A Princess of Saxony

The painting is executed on a single piece of linden that was cut tangentially.[1]

[1] The wood was identified as linden (sp. Tilia) by Peter Klein, examination report, 29 September 1987, in NGA curatorial files.

[http://www.nga.gov/fcgi-bin/tinfo_f?object=33751&detail=tech] (accessed 11.02.2013)

Some pigments were identified using polarized light microscopy (PLM). [1] The orange fills on both paintings were identified as red lead with circa ten percent lead white addition. The black backgrounds were made with carbon black (bone black?). The mid-tone in the prince’ sleeve consists of vermillion and lead white. The same pigment mixture was found in the decoration on top of this layer. This is in contrast to the decoration on the sleeve of the princess painting, which is built up with vermillion mixed with lead-tin-yellow and some carbon black (bone black?). The ground tone for her sleeve consists of vermillion with a five to ten percent lead white addition. On top of this layer is a red glaze mixed with some carbon black (bone black?).

[1] Both paintings were sampled on 07.12.2006 and then mounted. See the conservation files for the location of the samples.

[After Treatment Report, National Gallery of Art, Washington 2007]

See also attached pdf [forthcoming]

Both paintings were examined using infrared refectography (IRR) [1].

The princess painting shows some sketch lines in the hands and in the red stripes of her bodice. Also the location of the lips and eyes are marked with some fine black lines.

[1] Both paintings were examined with FLIR/Indigo Alpha VisGaAs camera with H filter 0.5-1.7 microns (50 mm lens) on July 13th 2006 and the prince painting was re-examined August 24th 2006.

[After Treatment Report, National Gallery of Art, Washington 2007]

See also attached pdf [forthcoming]

DESCRIPTION

Tools/Material:

- dry drawing material, dark chalk (?)

Type/Ductus:

- economic, freehand underdrawing

- thin lines

Function:

- only roughly binding for the final painted version; the lines delineate the main contours, define some forms therein and possibly describe the facial features (lips); no representation of volume with hatching strokes

Deviations:

- corrections were made to forms during the painting process (hands, sleeves)

INTERPRETATION

Attributions:

- Lucas Cranach the Elder?

[Sandner, Smith-Contini, Heydenreich, cda 2017]

The painting is executed on a single piece of linden that was cut tangentially.[1]

[1] The wood was identified as linden (sp. Tilia) by Peter Klein, examination report, 29 September 1987, in NGA curatorial files.

[http://www.nga.gov/fcgi-bin/tinfo_f?object=33751&detail=tech] (accessed 11.02.2013)

The panel is made from a single piece of Linden wood: scientific analysis has confirmed the identity of this wood. Although dendrochronologic dating was attempted by Dr. Peter Klein, there is no master chronology for Linden wood.

The painting is executed on a thin white ground.

I.R. reflectography shows little evidence of underdrawing.

The fleshtones have been built up thinly still taking advantage of the ground to provide depth, the garments and hair are much more thickly and opaquely painted. The red garment consists of an opaque orange underpainting which has the shadows built up over it in dark transparent colours. The decoration in the dress and highlights in the hair and necklace are the final touches of paint. These have been brushed on dryly and thickly. [...] The x-radiographs show no significant artists changes.

[Examination report, National Gallery of Art, Washington 1989]

See also attached pdf [forthcoming]

This summarized report should be viewed in conjunction with the report from 1989.

All of the horizontal bars move. The panel is approximately a quarter of an inch thick and has been visibly planed down. Woodworm channels are visible on the back of the panel.

The overall appearance of the varnish is a sprayed, cloudy surface with large aperture cracks throughout, and a large glossy area at lower right. Under microscopic examination it appears to be pitted and it is difficult to see through the surface of the painting in some areas. According to the conservation file, the varnish is a natural resin (est.) with a 1962 spray application of Acryloid B-72 applied to the surface.

Treatment Recommendations:

• sampling and analysis

• remove discoloured and disfiguring varnish and inpainting

• consolidate loose paint

• check structural condition of the panel

• apply isolating varnish, inpaint losses, apply final varnish

[Examination Report and Treatment Proposal, National Gallery of Art, Washington 2005]

See also attached pdf [forthcoming]

The painting has been cradled. Additional strips of wood approximately 1 cm wide have been attached to the left and right edges and retouched to match the adjoining paint. The painting is in fairly good condition, although there is extensive worm tunneling on the reverse. The face is somewhat abraded, and there is a good deal of thin retouching in the shadows. Scattered throughout are very small retouchings covering losses and abrasion.

[http://www.nga.gov/fcgi-bin/tinfo_f?object=33751&detail=tech] (accessed 11.02.2013)

The condition of the paint is reasonably good. There is a good deal of thin retouching in the face, which because it is among the most thinly applied passages, is also the most abraded. There are some retouched losses along the hairline as well as other scattered loss over the painting. U.V. shows the extent of the retouching adequately. .[..] the additions along the edge are retouched as well as a good deal of frame abrasion at the bottom edge.

There is a fine network of cracks running primarily in the vertical direction corresponding to the orientation of the wood grain.

The support is in good condition in spite of extensive worm tunneling on the reverse. It appears stable and adequately strong.[...]

Besides the panel on which the original painting was applied, there are additional borders attached on the left and right edges which are approximately 3/8 inch wide. These are retouched over to match the surrounding paint. The wood in these additions appears to be oak. On the reverse of the panel a cradle has been applied; it consists of five fixed vertical members and four sliding horizontal members. The wood in the cradle also appears to be oak.

The varnish is a relatively thick layer of Natural resin. The greenish fluorescence under Ultraviolet light indicates this type of resin. There is an area in the lower right which fluoresces less than the rest of the painting, indicating that some of the varnish was removed in this area.[...]

The varnish is milky and has become somewhat opaque, particularly in the background. The effect is to make the background appear absolutely flat.

[Examination report, National Gallery of Art, Washington 1989]

See also attached pdf [forthcoming]

Treatment Report Summary [to be read in conjunction with the condition reports from 1989 and 2007]

• the surface dirt was removed

• the varnish and some overpaint was removed using organic solvents

• the old inpainting and fills were removed with a scalpel under the microscope

• a removable varnish was applied

• the losses were filled using a proprietary, removable synthetic filling putty

• the cracks, losses and several zones showing abrasion were inpainted using dry pigments ground into a synthetic resin

• a removable synthetic varnish was applied over the whole

[After Treatment Report, National Gallery of Art, Washington 2007]

See also attached pdf [forthcoming]

On October 1962, the princess painting went to the restorer:

-'removed surface dirt and refinished the surface with B-72 resin.'

[from the 'Repair of work of Art' records in the National Gallery of Art, Washington, cited in: After Treatment Report, National Gallery of Art, Washington 2007]

See also attached pdf [forthcoming]

'wiped'

[from the 'Repair of work of Art' records in the National Gallery of Art, Washington, cited in: After Treatment Report, National Gallery of Art, Washington 2007]

See also attached pdf [forthcoming]

The old entry cards show that both paintings were with the restorer for four days, starting on the 24th of February 1947. There is no record on the Repair of work of art record of what treatment was done during those days.

[from the 'Repair of work of Art' records in the National Gallery of Art, Washington, cited in: After Treatment Report, National Gallery of Art, Washington 2007]

See also attached pdf [forthcoming]

Both paintings went to the restorer again on January 29th 1947, this time for the following:

The princess painting:

• cleaned painting superficially

[from the 'Repair of work of Art' records in the National Gallery of Art, Washington, cited in: After Treatment Report, National Gallery of Art, Washington 2007]

See also attached pdf [forthcoming]

On December 12th 1946 both paintings were at the restorer's [1]

The painting of the princess:

• glazed forehead, parts of face and neck, right hand and left puff sleeve

[1] this restorer was possibly Frank Sullivan, then on contract the National Gallery of Art

[from the 'Repair of work of Art' records in the National Gallery of Art, Washington, cited in: After Treatment Report, National Gallery of Art, Washington 2007]

See also attached pdf [forthcoming]