This is the final post in the series of research reports on the enigmatic and controversial Judgment of Paris- apologies for the delay. The technical research is organized under various headings, some with sub-divisions.
| Judgment of Paris, att to Raphael, 1512, Private Collection, U.K. |
1. General introduction to technology used in scientific examination of Judgment of Paris
As this is a scientific report, and in order to establish the credentials of the author of the report, I think it’s only fair to introduce the post with a statement about Graeme Cameron’s professional background, and his expertise in the technical examination of paintings, which seems to have been questioned in some quarters. What follows is guided heavily by Graeme's scientific expertise, and is virtually verbatim. I don’t have anything like Graeme's technical expertise, just quietly added my voice at times, when I thought it appropriate.
Graeme Cameron’s Technical & Scientific Research Background
The scientific and technical investigative analysis of Old Master paintings in research projects, was an important specialty of the author’s multi-disciplinary background, complimenting his documentary and connoisseurship approach to the restitution of lost art works. This commenced in the United Kingdom in the late 1970’s, where he was much assisted in this area by the facilities of the University of London’s, noted Courtauld Institute, through the auspices of the leading British scholar, Mr. Christopher Wright FRS and by Sir Robert Bruce Gardner, the head of the institute’s Conservation Department.
Graeme Cameron also conducted additional independent scientific investigations using X-Radiography, infra-red, microscopy, macro photography and paint chip section analysis, etc. whilst in the United Kingdom over four years, which continues today.
As a consequence in the mid 1990’s, he was invited by Professor John Miller of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University’s Department of Physics, to perform a senior guest lecturing role in this specialist area of the sciences, conducting tutorials and subject exams in the methods and developing role of scientific techniques employed in today’s art research and attribution investigations.
He was earlier Conference Guest Speaker on this topic of “The Use of Scientific Techniques in Art Research”, at the International Conference of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons in Sydney, Australia in the late 1990’s, by invitation of its Professor President.
Surface probing systems
Two scientific technologies were employed to analyse the painting’s sub surface, which revealed extensive compositional alterations, as noted in the volume, The Secrets of Leonardo da Vinci, Vol. 1.
These revealed not only the usual few “pentimenti”, but many major changes of Raphael’s created whilst refining his original concept of the legend. These findings eclipsed any that Cameron had witnessed over the past four decades conducting such investigative research. Such significant compositional changes confirmed the artist had used the sub surface of his composition as he would a sketching board. Only through technology can we now view his unique, multi- staged original creative development of this pivotal composition.
This extensive development of the composition from its initial concept, comes direct from the great artist’s mind, and is a rare event to witness in the field of Renaissance paintings research.
Infra-red Reflectography Scanning
In 2002, twelve detailed scans were undertaken at The University of Melbourne’s, technical analysis facility for art works, providing some remarkable findings of the painting’s sub surface, which first revealed this unique staged genesis of the composition.
| Both Infra-red and Vega Scans of sections, whole image showing the many significant head, garment and hand compositional changes. | Both infra-red and Vega Scans of Goddesses body sections. |
Two infra-red sections of Goddess Body Sections.
The most significant of these were the four major changes of both the position, dress and of the physiognomy of the face, of the seated figure of “Paris”. Likewise those of three significant changes to the dog’s position and other primary alterations were observed, including those to both of “Paris’s hands. See detailed discussion and other images of scans below.
VegaScan Deeper Sub surface Scanning
| VegaScan of pentimenti of 4 body position, dress and face changes to Raphael figure. |
A decade following the Infra-red reflectology scans, an advanced new scanning method developed by Cameron, the VegaScan system, was used to further reveal these known sub surface features, and search for further alterations.
Whilst the technology is still subject to proprietary restrictions, this adaptive scanning process, achieves the spectral sublimation of a primary image’s layers, by sequentially dissolving from the surface image, through its various constituent layers, to reveal its original deep sub surface base components. In simple terms, it is a technical way of peeling off the various upper layers of the paintng, (like an onion), to reveal the compostion’s deeper sub surface features.
These clearer scans further assisted the viewing and interpretation of the known major creative changes and importantly revealed that “Mercury”, in the top right corner, was originally lower and only one third of the size, than seen today on the finished surface.
| location of inverted modello. |
2. Condition of Painting.
Examination of craquelure reveals
| detail showing craquelure |
There is volume loss present, consistent with 16thC Renaissance works; there is also shrinkage, very fine rectangular 16thC cracquelure, again consistent with works from this period.Initial Glazing layers are the original layers.
In 1980, ultra violet testing in London likewise confirmed there has been no alterations or intrusions or retouching performed and that the time yellowed balsamic glazes exhibited the usual indications of the deep opaque green of original varnish.
It should also be noted that for approximately two centuries or possibly more, this painting remained fully protected behind a framed glass surround, quite rare method usually reserved for watercolours rather than protecting oil paintings. Thus the vanish darkening effects, especially of 19thC Victorian coal fuelled fires has been averted.
Ultraviolet test reveals
Additional to remarks on varnish. This examination confirmed a dense cloudy green layer of extremely aged varnish over the entire surface of the painting with just a few tiny incidental losses having earlier been inpainted. This affirmed the physical observation that the work’s final surface glazing(s) had experienced minimal past cleaning or other interference, and are remarkably close to their original status.
The aged varnish imparts a patinated hue to the painting’s s surface and is particularly evident in the golden glow of the nude goddesses' bodies. In 1854 Gustave Waagen referred to this as,“the warmest golden tones”. Through this craquelure however other fresher colours and more natural pink flesh tones are readily discernible. In his Titian to1518, pp 99, Joannides had observed a very similar phenomenon in respect to the broadly contemporary Giorgione/Titian “Pastoral Concert” painting, where he refers to, “layers of dirty and coloured varnish give it crespuscular warmth and subdued harmomy”.. “and its colour relations were once sharper brighter and more emphatic..” Over the considerable period since such finish(es) were finally applied, they had developed the expected fine, regular pattern of craquelure, resultant from their gradual hardening and consequent shrinkage from volume loss, of their naturally derived volatile balsamic constituents. Beneath these, can be evidenced the deeper, wider craquelure and fissuring of the original painted surface, caused likewise by this ageing process. Thus it still remains as Waagen had earlier noted in 1854, “in excellent preservation”, much due to its long unbroken provenance from 1770 – 1952 with successive Earls of Malmesbury whilst also having been protected behind glass, from 18th -19thC coal laden city atmospheres, in provincial Malmesbury. Giorgione/Titian, Concert Champetre, Louvre, 1508-9.
3. Pigment Analysis.
Microscopy
It is intended for gas chromatographic pigment analysis to be performed, as with the Holbein, however earlier attempts to have this arranged were unable to proceed due to prior commitments of the laboratory contacted. Initial microscopic visual analysis at 250x revealed crystalline structures of the pigments, consistent with those of other early 16thC works.
Lapis – not yet determined but is either this or Azurite.
Azurite – not yet determined but is either this or Lapis
Perhaps glass powder – It should be stated that glass powder appears restricted to Raphael’s earlier Florentine works, and it is recalled that Jill Dunkerton (of the scientific dept. at the NG) actually admitted it was not definitive, as both this pigment and Raphael’s base grounds were both widely variable.
Ridolofi’s remarks.
Ridolfi, Title-page Le maraviglie dell’ Arte ovvero, Le vite degli Illustri Pittori Veneti and dello Stato, 1648.
Ridolofi’s citing is critically important as few paintings carry Ridolfi’s rare imprimatur and connoisseurship expertise. There is the other conjoint fact well worth citing that just as today in 2012 we can quite easily determine an 1850’s Victorian painting by its cracquelure and aged appearance, so in 1648 it would have been just as easy for Ridolfi to discern the painting had all the same age characteristics of a circa 1510 example.
Secondly, any advanced pigment testing would still only age the painting to around Ridolfi’s 1648 period and backwards, as the same pigments were used over that same 150 year period, and no test can yet differentiate within that one and a half century timeline. Therefore his unique visual 1648 on site evaluation is a more valid confirmation of this painting early 16thC dating, with the additional imprimatur of his acknowledged connoisseurship credentials of knowing many significant master’s paintings, and attesting to their primacy, even if he understandably gave this in Venice to Giorgione and not Raphael, for the earlier mentioned valid reasons.
4. Alterations and substitutions
Underdrawing
Vega Scans revealing a “modello” of a Madonna. below, magnification of vega scans revealing different layers.
A fascinating additional subsurface feature of significance was also revealed during these investigations, which would further support Raphael’s authorship of the painting. This is a finely detailed Study, Modello colorito, albeit just 12cm sq. approx, in an inverted position at the end of the right goddesses robe, for a exquisite Madonna and Child composition. The Madonna has her hair half covered by a light headdress, with a trailing piece to the rear, and is garbed in a white blouse with ballooning shoulders, contrasted with darker armbands over the upper arms, (which from the density scale of its Infra-red colour values are most probably in red). Over this white blouse is a darker “V” necked tunic, (which due to its much darker colour value is probably in the blue range), with white ballooning sleeves at the Virgin’s wrists.
| magnification of Vegascan showing buried modello. |
She cradles the figure of the infant Christ against her right breast, but significantly, it can also be discerned that she is holding a small darker rectangular (Bible) book in her right hand, which she is reading from, perhaps whilst suckling the infant Christ. The composition has a distant city background with walled buildings, one larger one with a dome and tower with a spire, and also a broad sky. Her exposed left arm comes up under the infant’s right arm, whilst her Right hand is just visible above his left shoulder, holding the book. It appears this fully painted study was for an unrealised Madonna and Child project as it differs from any of Raphael’s known executed Madonnas.
The various deep subsurface “invisible” images captured range between just 2 and 12 kb in size and are in a very deep nanometer 25,000+ range, being reproduced through combined Infra-red with advanced surface scanning technology, and the resultant composition is only just discernible through, the final scans offering the best image resolution. Its detailing and qualities appear quite consistent with Raphael’s other productions from this period. The composition shares similarities with the contemporary, Alba Madonna, and since she is holding the small Bible, also has links with his earlier 1507 Colonna Madonna, now in Berlin. However in this rendition the Madonna is portrayed in a different posture to either of these, which suggest it represents a unique new creation from Raphael’s early Roman period. There is a separate seated Infant study to the Left of this, looking away from this composition, and various other minor pentimenti and alteration Alba Madonna, National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1509-10. Colonna Madonna, Gemäldegalerie, Berlin, c. 1507.
Its existence on this work’s sub surface indicate it to be an original draft composition for a Madonna & Child subject from the period. Interestingly, under infra-red the inverted foreground robe reveals an underlying boat, scoop or cradle shape.
The under drawing is substantial and quite unprecedented in his oeuvre. This painting represents Raphael’s most innovative example in a ‘private work’ of the “Venetian oil on canvas alteration technique”, as demonstrated in Giorgione’s ‘The Tempest’, eg. where the focal nude figure was substantially shifted. In the Judgment of Paris composition, Raphael uses the original sub surface for both major compositional changes and minor figural improvements, as the concept is developed to its final surface appearance. He would have learned of these techniques from Marcantonio, who had worked with both Giorgione and Titian in Venice, and also from observing Piombo whilst working with him in the Farnesina Gallery.
Major Changes and their Implications.
There are three major alterations and substitutions that Raphael has made to the original conception that were initially revealed by Infra-red spectography carried out at the University of Melbourne’s, Ian Potter Centre for Art Research, by Mr. Sean Loughrey MA and later at the authors advanced scanning facility.
These alterations included:
| Vega scans. Section A shows four different face and position changes, as they advance from the tree. Section B shows the two upper and lower hand positions, and a forefinger extension. |
| Shallower vega scan revealing final changes to the composition, which occur as “pentimenti” nearer the surface than the other three Vega Scans. In section A, the hand has 2 position changes and is downturned with a golden apple partly visible. The four faces changes are also evident. In section B the dog has had 3 very significant changes of its position, moving down with Paris away from the centre, being originally seated right next to “Fornarina.” |
1. Changes to the ‘moment of Judgement’ of The Judgement of Paris episode, and consequential changes to the hands, both in their gesture and function, with substitutions of the Golden Apple award. The hand in the original hooded figure- see below for remarks on dress- was originally upturned and offering the Golden Apple seen within it, not pointing as in the last two versions. This means that in the so-called original “Shepherd” images, no “Apple” was in his lower clenched hand.
| Detail showing later Mercury departing after Paris’s decision. |
This reading is also supported by changes noted to the figure of Mercury who was originally conceived as a small, foreshortened figure in the sky, floating above the “Judgement” scene at right angles to the picture plane. Raphael subsequently deleted this figure, by the addition of a cloud, and substituted it with a far more significant and detailed Mercury figure, in a twisting pose, diagonal to the picture plane, departing the scene below. He looks back across his shoulder to the unfolding drama taking place below. Mercury’s role and depiction has therefore changed from one of observer of the contest, to that of bearer of the news of Paris’s final Judgement decision to Mount Olympus. This substitution also functions as a clever perspective device to accentuate the strong triangulation of the composition, to the sky, while assisting the painting’s three dimensionality and its depth, relative to the planar focal figures.
2. The most important change is one which completely revises the narrative from the classical interpretation of the legend, as in the later collaborative engraving by Marcantonio, (after the antique sculptural friezes), into an early 16thc Arcadian nude posie painting of love, in the contemporary Venetian manner. See post 3 of this series for a detailed discussion of this. This change transforms the painting’s concept from its traditional rendition, into the artist’s personal painting of love, and only known visual declaration of their joint devotion.
5. Dating
Sub-surface-see the above remarks on Ridolfi.
Age and date concordances scientifically confirmed dress by dendrochronology.
Raphael’s portrait. Physiognomic Age specific images. Raphael's countenance, which as proven by its subsurface pentimenti, was added into the composition to join that of Fornarina, and is also a unique portrayal, in that it is not a copy of any previously known image of him, either in its dress or "type", It too is an "Age and Date specific "original" portrait like Fornarina's of 1512. His physiognomy is consistent with that of "Stanza" version, with the garb datable to this period, however he is clearly younger and in better health than seen in the 1519 joint portrait. None of these could be claimed as "chance" likenesses but were purpose created portraits for this painting.
| Faces of Raphael. Stanza self-portrait (1509-10); Judgment self-portrait (1512); self-portrait with a Friend, (1518) |
Fornarina’s portrait. The Fornarina is clearly a more naive and youthful portrayal than any previously known image of her and is therefore neither a copy nor any "chance resemblance", but a unique visage of her in 1512. It is self evidently an "Age and Date” specific portrait, which most accurately records her actual physiognomy at that time, which may well include her naked countenance, from this original sitting.Accurate portraits are difficult enough to create, yet both these are finely wrought, true to life renditions and dateable to Rome in 1512.It is his first portrayal of the young Fornarina’s portrait image in Rome, completed in the year 1512, but probably commenced in 1511.
| Faces of Fornarina. Judgment (1512); Sistine Madonna (1513); “La Donna Velata” (1516). |
6. Forensic
Anatomical
Raphael’s body type; concordant facial Comparisons.
Physiognomic
Ears and feet; physiological concordances.
Craniological
Similarities with Raphael’s exhumed skull and consequently proposed facial features; the ear of Venus is comparable with Raphaels other contemporary portrayal of ears The very distinctive “Raphaelesque Feet’ are quite comparable with his other portrayals and show a remarkable concordance.
Crainiometric comparison and forensic analysis is hoped to be undertaken at a future time to compare the now established visual concordances. Readers might like to know that interest in Raphael’s skull dates back to the early modern period. What was thought to be Raphael’s skull was adorned with laurels by the Accademia di San Luca, but subsequent investigations revealed it to be that of a sixteenth-century canon at the Pantheon. The search for Raphael’s bones reflected a period interested in the science of craniology and craniometry, a story that David Allan Brown and Jane van Nimmen tell in their book on The Bindo Altoviti portrait, once thought to be a self-portrait, but now known to be a portrait of the renaissance banker.
Costume/dress
| Detail of Judgment and Portrait of Agnolo Doni, 1506, Galleria Palatina (Palazzo Pitti), Florence. | |
7. Monogrammatic
It would appear that through his contact with Leonardo during his formative years, Raphael became familiar with Da Vinci’s monogramme signing traits. Some of these are present in the Malmesbury Judgment of Paris. They are manifested as signature devices, being multiple monogrammes and dates for the year 1512. A 1512 date is inscribed within the fabric headband of the central goddess, a method that Raphael is known to have used in another work.
| As per GC’s book. |
A further group of both 1512 date and monogramme is set within the Golden Apple. Two other “Rv” monogrammes are on the upper chest and within the crotch area of both goddesses, a cogent example of Raphael’s known approach, to his personal relationships as the “lothario” lover.
As per GC’s book.
There appears a just decipherable “R” monogramme or character on the collar of the dog at Paris’s side, along with other “meaningless” decorative inscriptions, (Gould), or perhaps (Cufic) writing as discussed in Rona Goffen’s 2003, “Designer Labels article. It is noted that Raphael’s earlier St George panel (1505), has an inscription on the horse’s bridle.
8. Future technical analysis
It is intended that further X-Radiographic, Spectrographic Pigment Sampling, Macro Surface Studies, and other relevant examinations be undertaken in the near future, to provide additional scientific corroboration to the definitive findings already established from the above examinations.
Canvas support analysis – Future testing handy – but likewise not really definitive. Also needs 1510 comparisons and other museum results support, which is never forthcoming and usually denied.
9. Finishing Up
Just as a painting is never really finished- you can always come back to it and re-touch it, or re-view it in the light of something new, so this debate is likely to go on. Though this series is officially finished, there will be a unstructured catch-all summary post in which issues raised can be re-visited and elaborated upon. I know that Graeme Cameron wants to amplify certain points. Likewise, readers of this blog are invited to supply material for this round-up post; if you want to raise anything, offer an insight, a criticism, or anything that occurs to you after reading this or all the posts in this series, then contact AHT via e.mail or leave a comment here and I’ll integrate it into the post.
David Brown & Jane Van Nimmen, Raphael & the Beautiful Banker : the story of the Bindo Altoviti portrait, New Heaven [Conn.] ; London : Yale University Press, c2005.
Graeme Cameron, The Secrets of Leonardo da Vinci, Vol. 1, VegaScan, 2011.
Rona Goffen, Raphael’s Designer Labels : From the Virgin Mary to La Fornarina, Artibus et Historiae, Vol. 24, No. 48. (2003), pp. 123-142.
Cecil Gould, Raphael versus Giulio Romano : The Swing Back, The Burlington Magazine , Vol. 124, No. 953. (Aug., 1982), pp. 479-485+487.
Paul Joannides, Titian to 1518: The Assumption of Genius, Yale University Press, 2002.
Carlo Ridolfi, Le maraviglie dell’ Arte ovvero, Le vite degli Illustri Pittori Veneti and dello Stato, 1648.
Patricia Rubin, Signposts of Invention : Artists’ Signatures in Italian Renaissance Art, Art History 29 (4), 563-599.
Dr G Wagen,Treasures of Art in Great Britain, John Murray London (1854) pp. 416.
Fascinating. But if this is by Raphael, I'll eat my trousers.
Posted by: Bendor | 03/27/2012 at 11:23 AM
Thank you for the update David. Although I will not put it as colorfully as Bendor, I would re-iterate a desire to see an indepedent evaluation of the efficacy of the Vega-Scanning method. If the "proprietary restrictions" alluded to mean that Cameron has a vested or financial interest in the device, then an independent assay of its validity becomes even more pressing.
I am also still a little unclear as to whether these scans are applied to the original object or an image of it. Judging by the the fact that the Mona Lisa was also Vega-scanned, I am imagining not as the amount of times the Louvre lets that painting loose from its frame are few and far between. This would of course introduce a new set of variables and sources for error - namely does the information captured in a photograph truly represent the original object? This would be easy enough to test - by examining a original works as a control and images of these works as test subjects, and that the results and interpretation are reproducible across operators. This is the type of detail that I was hoping this technical summary would include. I hope it is clarified in future.
Kind Regards
H
Posted by: H Niyazi | 03/29/2012 at 06:03 PM
Bendor- That would be a sight!
H, I knew you were going to raise this issue. I'm sure Graeme will read this, and if he decides to relay his thoughts on it to me I'll incorporate it in the summary post.
Re Image and object, I assumed the VegaScan was of the original object,the painting- but again I'm giving GC the opportunity to respond to your questions.I have no idea what the situation is vis a vis the VegaScan and Mona Lisa.
Best- David
Posted by: David Packwood | 03/29/2012 at 08:09 PM
David:
Sorry for the late comment but I would again direct your attention to the "Rustic Idyll" attributed to Giorgione. You remember that I pointed out that the costume of the young man in that painting was remarkably similar to the one of Paris in the Judgment.
Now, you and Cameron see in the underpainting what is described as a unusual (for Raphael) Madonna and Child. I cannot see the details in the image you supply but your description fits that of the young woman with child in the Rustic Idyll.
Paris had an affair with the nymph Oenone and she bore him a son. You might want to include this in your round-up.
Frank
Posted by: Francis DeStefano | 04/06/2012 at 10:48 PM
I have wanted to post something like this on my site and you have given me an idea. Cheers.
Posted by: Quiteria Guardado Baeza | 04/21/2012 at 05:33 AM
The older lifesaver tag necklaces won't be engraved . All the run involved with Normal studies continues by Lingfield at May possibly 15 considering the Letheby and then Christopher Derby Free trial and also the totesport Oaks Trial samples respectively for this valid equipment in Epsom these tiffany sale month . Read > Women The Choice of Strapless Bras for Full Figured Women 20th November 2008 The term bra has become outdated to the point that there really is no use for the word . This is certainly true with the world-class Tiffany cheap tiffany sale name . Craft tiffany earrings sale and jewellery makers can conserve income on provide costs with wholesale charms . The exquisite design skill and unimaginable quality result in silver jewellery to the likes of necklaces, bracelets, earrings, cufflinks, rings which fulfill the highest demands in terms of aesthetics or quality . There is 3 diverse colorings tiffany jewellery sale on your behalf, pan-black, african american as well as dark . The Thomas Sabo silver jewellery collection from Thomas Sabo offers perfect accessories to match the current fashion tiffany charms sale trends.
Posted by: Robjba57 | 05/15/2013 at 08:59 PM
to serve an excellent set just
Posted by: Mascot blog | 07/06/2013 at 01:58 PM
in relation to 12L x Three.5W x 7H and features
Posted by: Mascot blog | 07/08/2013 at 09:31 PM