DOI issue:
Nr.1-2
DOI article:Brusewicz, Lech; Nason, Pieter [Ill.]: The paintings by Pieter Nason in polish collections
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.18863#0024
historians and connoisseurs of the Dutch painting, in spite of it the subject of the painting
has remained a riddle.
The problem of the authorship of the picture, which several times has been touched upon
(vide cat. No. 5), can not be doubted in view of the existanee of Nason's authentic signature,
just as the fact of Jan van GoyeD's cooperation in painting the landscape98. It seems that the
cooperation went further covering also ideological and artistie contents of the painting, sińce
its complexity exeeeds the invention of Pieter Nason. No other work by the painter presents
such difficulties in the interpretation. Even the merę definition of the painting as a self-portrait
(recently accepted) has been arousing numerous reservation. The lack of elear indication and
the lack of the painter's other self-portraits made this pioblem most obscure". Freąuent at-
Lemps at the finał solution of the problem i.e., finding srane proove whether it is the self-por-
trait, the portrait of a landscape painter, or simply the portrait of an unknown man, have brought
no results.
The careful formal analysis of the painting, allows to separate the components of its "subject-
-matter" and brings a few interesting observations. In its generał character the picture refers
to the 16th century type of portrait composition, chiefly because of the frontal representation
of the portrayed person and a certain solemnity. These features used to signify portraits, of
an official or state character100, and it should be expected that also in this case a similar effect
was aimed at. The frame, unfortunately not preserved, constituted an important part of the
picture. That might be deduced from its shape and fuli integration with other parts of the pain-
ting; it deepens the impression of the painting's relation to the earlier, 16th century, and even
15th century, possible models, in which frames often fulfill an explanatory function through
inscriptions or a shape and ornamentations101.
The morphological analysis of the painting surface confirms the above outlined preliminary
assumptions. The surface of the painting is dhdded into two parts, distinctly different in struc-
ture, forms and colour; this division is marked also by an oblique line, running from the right
bottom corner towards the left upper one making each part resemble a right-angled triangle.
It is the line of the shoulder and left hand of the man. The left triangle formed by the portrayed
person is distinguished by large tectonic forms in the narrow colour scalę within the form and
at the same time remaining in a strong contrast to the background consisting of very light
spots set against very d ark ones. The chief principle of this sphere is geometricality (the portrayed
is almost inscribed into an eąuilateral triangle) and linearity of the forms. What most important —
the man is set en face and at the level of the on-lookers eyes.
The other triangle filled with the landscape is painted with smali, open, strokes of brush,.
differentiated in colour within the narrow palette and subordinated to the light displaying
the particular subtleties. It is irregular in forms and very painterly. The panoramie landscape
is seen from bird eye's view.
The portrayed and the landscape carry etrual significance, which makes the picture different
from most of the 16th century portraits, in which, as a rule, the model placed centrally covera
the landscape, diminishing its rank to a conventional background. In our case, however, the
98. It has recently been also stated by A. Dobrzycka, Jan tan Goyen, Poznań, 1966, p. 48, 130, who says "la facrure, la>
touche surę (...) la manierę de traiter Ies details (la verdure sur le bord escarpe', les silhouettes des vaches) rappelle la-
peinture de van Goyen de la deuxieme moitić des annees 40". Nason's collaboration with van Goyen is nothing excep-
tional in the artistie practice in Holland, moreover, both of them belonged to the Hague Catholic artistie circles. See-
also: an article by A. Bredius, Jan Josephszoon van Goyen...., OH, XIV, 1896, p. 113—125.
99. Two other Nason's self-portraits are known only from remarks found in literaturę cf. Tbieme-Becker, op. cif., p. 350r
also in the catalogue of the "Walter Sicbel" auction, London (Sotheby) 25-10-1933, no. 257.
100. See: J. Gantner Schicksah des Menschenbildes..., Bern-Munchen, 1958, p. 54 nn.
101. Frames played a similar role also sometimes in tbe 17th century, cf. J. Bruyn Hzn. en J. A. Emmens "De zonnebloem al»
embleem in ecn schilderijlist" Bulletin von het Sijksmuseum, 1956, p. 3—9.
18
has remained a riddle.
The problem of the authorship of the picture, which several times has been touched upon
(vide cat. No. 5), can not be doubted in view of the existanee of Nason's authentic signature,
just as the fact of Jan van GoyeD's cooperation in painting the landscape98. It seems that the
cooperation went further covering also ideological and artistie contents of the painting, sińce
its complexity exeeeds the invention of Pieter Nason. No other work by the painter presents
such difficulties in the interpretation. Even the merę definition of the painting as a self-portrait
(recently accepted) has been arousing numerous reservation. The lack of elear indication and
the lack of the painter's other self-portraits made this pioblem most obscure". Freąuent at-
Lemps at the finał solution of the problem i.e., finding srane proove whether it is the self-por-
trait, the portrait of a landscape painter, or simply the portrait of an unknown man, have brought
no results.
The careful formal analysis of the painting, allows to separate the components of its "subject-
-matter" and brings a few interesting observations. In its generał character the picture refers
to the 16th century type of portrait composition, chiefly because of the frontal representation
of the portrayed person and a certain solemnity. These features used to signify portraits, of
an official or state character100, and it should be expected that also in this case a similar effect
was aimed at. The frame, unfortunately not preserved, constituted an important part of the
picture. That might be deduced from its shape and fuli integration with other parts of the pain-
ting; it deepens the impression of the painting's relation to the earlier, 16th century, and even
15th century, possible models, in which frames often fulfill an explanatory function through
inscriptions or a shape and ornamentations101.
The morphological analysis of the painting surface confirms the above outlined preliminary
assumptions. The surface of the painting is dhdded into two parts, distinctly different in struc-
ture, forms and colour; this division is marked also by an oblique line, running from the right
bottom corner towards the left upper one making each part resemble a right-angled triangle.
It is the line of the shoulder and left hand of the man. The left triangle formed by the portrayed
person is distinguished by large tectonic forms in the narrow colour scalę within the form and
at the same time remaining in a strong contrast to the background consisting of very light
spots set against very d ark ones. The chief principle of this sphere is geometricality (the portrayed
is almost inscribed into an eąuilateral triangle) and linearity of the forms. What most important —
the man is set en face and at the level of the on-lookers eyes.
The other triangle filled with the landscape is painted with smali, open, strokes of brush,.
differentiated in colour within the narrow palette and subordinated to the light displaying
the particular subtleties. It is irregular in forms and very painterly. The panoramie landscape
is seen from bird eye's view.
The portrayed and the landscape carry etrual significance, which makes the picture different
from most of the 16th century portraits, in which, as a rule, the model placed centrally covera
the landscape, diminishing its rank to a conventional background. In our case, however, the
98. It has recently been also stated by A. Dobrzycka, Jan tan Goyen, Poznań, 1966, p. 48, 130, who says "la facrure, la>
touche surę (...) la manierę de traiter Ies details (la verdure sur le bord escarpe', les silhouettes des vaches) rappelle la-
peinture de van Goyen de la deuxieme moitić des annees 40". Nason's collaboration with van Goyen is nothing excep-
tional in the artistie practice in Holland, moreover, both of them belonged to the Hague Catholic artistie circles. See-
also: an article by A. Bredius, Jan Josephszoon van Goyen...., OH, XIV, 1896, p. 113—125.
99. Two other Nason's self-portraits are known only from remarks found in literaturę cf. Tbieme-Becker, op. cif., p. 350r
also in the catalogue of the "Walter Sicbel" auction, London (Sotheby) 25-10-1933, no. 257.
100. See: J. Gantner Schicksah des Menschenbildes..., Bern-Munchen, 1958, p. 54 nn.
101. Frames played a similar role also sometimes in tbe 17th century, cf. J. Bruyn Hzn. en J. A. Emmens "De zonnebloem al»
embleem in ecn schilderijlist" Bulletin von het Sijksmuseum, 1956, p. 3—9.
18