Discoveries from Conserving Jan Gossart's Netherlandish Renaissance Paintings
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ต.ค. 2010
- Learn more about the exhibition Man, Myth, and Sensual Pleasures: Jan Gossart's Renaissance on view at the Met October 6, 2010--January 17, 2011: tinyurl.com/JanGossart
The first major exhibition in forty-five years devoted to the Burgundian Netherlandish artist Jan Gossart (ca. 1478-1532) will bring together Gossart's paintings, drawings, and prints and place them in the context of the art and artists that influenced his transformation from Late Gothic Mannerism to the new Renaissance mode. Gossart was among the first northern artists to travel to Rome to make copies after antique sculpture and introduce historical and mythological subjects with erotic nude figures into the mainstream of northern painting. Most often credited with successfully assimilating Italian Renaissance style into northern European art of the early sixteenth century, he is the pivotal Old Master who changed the course of Flemish art from the Medieval craft tradition of its founder, Jan van Eyck (ca. 1380/90--1441), and charted new territory that eventually led to the great age of Peter Paul Rubens (1577--1640).
Correction:
Karen Thomas, Associate Conservator, Department of Paintings Conservation
Producer and Director: Christopher Noey
Editor: Kate Farrell
Digital Images and Animation: Paul Caro
Camera: Wayne De La Roche, Jessica Glass
Sound Recording: David Raymond
Production Assistants: Sarah Cowan, Robin Schwalb
So contrary to the outrage in the comments, On the Portrait of a Man and Detail, it appears that the crest was applied through over-painting at a later time and was not originally a part of the painting, instead the shadow uncovered by its removal during the conservation process was intentional: the shadow cast by the subject of the portrait. I was also confused about why it seemed that they would paint over something if it was original to the work.
I'm learning a stunning amount of history from both the Met's and British National Gallery curator talks. Especially details of the painting restoration processes. What a terrific TH-cam use. Thanks so much.
The crest was added later and was not a part of the artist’s intention. When you restore a painting you are to restore it to the artists intention and that’s what they did. If you have a problem with that, just be glad you’re not an elite expert in this field (like these people are)
It is subjective. There isn't one expert position on the stage of restoration. It is usually the client he makes the decision.
Was the coat of arms a later addition? When was it added? Why did they remove it? A false patron attribution is still interesting, how was it covered up?
Wow, Gossart uses similar techniques to da Vinci, especially the fabric and sfumato shading. Interesting that he was da Vinci’s contemporary.
Very interesting. Amazing what one can learn from modern art forensics and nondestructive analysis.
It does make the viewer feel informed when you share little tidbits with us.bthanks.
☺ *I can just imaging Gossart seeing us discover all his little quirks within the paintings... Would he be pleased, I wonder; or would he feel as if someone had read his diary?* 😊
People don’t seem to realise that the coat of arms was basically the equivalent of "This belongs to Bob" of that time. Geez, pay more attention.
I don't understand your condescension on this. The speaker does not make that clear, so many people are legitimately confused and alarmed at what appears to be a revision of the original work.
@@ideasmatter4737 that's the issue with the internet, people watch a video and assume they know better than the professionals behind it.
hilarious...
@@ujlt7198 No one said they know better than the professionals. We just want a clearer explanation.
I feel like I have seen the Christ on a Cold Stone as a much larger painting. I believe it was a jigsaw puzzle. There were many more people, architectural elements and such. I will have to see if I can locate it.
I like how it was restored.
A master indeed skin tones
@songplugger
Thanks for the info.
Flemish Painters ! the best !
Extraordinary
Yeah, got to hand it to the Flems.
Your watermark made me think my display was damaged.
Portrait of a Man ... extraordinary.
6:22 his face melting
So much over painting on that sleeve. It absolutely did not need to be over painted that badly.
Soooooo tracing and wholesale referencing without crediting isn't a new thing in art? @deviantArt
That's a gorgeous restoration
Not surprised the last painting was dismissed as not being by Gossart. Looks like it was painted by an artist who couldn't do faces.
A conservator doesn't have the right to remove a coat of arms. The painter put it there and you have no right to remove it. If someone other than the painter put it there it would be a different matter.
Did you even watch the video?
J-Goss rulz
That covered up coat of arms annoys the shit out of me. Even if it's not supposed to be there since it was a later added 'false identity', they could've done a bit of a better job with covering it up. Now it's just a dark spot with a straight edge instead of a bit more lighter green shining around the figure like the rest of the background.
I agree completely. As a student of Art HISTORY - with the definition of history being what things really were - I was appalled. The idea of restoring and conservation is to keep the artist's work as he created it, whether you think it was distracting from the painting is besides the point. I am shocked this procedure to remove the coat-of-arms was allowed. The installation plaque could have easily explained the "false coat-of-arms". Unbelievable. The museum should be ashamed.
That ‘dark spot’ is actually an existing shadow. You can see he tone and straight edge of it even prior to varnish removal.... they simply restored that area to its original state
Probably whatever weird rothschild cousin owns the met covered it up because it was an ancient family enemy
I agree, but restorations are done after a layer of varnish is applied, which means any changes made can be removed because the original is protected.
Yes. It also annoys me, because, even if it was not part of the original painting, it is part of the paint's history.
I'm probably wrong but it occurs to me that these artists knew that their paintings would become varnished and painted accordingly.
Notice how everyone is vary pale looking restored but looks almost normal in flesh tones before restoration ?
Pale skin was just the beauty standard of those times.
It is completely subjective where to restore to. There is no "expert" position on that, and it is usually the client hat makes that decision. The expertise is in the how, and why and the pros and cons of those decisions.
when you forget the word ‘Dutch’
The coving up of the coat of arms seemed poorly realized. There must have been a better solution than adding a very dark area is to noticeable
If you look in the original version, you can see the shadow moves into the figure, and the light green halo doesn't continue. They restored it to the way it was before.
GIve me GIve me GIve me
de Abba, creo que les gusta esa canción, .bien amarretes no dan nada y no lo digo por el europeo, ,
No dan nada y exigen.eata caída la entrada a las.galerias,
?
Serás mi marido mi sobrino, mi cliente no se
Perdemos todos, punto
I'm horrified they would paint something out the artist intended to be integral (unless they decided someone else added it?) Just because it's a false coat of arms doesn't make its provenance interesting. It clearly looks now like a black hole, and presents with an uncomfortable, albeit subtle feeling of something wrong. Butchers!
Yes it was added later. They don't remove original artist's work, that's not how restoration works. They discovered the coat of arms was the work of a previous restorer.
As a student of Art HISTORY - with the definition of history being what things really were - I was appalled. The idea of restoring and conservation is to keep the artist's work as he created it, whether you think it was distracting from the painting is besides the point. I am shocked this procedure to remove the coat-of-arms was allowed. The installation plaque could have easily explained the "false coat-of-arms". Unbelievable. The museum should be ashamed they would allow something of this nature to occur. It is difficult to watch the narrator so blithely explain it all away as if she was an interior designer or something...what's next? Changing the length of the sitter's nose?
your undergrad classes in art history are failing you. the coat of arms is not part of the original painting, it is overpainting added later by someone hoping to claim the subject as an ancestor. whoever taught you research methods is failing you.
Even if the crest was added on at a later date and wasn't the artists original intention, does it not add to the history of the piece? Like how labels from auctions and dealers etc. are often conserved on the back of the piece. therefore it should not be 'covered up' no matter the effect. Then again it is basically old graffiti.
No, it does not
so if i walked up to a medieval tapestry and drew bart simpson on it, that would now be an important part of the painting's history that needs to be preserved? they can 'preserve' the overpainting added with extensive photography of the piece, which they did. this is the met, not kinkos.
With art, as with music, there's a tremendous amount of snobbery.
.
Conservation?This is butchery of the highest order, what gives them the right to edit out a part of the original composition which was part of the artists intention in the work. Lets just start painting over anything we dont like in an artwork.
It wasn't in the original painting, or they would not have removed it. Conservators can figure out which parts of the painting were added later.
Yes, but a lot of restorators dont remove things like that since they are part of the paintings history and in most cases can tull as a lot about the paintings history and the world around that time. Paintings like that aren t just nice paintings they are historical sources and you don t see historians going around and changing texts because they think the writing could be better or because the people of that time liked to give god or the gods credit for a lot of things.
R4IN Xs There is a difference between conservation and restoration. Restorers don't remove the things that show the history of the object. Conservators try as much as they can to "fix" the object to be what the original intention was.
@@r4inxs510 actually it's not so much the historians but the governments do change the histories
R4IN Xs , the coat of arms was removed because it was incorrect, and was not the coat of arms for the sitter. Often in restoration they do leave older additions, but once again, this was an incorrect addition and for history’s sake (and the artist’s original intention) it was removed.
I disagree with the covering of the heraldry.
I guess it's one of those damned if you do, damned if you dont decisions, I guess it's down to whether you consider it to be a valid part of the history of the work.... some will think it is, others will take a different view... I'm gonna safely sit on the fence... 😀
I know the coat of arms was added later, but it was harsh to cut it out.
The area left behind looks improperly done and very unprofessionally finished. You were missing that lighter tone so it just looks like a awkward shadow.
Cutting out the coat of arms removes the history it had. It may be the wrong coat of arms but the history about it gives it significant value to the piece.
Look at other Gossart paintings. They intentionally have dark shadows behind the sitter.
does anyone else feel that while the paintings are "cleaner" after restoration, they seem to lose some "personality" which that old varnish gave them??
Nope. Just you.
I thought that one of the first rules of art conservation was NOT to add personal interpritation to a painting. How these conservation experts could assume that the coat of arms did not belong and cover it up is appauling to say the least. There is no justification, none what so ever for what they did.
they aren't 'assuming.' they are using their education and testing to determine which elements were part of the original painting and which were overpainted later. they also have volumes of history of the provenance, ownership, location, etc. history of the painting like all museums have about the work in their collection.
this isn’t real either....
WAIT, WAIT I thought your were “Restorers” and not the painter! Removing the coat of arms was wrong. We know not why it was there!! FORSHAME!
@Chiriac Puiu so if i walked up to the mona lisa and signed my name to it, it shouldn't be removed because that is now part of the painting's history? because that's basically what someone did.
READ the comments and LISTEN to the video!
Fascinating process. Bad art.
No, you are wrong. Superb art - perfect for it's time.
Who are you to cover up the coat of arms whether it's his or not. Shame on you people
wft. this is photoshop!
Is this conservation?? I don't think so! Dislike from me!
Next up: ''we decided that Mona Lisa's hair wasn't quite right so we removed it''. I thought conserving means saving? Barbarism.
It wasn't by the artist though, it was added on my someone else at a later date.
Seriously, does anyone actually watch the video? It was ADDED LATER.
Transvestite? Is that a painting of a transgender?
So, you ignore the Artist's vision and arbitrarily PAINT OVER a portion of the canvas you don't agree with!
It wasn't the artist's vision, it was added at a later date by someone else. It can be argued that it's still a part of the painting and should be left there, but it's certainly wasn't the artist's intention.
GOOD WORK !