DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.42068#0095
68
MÉLANGES HULIN DE LOO
for the ghostly appearance of the face. The absence of
brnsh marks on cheeks, eyes, nose and mouth mnst indicate
something defini te about J an Van Eyek’s method (1).
Tha.t marvellous délinéation of flesh which we see on the
surface could not hâve been underpainted in dense color,
but was achieved by means of thin washes and glazes. The
even tone of the shadowgraph must mean that the artist
prepared an even ground for the face without extensive
modelling. On this ground he painted or drew, without
« loading » the color in the least, as did many artists of
the next génération. He did not paint large areas with
small dense strokes, as did many Italians of his own and
previous générations. He painted, strange to say, in a
manner which finds its closest physical' parallel in the
School of Verrocchio, where an equally thin method is
combined with as précisé a surface.
So much for the ghostlike face. The handling of the
dress is heavier. The large strokes in the lower part of
the picture show what is perhaps an unexpected freedom
and breadth. According to these strokes Jan Van Eyck
painted the main folds of the robe quickly, vigorously,
even nervously. The brush was a large one ; the hand that
guided it must hâve been sure. As in other examples of
Jan’s style (2), the spontaneity of incidental brushwork
suggests something about the artist’s attitude towards his
work. Although he completed the surfaces of his pictures
with a miniaturist’s care, he approached his subject matter
broadly, spacing the chief éléments of the design with rapid
ease. His first strokes were generalizations ; his concep-
tion included the massive whole, as well as the subtle detail.
(1) In other portraits, notably the Leal Souvenir in the National Gallery,
a few brush marks show at the edges of forms in the face under exactly
similar conditions of paint, imitating stone, on the reverse of the panel. The
différence between the two portraits is ,however, only one of degree and not
of kind; they were both painted by the same method.
(2) The Van der Paele altar, in Bruges, for example, contains underpainted
areas which are carelessly brushed in.
MÉLANGES HULIN DE LOO
for the ghostly appearance of the face. The absence of
brnsh marks on cheeks, eyes, nose and mouth mnst indicate
something defini te about J an Van Eyek’s method (1).
Tha.t marvellous délinéation of flesh which we see on the
surface could not hâve been underpainted in dense color,
but was achieved by means of thin washes and glazes. The
even tone of the shadowgraph must mean that the artist
prepared an even ground for the face without extensive
modelling. On this ground he painted or drew, without
« loading » the color in the least, as did many artists of
the next génération. He did not paint large areas with
small dense strokes, as did many Italians of his own and
previous générations. He painted, strange to say, in a
manner which finds its closest physical' parallel in the
School of Verrocchio, where an equally thin method is
combined with as précisé a surface.
So much for the ghostlike face. The handling of the
dress is heavier. The large strokes in the lower part of
the picture show what is perhaps an unexpected freedom
and breadth. According to these strokes Jan Van Eyck
painted the main folds of the robe quickly, vigorously,
even nervously. The brush was a large one ; the hand that
guided it must hâve been sure. As in other examples of
Jan’s style (2), the spontaneity of incidental brushwork
suggests something about the artist’s attitude towards his
work. Although he completed the surfaces of his pictures
with a miniaturist’s care, he approached his subject matter
broadly, spacing the chief éléments of the design with rapid
ease. His first strokes were generalizations ; his concep-
tion included the massive whole, as well as the subtle detail.
(1) In other portraits, notably the Leal Souvenir in the National Gallery,
a few brush marks show at the edges of forms in the face under exactly
similar conditions of paint, imitating stone, on the reverse of the panel. The
différence between the two portraits is ,however, only one of degree and not
of kind; they were both painted by the same method.
(2) The Van der Paele altar, in Bruges, for example, contains underpainted
areas which are carelessly brushed in.