A Tale of Two Pictures

What does it mean when an art historian changes his or her mind about an attribution? On the one hand, it might demonstrate flexibility and open-mindedness; on the other, it could indicate vacillation and even invite speculation about the scholar’s ability to judge the work of art. Of course there’s the practical aspect: new evidence emerges which might prompt a re-assessment of the case. Bernard Berenson changed his mind all the time; the lists he drew up of Italian renaissance paintings were subject to continual revision.[1]

Attributed to Leonardo da Vinci, Portrait of a Woman, “La Belle Ferronière”, Louvre, Paris, about 1493-4, oil on walnut panel, 63 x 45 cm.

 

Revised edition of Clark’s Leonardo book.

Perhaps one of the most glaring examples of a revision was made by Berenson’s student Kenneth Clark. In earlier editions of his ground-breaking monograph on Leonardo, Clark attributed the Louvre version of the picture known as La Belle Ferronière- now in the landmark Leonardo show- to his pupil Boltraffio. This was pointed out by John Brewer in his interesting discussion of Clark’s role in the fortunes of La Belle Ferronière- both versions in his important book. As Brewer observed, in the 1939 and 1952 editions of the monograph, Clark wrote “It is reasonable to suppose that Leonardo, occupied in multifarious commissions for the Sforzas allowed this promising youth [Boltraffio] to complete work from his designs, and that under his guidance the pupil achieved a delicacy absent from his later, independent work.” This comes after Clark has said “Some such hypothesis seems necessary if we are to explain the authorship of the painting in the Louvre, known as La Belle Ferronière.” I’ve quoted this as it appears in Brewer’s book because my copy, which is 1958, says something completely different, which was noted by Brewer. After analysing the Louvre painting, including noting its “commonplace pose” and comparing it to Lorenzo Costa- a minor Ferrarese painter- Clark concluded with this orotund pronouncement. “No one who prefers truth to finality should be dogmatic about La Belle Ferronière, but I am now inclined to think that the picture is by Leonardo, and shows how in those years he was willing to subdue his genius to the needs of the court.”

[2]

Lord Clark on Civilization.

Brewer is the first to point out not the change of mind per se, but the fact that it is not pointed out to the reader.[3] Of course this could be Clark writing for the cognoscenti, and expecting them to pick up on the changes invisible to the un-initiated; however, his Leonardo monograph- quite rightly so- has found a much wider readership outside the charmed circle of connoisseurs and experts, yet many people remain ignorant of the original Boltraffio attribution. Brewer confessed himself puzzled by this volte-face, but I prefer to see it as reticence on Clark’s part to assign the portrait to Leonardo. The comment about subduing his genius to the needs of the court is hardly a ringing endorsement of the painting, and it must be remembered that Clark initially quoted Berenson’s weary words: “one would regret to have to accept this as Leonardo’s own work.” Berenson was never fond of the Milanese school anyway, and dismissed Leonardo’s imitators like Boltraffio, professing interest only in Leonardo’s share of their work, not the intrinsic qualities of their own. Berenson rued the day that Leonardo had come to Milan, and fervently wished he had stayed in Florence. Milanese painting would then have evolved differently, probably turning into an outpost of Venetian or Brescian painting.The School would have culminated in Veronese rather than Luini.[4] I don’t think Berenson would have liked the London show at all!

Unknown artist, possibly 17th century French, Portrait of a Woman, “La Belle Ferronière”, Private Collection, USA.

Although Brewer was nonplussed by Clark’s turnaround, he did introduce a cautious hypothesis: Clark who had been studying photographs of the American Leonardo, the “Hahn Leonardo” might have been swayed by them into a reassessment. Perhaps Clark’s “acquaintanceship with photographs in 1956 and his knowledge that the picture was on the market led to his revaluation.”[5] At this time Clark found himself in the middle of an attribution war orchestrated by Maurits van Dantzig, the founder of “pictology” and nemesis of art historians-see my review of Brewer’s book. Van Dantzig who had visited the London Leonardos in the N.G. in 1957, and circulated copies of pages of Clark’s Leonardo book in order to highlight the change of mind, worked with Frank Glenn who’d helped Harry Hahn publish his Rape of La Belle in 1946. Glenn and Van Dantzig were obviously trying to get the painting sold, hence their pursuit of expert opinion. To cut a long and labyrinthine story short, Van Dantzig finally turned to his friend Helmut Ruhemann, the “father of picture cleaning” to make representations to Kenneth Clark about the Hahn La Belle, which had now been brought to Europe. Ruhemann met Clark in June, 1958, and the plan was to persuade Clark to help with negotiations with the Louvre who had agreed to the showing of both pictures side by side- behind closed doors- way back in 1923. Everybody in the Hahn camp was gearing up for a sale, but Van Dantzig’s death in 1960 threw the strategy out of balance, though his wife took up the cause and tried to arrange a meeting with top officials of the London N.G. as well as Ruhemann. One would have to endorse Sir Philip Hendy’s declaration, who on seeing the picture in London on the 13^th May, 1960 cried “not a Leonardo!” Despite Ella van Dantzig’s consternation, Hendy was unfailingly polite and very gracious, impressing the widow by giving her and a daughter a masterclass with the Hahn “Leonardo” next to the Virgin of the Rocks, though one would hardly need that to see the difference. Ella van Dantzig’s remembrance of the encounter with Hendy are worth repeating. “He thought it was very pretty, and was much prettier than the picture in the Louvre. But it was not a Leonardo.”

Art Historian’s disguise kit.

Despite this major setback, Ruhemann continued his charm offensive on Clark which would result in Clark actually seeing the picture under conditions of secrecy. Responding to Ruhemann, Clark asked if he could “slip” into the NG one day, without anybody seeing him, in disguise. It emerged years later via a letter from Clark that he had actually gone to see the Hahn La Belle when it was in London; and that he had worn a disguise, swearing the restorer who showed it him to secrecy! I would expect Anthony Blunt to get involved in this cloak and dagger stuff, but Clark! Was he ashamed to admit interest in the picture?

Laurent de La Hyre, Allegory of Grammar, London, National Gallery, 1650, oil on canvas, 103 x 113 cm

Ruhemann was to persist with the Louvre over the Hahn La Belle, but that’s another story. Meanwhile, Clark was done with the picture. He said in a letter to Ruhemann that he was “completely convinced” that the Louvre La Belle was “the original of the Fifteenth-Century, and the Hahn picture a post-Raphaelesque copy.” Brewer notes that Clark still doesn’t say the Louvre version is by Leonardo. Interestingly, when Martin Kemp examined the Hahn Leonardo in 1993, in its sealed vault in Omaha, he judged it “probably a northern European copy of the first half of the second century, perhaps by the French academician, Laurent de La Hyre.[6] This apparently, conformed with the view of Duveen’s cohort of connoisseurs. Thinking about it, this seems a good call to me. La Hyre is a graceful, “sweet” painter, but this is offset by his drawing which relies heavily on the contour. His line is sharp, sometimes too much so, which lends his pictures an air of the studied academicism rather than naturalism. La Hyre, like the painter of the Hahn La Belle, is an exponent of line drawing rather than mass drawing. Though there is shading, it’s seldom allowed to blur his edges. It’s difficult to mount a comparison, but you’ll get an idea of La Hyre’s style from his Allegory of Grammar in the London National Gallery. I’m not saying definitely that the Hahn La Belle is by La Hyre, or in his style. That’s a question that might be resolved in the future, although that seems increasingly unlikely with the Hahn Leonardo buried in a private collection.

As a coda, in his very well researched entry on the Louvre La Belle, in the catalogue to the current London exhibition, Luke Syson refers briefly to the attribution issues bound up with this painting, stating that “the picture has been regularly removed from Leonardo’s corpus of fully autograph pictures, assigned wholly or in part to a pupil or follower, most frequently Boltraffio.” This of course brings us back to Clark and his intriguing revision of the 1950s, in a book where he stated that Leonardo was willing to subdue his genius to “the needs of the court” in order to paint pictures such as the Louvre La Belle Ferronière, assuming he did paint it.[7]

---

[1] See David Alan Brown’s catalogue to the exhibition, Berenson and the Connoisseurship of Italian Painting, (Washington, 1979), 43-4.

[2] Kenneth Clark, Leonardo da Vinci: An account of his development as an Artist, (London, 1958), 56-7.

[3] Brewer, The American Leonardo, 297.

[4] Bernard Berenson, Italian Painters of the Renaissance: Vol. 1, Venetian and North Italian Schools, (London, 1952), 87-8.

[5] Brewer, The American Leonardo, 197.

[6] As reported in Brewer, The American Leonardo, 349.

[7] Luke Syson in Leonardo da Vinci: Painter at the Court of Milan, (NG, 2011), no. 17, 123.

Comments

[HNiyazi]

Interesting post David. Clark's time with Berenson was relatively short, and not without its disagreements it seems. There is some charm in reading these old attribution reports, I find Morelli a good guide for how to look at anatomical structures, but the jumps in logic that occur in many of the attribution seem to take place within the mind of the author, and often not elaborated very clearly in the text - as in this instance with Clark and the Louvre piece.

Speaking of attributions, how about that 'new' Julius II that was announced today by the Staedel!? I was wondering how long it would take before Raphael popped up again...!

H

[Francis DeStefano]

It makes you wonder about the Art history profession when Berenson and Clark could put people off the track of Milanese art for over a century. In my study of Titian's Sacred and Profane Love I was struck by the similarities between Titian's Magdalens and those of Milanese followers of Leonardo.

Frank

[Lingzhi Toxin Tea]

A Tale of Two Pictures - Art History Today

[2 Day Diet]

--

[lida pills]

A Tale of Two Pictures - Art History Today

[frutaplanta]

A Tale of Two Pictures - Art History Today

[Fruta Planta]

A Tale of Two Pictures - Art History Today