these pictures bore historical signatures from their period that could not simply be labelled as imitations or fakes. After all, while there was no market for ‘a Frans Hals’ during the artist’s lifetime, but there certainly was a demand for representative portraits and an acceptance for popular genre paintings such as produced by the Hals workshop.

To date, even many art historians are not familiar with the idea that 17th-century paintings were created primarily for representational purposes – in an artisanal production process. Above all, the depiction of certain motifs mattered – obviously executed in a way that was as convincing and impressive as possible. It was only of secondary importance who painted what. This approach explains decisions which appear peculiar from today’s perspective, such as the employment of the painter colleague Salomon de Bray (1597-1664) to complement Hals’s early family portrait (A2.3). The delegation of lesser shares of work, or less well-paid commissions to assistants or apprentices in Hals’s workshop becomes all the more understandable.

During a recent discussion on questions of attribution the question was raised: ‘But how do we know that Hals had a workshop?’ However, this scenario was both normal and natural, beginning with the fact that assistants were required to grind and prepare the pigments. What was out of the ordinary was the lonely experimenting painter, such as probably Vermeer, and even he could have used assistance from time to time. Just like small tradesmen’s businesses today, like tilers, plumbers, house painters, church painters, gilders and restorers of different specialities, there were master craftsmen and trained assistants, but also apprentices, who would often take on a share of work to complete an order, or occasionally produce works to supply easily saleable stock. Pictures that came into being under such workshop conditions were painted under the name of the master who was responsible. Until well into the 18th century, the collaborative culture that characterised craftsmanship and ‘Arts’ did not mark contributions by assistants as such, but subsumed their work under the wider common achievement of the respective workshop, thus maintaining the brand value of the object. According to a much-quoted guild directive in Utrecht of 1644, assistants were expressly forbidden to work in a style that differed from that of their master, or mark their own contribution with their signature.¹ Regulations varied slightly between locations, but we can generally assume that signatures indicate a master working independently with his own workshop.

Recent research on the lives and working conditions of Netherlandish painters, not least Rembrandt, have increasingly suggested a change in perspective. Ernst van de Wetering presented an impressive summary of historical conditions in his article entitled ‘Problems of apprenticeship and studio collaboration’.² Therefore, even the apparently so spontaneous works by Frans Hals were no longer to be regarded as an expression of an individual creative urge. The 19th-century concept of an ‘authentic’ creation by the hand of an individual ‘artist’ needs to be replaced from the present perspective by an acceptance of historical workshop production that included creations by the master’s own hand as well as a delegation of labour to assistants, even to the extent of an entire picture. Historical documentation includes sparse information on Hals’s assistants and does not provide a complete picture of a workshop run continuously with a team of staff. But over five and a half decades of Hals’s activity, there are groups of works and sections of paintings that display extreme virtuosity as well as others that demonstrate a lower level of expertise. Based on precise observation of the brushwork, the different shares can be more easily separated in Hals’s pictures than in other oeuvres of the period. The appearance of the brushwork differs especially noticeably in the execution of heads and hands, which will become visible in the following catalogue entries, when comparing details from the paintings from catalogue parts A1 and A2 with those catalogued under A4. Differences in execution can be seen in all areas of the composition, in heads and hands as well as in the rendering of clothing parts. As soon as we accept these as historical facts and assume cooperative production methods, new attributions become possible.

From these observations we can conclude that Hals employed assistants who executed parts of paintings under his direction, and that he cooperated with colleagues. Like most of his fellow guild members, he was the head of a workshop team, even if the team may only have consisted of himself, the pigment grinder and one or two others. Consequently, we must continue to investigate what Frans Hals’s own contribution is in the preserved works: which parts of the painting that are visible today were executed by him fully or in part, and which were done under his instruction and within his workshop? These questions are not based on hair-splitting ‘attributionism’, but reflect Hals’s individual approach as well as the organisation of his production, his directives and the impact he had on others. Last not least, there are striking differences in execution quality that have fuelled discussions time and again. It should therefore be possible to attribute the bulk of roughly 300 paintings extant today – excluding weaker variants and copies – to different persons who were probably involved in their making.

We do not have historical documentation on where Frans Hals worked, whether he had a studio in his respective rented houses, whether he used a separate room outside, or shared a workspace. The small and narrow houses at his documented addresses indicate that there was no space for a studio. According to the preserved documentation, Hals lived on Peuzelaarsteeg in 1617, in 1636 in the street Groot Heiligland, in 1640 in Lange Begijnestraat, in 1642 in Kleine Houtstraat, from 1643 to 1650 on Oude Gracht and from 1654 to 1660 in Ridderstraat.³ With regard to the large-scale civic guard portraits, it is conceivable that Hals painted them in a room at the headquarters of the guards.

The fascinating question where in Amsterdam Hals may have started the work on the large group portrait of the Amsterdam guardsmen of district XI (A2.11) was recently answered by Dudok van Heel. He pointed to the former workshop of the portraitist Cornelis van der Voort (1576-1624), which the agent and art dealer Hendrick Uylenburgh (c. 1587-1661) had taken over in 1625 or 1626 to use as a painting workshop. According to Dudok van Heel, Uylenburgh was probably commissioned the group portrait and engaged Frans Hals to carry out the work.⁴ In the course of the correspondence about the Amsterdam group portrait, Hals suggested bringing the unfinished picture to Haarlem in order to complete it as much as possible.⁵ It follows that he must have had an available space suitable in size in Haarlem where he could work undisturbed. For the purpose of painting pictures at the time, a room needed sufficient light as well as depth to allow for the necessary distance between the artist and the painting, and the artist and the sitter. When the room was used by several people, requirements increased accordingly. Furthermore, a work table was needed for grinding pigments and mixing them with binding agents. This support function was needed continuously, as paints had to be in supply and kept from drying out. Furthermore, apprentices needed a workspace as well as a place to eat and sleep. From an economical point of view, pupils and assistants were part of the master’s household and usually lived with him. This, for instance, is the context of a statement made by the 22-year-old Pieter Gerritsz van Roestraten on 6 October 1651 at a notary’s in Amsterdam about having been a member of the Hals household for five years.⁶

To date, the question how exactly Frans Hals transferred single portraits into a larger composition remains unanswered – whether he made individual studies and copied them into the larger painting – or whether rolled up his canvasses vertically or horizontally, and arranged them differently on the stretcher in order to create an acceptable moving focus between the sitter and the canvas. Just how difficult it is to observe a sitter intently and not only accurately match the proportions of the facial features, but also the characteristic course of the outlines, the fleeting accents of facial expression and the nuances of light and colour, is clear to anybody who has ever attempted it. It is a psychological choice of subtle characteristics, which need to be captured precisely. It was therefore only logical that a painter with Hals’s pronounced ability to observe colour and modelling nuances would begin his large-scale works from the left- or right-hand edge, from where he would still have had an almost straight line of sight to the respective sitter. Accordingly, the flag-bearing ensign on the far left of the Amsterdam Meagre company (A2.11) remained the first and only full figure in the picture that was almost entirely executed by Hals. Similarly, in the 1639 Officers and sergeants of the St George civic guard (A2.12), the group to the far right – consisting of the ensigns Dirck Dicx († 1650) and Pieter Schout [1] – differs in its painterly freshness from the remainder of the painting.⁷ The same particularly spontaneous handling characterizes the figure of ensign Boudewijn van Offenberch (1590-1653) on the outer right edge of the 1616 Banquet of the officers of the St. George civic guard (A2.0) [2]. But even on the picture’s edges it was much more difficult to paint directly from the respective sitter’s features than to insert their individual studies. Preparatory sketches in a manageable size were made on paper, panel or canvas, and their subjects could be transferred in the correct proportion to the final composition. Although important parts had to be painted twice in this way, the quality of observation and rendering remained uniform.

In the Meagre company (A2.11), the faces of nearly all figures were already outlined by Hals in an initial design, though in most cases not yet combined with the depiction of the body, for which there must have been further studies – at least in part. Hals himself undertook the execution of the first seven figures from the left, the nine figures on the right were only created by Pieter Codde (1599-1678) in 1637. Apart from the outstanding figure of the ensign on the left, Hals’s virtuoso brushwork is primarily evident in the faces. This differs from the two Haarlem guardsmen’s portraits 1632-1633 and 1639 (A2.10, A2.12). In these cases the style is smoother with more impasto – also in comparison with the three earlier group portraits – and Hals’s brushwork is only visible in individual reworking accents. This would indicate the process of an assistant copying individual models made by the master Frans Hals. Equally interesting in this respect is the result of the cleaning of the late Regents of the old Men’s Almshouse of 1663-1664 (A3.62). The extremely angular and free painterly execution of the face on the far left edge of the composition differs noticeably from the other faces, and suggests that this area was painted directly from life – unlike the other faces, for which there may have been individual preparatory studies [3]. Only the area of the virtuoso glove and the cuff of the regent sitting on the outer right display similarly free characteristics, directly painted in front of the sitter [4].

Unfortunately there is very little information about pupils and assistants of Frans Hals.⁸ Cornelis de Bie (1627-1711) mentioned in his Gulden cabinet of 1661 that Philips Wouwerman (1619-1668) had been taught by Frans Hals.⁹ The presumed training period of the landscape and horse painter to be cannot have lasted beyond 1638-1639, when he reportedly eloped to Hamburg and worked in the studio of Evert Decker († 1647) for about a year.¹⁰ There is also documentation confirming the nine month training of Vincent Laurensz van der Vinne (1628-1702), in 1646-1647.¹¹ In addition, Arnold Houbraken’s collection of biographies lists Adriaen Brouwer (c.1603/1605-1638) and Adriaen van Ostade (1610-1684) as his assistants – probably during the mid-1620s.¹²

There are recognizable references to Hals’s works in the paintings by Judith Leyster (1609-1660), who probably lived in Haarlem from 1629 onwards and could have been an apprentice with Hals. She is probably identical to the Judith Jans who served as a witness at the baptism of Hals’s daughter Maria in 1631.¹³ In 1636, Leyster married the painter Jan Miense Molenaer (1609/1610-1668), who may have trained with Hals simultaenously. Except for the paintings by Hals’s younger brother Dirck Hals (1591-1656) and the early works by Judith Leyster, there are no traces of his unmistakable style in the works by others among his listed assistants. All we know is that assistants existed and therefore at times qualify as potential candidates for the attribution of ‘Halsian’ works that nevertheless differ from Hals’s own.

3
Detail of cat.no. A3.61
Frans Hals (I) and workshop
Regents of the Old Men’s Almshouse, c. 1663-1664
Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum

4
Detail of cat.no. A3.61
Frans Hals (I) and workshop
Regents of the Old Men’s Almshouse, c. 1663-1664
Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum

The situation is different for the sons of Frans Hals, who were trained by their father, according to Houbraken – who refers to Frans II (1618-1669), Harmen (1611-1669), Jan (I) (c. 1620-1654), Claes (1628-1686) and Jan (II) (1658- after 1718).¹⁴ The styles of Harmen, Jan (I) and Reynier Hals (1627-1672), who is not mentioned by Houbraken, is a coarser but still recognizable derivative of their father’s brushwork. Surviving small-scale genre paintings created by Jan (I) from 1635 onwards are based in their subject matter on works by Harmen Hals and Jan Miense Molenaer. Their style is a sketchy pattern of unconnected brushstrokes that imitates Frans Hals’s manner to different degrees. If we knew solely these paintings, we would not be able to identify Jan Hals (I) as the author of the large-scale portraits that are closely based on Frans Hals and identifiable as his work either by their signatures or monograms (A4.3.12, A4.3.13, A4.3.22, A4.3.25, A4.3.26) [5]. However, these paintings are the only ones that can be attributed to a specific, known artist from the circle of Frans Hals.¹⁵ The dates on the preserved portraits by Jan Hals (I) range from 1644 to 1648. According to the documentation relating to a commission of five life-size portraits of the Van der Gon family in c. 1651, Frans Hals had taken on two of them and Jan Hals was responsible for the remaining three.¹⁶ This joint commission indicates a cooperation between father and son that reached further than a master-pupil relation. It is worth looking more closely at the particular character of the paintings by this son, who took such a dual approach. Unfortunately, there is no critical overview so far of genre paintings signed by or stylistically close to Jan, that would allow an assessment of his achievements.¹⁷

The main difficulty in attributing ‘Halsian’ paintings consists in the large volume of works with recognizable Hals-style elements, but with varying degrees of proximity to his own manner of painting. Quite a few have Hals signatures that are old and no less credible than the signatures on pictures that were undoubtedly painted by Frans Hals in full. The corpus of works probably created in the Hals workshop consists of several groups: variants and copies of the half-length genre paintings of merry children, drinkers, actors and musicians from the 1620s, the ‘fisherchildren’ or ‘fishing folk’, probably dating to the late 1630s, the paintings of musicians and actors of the late 1630s and early 1640s, the carefully painted and sometimes hesitantly painted portraits and portrait sections by Jan Hals, and the idiosyncratic creative imitations of Hals’s late style in single and group portraits from 1640 onwards.

7
and Claes van Heussen Frans Hals (I)
Young woman selling fruit and vegetables, dated 1630
Private collection
cat.no. A2.9

In my 1971 article about Frans Hals and his school, I attributed the singular subject matter of the ‘fisher folk’ half-length figures and their noticeably strong brushwork to one distinctly recognisable painter.¹⁸ Today, based on many years of studying original works and their variants, I am convinced that these subjects have their own tradition within Hals’s workshop, and were executed by several people. I therefore concur with Seymour Slive’s assessment of different qualities and execution styles within the group of fishermen pictures.¹⁹ However, my conclusion now differs from his. Having studied the works in this group in detail, and having photographically documented the style of painting in numerous details for comparison, I now conclude that only a single one of them was painted by Hals himself, and only partially: the area of the faces and hats in the Two fisherboys [6].²⁰ Slive’s benchmark for his attributions of the ‘fisherfolk’ paintings to Frans Hals himself is the Young woman selling fruit and vegetable of 1630 [7]. This is a typical and loosely painted genre picture with an unquestionable attribution to Hals – the still life elements were carried out by Claes van Heussen (c. 1598/1599-c. 1631/1634), who also signed the painting. However, a detailed comparison from today’s perspective indicates that the plain and clear accentuation of the young woman’s face [8], and the clarity of the shape of her hands hands and dress [9] cannot be matched with any of the fishermen pictures accepted by Slive [10][11]. Detailed and precise photographs available today leave no doubt that there is a significant difference. The hard contours and stripy slashes of the brush in the fisherchildren in Antwerp, Dublin, etc. follow an independent style that is not present in accepted autograph works by Frans Hals.

Nevertheless, even within this group of paintings with a similar subject, there are noticeable differences in execution. These are evident in the rendering of facial features and body figures, whereby the abovementioned Two fisherboys differs from all others in the singularly smooth style of painting. And even the other fisherfolk paintings show significant differences among them. Furthermore, there are contemporary variants of individual compositions, such as the two variations after the Cologne Fishergirl with a basket (A4.2.22, A4.2.22a, A4.2.22b) that were probably also created in Hals’s workshop. These variants have been included in the catalogue since they clearly point to the original composition of the model they are based on.

In most of these paintings, the dune landscapes in the background were most likely painted by other artists than the figures, as many authors have remarked.²¹ Especially the privately owned Fishergirl [12] shows evidence of an ambitious landscape painter. In this respect, is worth noting Gregory Martin’s reference to Philips Wouwerman, who had probably been in Hals’s workshop until 1638.²² The unusual atmospheric quality of the painting may be explained by the involvement of this highly talented painter, even though no comparable early picture by him has been preserved. A clear attribution can only be made for the background areas in the Two fisherboys (A3.30), where the approach and style of painting largely correspond to that of Pieter de Molijn (1595-1661). Last, not least, some later variants of this type of paintings point to either Philips’ brother Jan Wouwerman (1629-1666), whose manner was closely modelled on that of his brother, or to and Hals’s son Claes, whose painting View of the Zijlpoort in Haarlem [13] demonstrates some similarity with the landscape backgrounds in the paintings of the of the fisherchildren-group. The landscape background in the small-scale family portrait (A4.3.28), whose figures are executed in the style of Jan Hals, is probably also carried out by Claes.²³

As a result of this critical analysis, we need to take the Hals-signatures on the surviving paintings of fisherchildren seriously and assume that the entire group was created in the context of the workshop. Dates remain unsolved, as none of the pictures is dated. An analogous attribution would have to begin no earlier than the mid-1630s, because at the end of that decade, the tonality of Hals’s paintings turned cooler, as is illustrated by the Berlin Malle Babbe (A1.103) and its variant in New York (A4.2.31). The latter has similarities in brushwork with some of the fisherfolk pictures, such as the Fishergirl with a basket (A4.2.22) in Cologne. Stylistically, the Fisherboy (A4.2.41) and Fisherman with a fur cap and a basket (A4.2.46) can be dated to the 1640s, somewhat later than the rest of the group.

Another separate cluster of paintings is formed by the depictions of musicians, singers and actors, that were most probably created around 1640.²⁴ While their movements are expansive, the flat and almost unanimously motionless, even melancholy, facial features and the similarly planar figures are distinctly different from the vigorous vitality of accepted autograph works by Frans Hals. Only the Young man playing the flute in Vaduz [14] displays an independent artistic achievement that the present publication has connected to Hals himself. The quality is particularly noticeable in comparison with the second version of the composition, with the curious HF monogram [15].

The large group of later portraits executed entirely or in part by workshop assistants was oriented on Hals’s ‘rough’ technique, but they lack his calligraphic stroke and the elegance of merging flat brushstrokes with the spatial rendering of objects. As it is hard to convey complex spatial appearances, such as faces or hands, with a few brushstrokes, works by imitators tend to fall short of the master’s own supple modelling. It seems that only Frans Hals was capable of modelling convincing sculptural effects with seemingly playful brushwork. Hard lines and edges that cut inappropriately into facial features, for example in the Antwerp Fisherboy in a landscape (A4.2.20) [16]; or round finger joints that are treated unanatomically with stripy strokes, like in the Fishergirl (A4.2.19); or unnecessary slashes of paint that run riot on incidental and therefore unimportant parts of the clothing – which is the case in almost all fisherchildren as well as in many commissions of the later period – all of these are indications of assistants’ imitations. Without exception, Hals’s portraits are precise recordings of the observation of individual temperament. In his faces, the brushstrokes that are emphasized, are based on a summarizing but nevertheless sensitive characterisation of facial features and mark the fleeting tensions in facial expression. Therefore, Hals always makes the eyes the precisely lit centre of attention. Similarly, edges of light and shadow emphasize the volume and the folds of the clothing, while the strictest economy is consistently exercised in these accents up until the master’s late years. There are no superfluous stripes, lines, or edges, but only a few and determined coordinates, also in the folds of the dress in some body movements. The gaze of the sitter is often directed straight towards the viewer. The facial expression is always clearly formulated, also and especially in the shape of the mouth and the curving of the lips. This stringent observation of facial features – in specific conditions of movement and lighting – is lacking in many portraits by assistants, where thin lines at the mouth and a weak schematic smile take the place of precisely formulated expression.

Clashing contour lines and free-floating colour slashes are a symptom of work by assistants and imitators. Their emphasis differs from that of Hals’s portraits, both in the features of the sitters and their dress, and the three-dimensional modelling is less accurate. The two large family portraits in London (A4.3.19) and Madrid (A4.3.24) are typical cases in point, which display aimless use of brushstrokes. This also goed for the three-quarter length Portrait of an unknown man in the Liechtenstein collection (A4.3.42), whose hand is cut across by random streaks [17]. Later works from this group display an excess of ‘floating reflections’ that give the facial features a sloppy creaminess. A prime example is the Portrait of an unknown man (A4.3.55) in Cambridge, whose features seem to glide out of control like those of a drunk [18]. A comparison with the Kassel Portrait of a man with a slouch hat (A1.130), probably painted at the same time, clearly demonstrates discipline and clarity of pictorial shape in the latter, as well as confidence in depicting the features of the face and the anatomy [19]. According to this, ‘old Hals’ was probably a painter who restricted himself to terse characterisations and few colour accents for emphasis. Yet, he did this is in a highly focused manner and not by using random slashes of the brush.

Pictures by workshop assistants frequently display a lack of awareness for the basics of anatomical construction, as well as an inability to study different modelling in gradual levels of lightness and shade. Instead, they focus on superficial effects which they overemphasize. The unconvincing representation of anatomy, as well as a random adoption of ‘floating reflections’ and coarse, wooden shadow stripes are a common feature in many works. It can be found in assistants’ contributions in paintings ranging from the Merrrymaker at Shrovetide of c. 1616-1617 (A3.1), to the hands of the Regentesses of the Old Men’s Almshouse of 1663-1664 (A3.63), and the areas of the hair and coat folds of the late Portrait of a man in Boston (A3.64). In other words: when Hals created paintings, he contributed the academic level to his portion that had been demanded of him in his own training. However, for his production he relied on the assistance of apprentices and masters who were no longer trained in anatomy and proportion to the same degree, or simply not as gifted as he was. Therefore, the superficial imitation of his style of painting often shows deficiencies in three-dimensional perception and psychological study.

Even though imitations share a common ground as such, and though there is less psychological insight, there are many strikingly powerful paintings among the group of late works created by assistants. The entire sequence of portraits created from the mid-1650s onwards depicts strong features, more gloomy than happily vivacious in expression. These pictures are marked by a flatter, somewhat undisciplined application of the free brushwork Hals had developed from the mid-1640s onwards. Hals was most likely involved in some of the compositions or in the first design of the faces, but hardly in the entire completion process. Given the current state of knowledge, there is only one among all of Hals’s pupils and assistants who may have been responsible for these works the after the death of Jan Hals in 1654, and that is his son Frans II. We know little about him apart from his life dates: he was baptised on 16 May 1618 and buried on 12 April 1669. He was trained as a painter by his father and at some point joined the Haarlem guild of St Luke. Since he moved out of his parents’ home after his marriage on 29 November 1643, he seems to have lived with them until then. The very few documents with a signature by Frans II show the monogram FH without ligature.²⁵

12
Workshop of Frans Hals (I), possibly Frans Hals (II) and Philips Wouwerman
Fishergirl
canvas, oil paint, 80.6 x 66.7 cm
New York, private collection
cat.no. A4.2.19

13
Claes Hals
View of the Zijlpoort in Haarlem, c. 1670
Haarlem, Frans Hals Museum, inv./cat.nr. OS 73-44

14
Frans Hals (I) and workshop
Young man playing a flute
canvas, oil paint, 60.5 x 54.5 cm
Vaduz, Kunstmuseum Liechtenstein, inv.no. LSK 1968.06
cat.no. A3.49

15
Workshop of Frans Hals (I)
Young man playing a flute
canvas, oil paint, 66 x 65.4 cm
sale New York (Christie’s), 4 June 2014, lot 89
cat.no. A3.49a

16
detail of cat.no. A42.20
Workshop of Frans Hals (I)
Fisherboy in a landscape
canvas, oil paint, 74 x 61 cm
lower right: FH
Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, inv.no. 188

17
Detail of cat.no. A4.3.42
workshop of Frans Hals (I), possibly Frans Hals (II)
Portrait of an unknown man
canvas, oil paint, 108 x 80 cm
Vaduz/Vienna, Liechtenstein - The Princely Collections
©LIECHTENSTEIN. The Princely Collections, Vaduz–Vienna

18
Detail of cat.no. A4.3.55
workshop of Frans Hals (I), possibly Frans Hals (II)
Portrait of an unknown man
canvas, oil paint, 80 x 67 cm
Cambridge, The Fitzwilliam Museum, inv.no. 150

19
Detail of cat.no. A1.130
Frans Hals (I)
Portrait of a man with a slouch hat
canvas, oil paint, 79.5 x 66.5 cm
Kassel, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, inv.no. GK 219
Foto: Ute Brunzel