DOI Heft:
Artykuły / Articles
DOI Artikel:Czop, Janusz; Frączek, Piotr; Hoyo-Meléndez, Julio M. del; Matosz, Marta: Leonardo da Vinci Lady with an Ermine - the latest research into the artist's painting technique and the state of preservation of the painting
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.47327#0235
Leonardo daVinci Ladywith anErmine-the latest research into the artisfs painting technigue...
233
results.7 He appreciated the significance of radiography as an important argument in
the discussion on the painting. On the basis of radiography he carried out a detailed
analysis of the painting techniąue confirming Leonardos authorship. Estreicher con-
cluded that apart from the masterly parts, the painting also has some poorer ones
and they may not have been completed by the master. An opinion like this resulted
from the lack of understanding of X-ray absorption by particular materials used in
the making of the painting and nowadays has no scientific significance.
Further on Estreicher also pays particular notice to the good State of preservation
of the painting after World War II “only the top left corner, which was damaged be-
fore, has peeled off. When in 1945 the painting was transported to Munich, it reąuired
only minor conservation treatment.” Probably only a smali piece of the top left corner
was glued because the entire corner having been broken some time ago could not
have “peeled off” if until today it has been glued under the reverse with an oak batten,
most probably being remnant of the cradle removed before 1914.
Within “minor conservation treatment” conducted in Munich further local re-
touching visible today in the picture might have been added. It is also likely that
two areas in which the overpaint layer was removed showing parts of the original
background (in top right corner and in the bottom right ąuarter), which are visible
on the photograph from 1952, might have originated at that time. If not in Munich
in 1946, then these removals of overpaint might have been done by a distinguished
conservator Rudolf Kozłowski in 19528 when he was carrying out an examination
of the painting in the Czartoryski Museum. Kozłowski took care of the painting “to
frame it properly”, and simultaneously a technological and conservation examina-
tion was scheduled, whose objective was primarily to confirm the authenticity of
the painting.
Kozłowski inspected the painting in detail using the stereo microscope and UV
radiation. He also took microphotographs of a few fragments and did a Chemical ex-
amination of a ground sample taken from the edge of the painting.
The ground was identińed as a thin layer of lead white on oil or tempera binding.
Kozłowski rightly notices that this has an influence on the radiograph, he also stresses
an innovatory way of this type of grounding compared to popular in those times in
Italy gypsum-glue ground (gesso). He forms a hypothesis that the support grounded
in this way was a basis for a composition painted initially in a tempera techniąue. He
also notices the alteration consisting in painting over embroidery on the left sleeve
done by Leonardo himself. Kozłowski discovers in the bottom left corner a signature
which he examines from a graphological point of view and studies it carefully in UV.
He notices similarity of the way of writing letters L and V compared to other preserved
7 K. Estreicher, Portret Damy z łasice} Leonarda da Vinci, “Biuletyn Historii Sztuki” 1952, vol. 14,
no 4, p. 10.
8 R. Kozłowski, Aneks, “Rozprawy i Sprawozdania Muzeum Narodowego w Krakowie” [2] 1952 (1954),
pp. 31-34.
233
results.7 He appreciated the significance of radiography as an important argument in
the discussion on the painting. On the basis of radiography he carried out a detailed
analysis of the painting techniąue confirming Leonardos authorship. Estreicher con-
cluded that apart from the masterly parts, the painting also has some poorer ones
and they may not have been completed by the master. An opinion like this resulted
from the lack of understanding of X-ray absorption by particular materials used in
the making of the painting and nowadays has no scientific significance.
Further on Estreicher also pays particular notice to the good State of preservation
of the painting after World War II “only the top left corner, which was damaged be-
fore, has peeled off. When in 1945 the painting was transported to Munich, it reąuired
only minor conservation treatment.” Probably only a smali piece of the top left corner
was glued because the entire corner having been broken some time ago could not
have “peeled off” if until today it has been glued under the reverse with an oak batten,
most probably being remnant of the cradle removed before 1914.
Within “minor conservation treatment” conducted in Munich further local re-
touching visible today in the picture might have been added. It is also likely that
two areas in which the overpaint layer was removed showing parts of the original
background (in top right corner and in the bottom right ąuarter), which are visible
on the photograph from 1952, might have originated at that time. If not in Munich
in 1946, then these removals of overpaint might have been done by a distinguished
conservator Rudolf Kozłowski in 19528 when he was carrying out an examination
of the painting in the Czartoryski Museum. Kozłowski took care of the painting “to
frame it properly”, and simultaneously a technological and conservation examina-
tion was scheduled, whose objective was primarily to confirm the authenticity of
the painting.
Kozłowski inspected the painting in detail using the stereo microscope and UV
radiation. He also took microphotographs of a few fragments and did a Chemical ex-
amination of a ground sample taken from the edge of the painting.
The ground was identińed as a thin layer of lead white on oil or tempera binding.
Kozłowski rightly notices that this has an influence on the radiograph, he also stresses
an innovatory way of this type of grounding compared to popular in those times in
Italy gypsum-glue ground (gesso). He forms a hypothesis that the support grounded
in this way was a basis for a composition painted initially in a tempera techniąue. He
also notices the alteration consisting in painting over embroidery on the left sleeve
done by Leonardo himself. Kozłowski discovers in the bottom left corner a signature
which he examines from a graphological point of view and studies it carefully in UV.
He notices similarity of the way of writing letters L and V compared to other preserved
7 K. Estreicher, Portret Damy z łasice} Leonarda da Vinci, “Biuletyn Historii Sztuki” 1952, vol. 14,
no 4, p. 10.
8 R. Kozłowski, Aneks, “Rozprawy i Sprawozdania Muzeum Narodowego w Krakowie” [2] 1952 (1954),
pp. 31-34.