Mary Magdalene (?)

DESCRIPTION

Tools/Material:

- dark, fluid medium, brush

Type/Ductus:

- relatively economic, sketchy freehand underdrawing

- relatively thin to broader lines

Function:

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

Deviations:

- corrections were made to forms during the painting process; extensive changes (e. g. her face was shifted further to the left and she looks in a different direction)

INTERPRETATION

Attribution:

- Lucas Cranach the Elder or workshop

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

- Walters in-house with 35mm and composite from IR with help from John Delaney

- after removal of the cradle

Possibly Beech. Not analyzed

Tangential? Panel very thinned, 1 knot present.

Vertical grain, one plank

Ground is typical of a glue ground and white in color. From examination with stereomicroscope there appears to be only one ground layer

Ground covers to panel edges without a burr

In the X-ray there appears to be a fibrous layer unevenly laid over the panel between the wood and the ground, predominantly in the area of the head and hands

A very fluid black underdrawing is evident, probably made with a brush. Some seen with the naked eye, especially in the face revealing pentimenti, also present in IR in the bodice and hands

Paint is very thinly applied, especially in flesh areas.

Appearance of gold leaf layer under the green of the dress. Grey shadows in the white sleeves mimics the underdrawing showing through

New frame 1991: frame formerly for manuscript leaf, inlaid ivory and wood.

44.5 x 34.8 x 3.3 cm (17 1/2 x 13 11/16 x 1 5/16 in.)

[The Walters Art Museum, revised 2013]

- with cradle

The panel is very fragile due to having being thinned and numerous splits caused by the removed cradle. Cradle applied prior to entering collection. 1 slightly diagonal split through panel from top to bottom, 2 splits at bottom edge proper right and one left of center from the top. No splits are mobile but the panel is extremely vulnerable. Paint surface in good condition except for losses along the complete split and around the perimeter.

Convex warp

Woodworm damage (bisected insect tunnels present) mostly on proper right side, related to location of vertical cradle members.

Plane marks present from thinning original for cradling. Bevel slightly reduced at top and bottom edges, probably from when it was thinned to cradle.

Panel sits on an unattached panel tray due to weakness from over thinning of wood

[Karen French September 2013 and old notes from Melanie Gifford treatment 1991, The Walters Art Museum]

Summary of attached pdf:

Dimensions: 36.4 -36 cm x 25.8 - 26.1 cm x 0.6 cm (141/4 x 10 1/8 x 1/4 in.)

Signature: winged dragon; color : yellow; location: lower left corner

Medium: Typical of oil Consistent with surrounding paint

FRAMING (satisfactory):

weak frame; loose/missing ornaments; flaking/loss of finish; glazed

The painting currently lies on a support tray that fits the panel warp. This tray contains silica gel tiles. The panel and tray fit into a Plexiglas vitrine, which is composed of 3 pieces: a side collar, front and back, taped together to form a box and screwed at the base. The box is not airtight and therefore does not form a true microclimate box. Due to the depth of the spacers and panel tray this box extends well beyond the antique frame and is contained in a 2 inch build-up that is attached to the frame reverse. This weakens the frame and makes the painting stand 3 proud from the wall.

CONDITION

SUPPORT (panel):

unsound; convex warp; weak/brittle/desiccated; losses; splits; disjoins; thinned

Comment: The panel is very fragile due to having being thinned, a misaligned join and numerous splits caused by the removed cradle. The panel is currently very thin and the wood has been further weakened by woodworm damage, especially at the right edge and wherever fixed members of the cradle were glued. No splits are mobile but the panel is extremely vulnerable. The vitrine is not air tight.

PAINT

previously cleaned; dislevel fills; inpainting , some of which is not a good match.

SURFACE COATING

glossy and streaky with matte and dull patches; surface is unsatisfactory requiring a varnish removal or local retouching and overall even coat

IN BRIEF THE PAINTING IS:

• generally unsound and unfit for travel

Structural condition is poor; appearance is poor

[The Walters Art Museum 2000]

see also pdf for original report

see attached pdf

[The Walters Art Museum, 1990]

see attached pdf

[The Walters Art Museum, 1975]

Consolidation of loose paint around split areas and local varnish touch up.There are currently some unlevel fills and some inpainting that has discolored. The varnish is glossy and streaky with matte and dull patches.

[The Walters Art Museum, revised 2015]

At the curator's request the painting had been put into a different frame. When brought into the studio for a loan examination in 2010 it was noticed that in the new frame the panel tray support made in the 1990's, and the vitrine, were too thick for the frame; however this very thin panel was extremely vulnerable without the support tray. It was decided to rebuild the supportive panel tray to fit into the new frame and better support the painting. The panel tray members were all reduced to fit the panel and new frame and the support system was given a solid wood back to make it more secure.

[The Walters Art Museum, revised 2015]

Surface cleaned and varnish touched up

[The Walters Art Museum, revised 2015]

In 1991 the panel was given an extensive treatment that included consolidatiing localized cleavage from ground, facing the panel and removing the cradle from the verso, repairing the splits in the panel, construction an in-frame panel tray to support the thinned panel, and cleaning and inpainting.

[The Walters Art Museum, revised 2015]

1990 Consolidation of paint and inpainting of small losses along vertical split

[The Walters Art Museum, revised 2015]

A small loss along the vertical crack at lower right was toned along with a small loss directly below it in 1987.

[The Walters Art Museum, revised 2015]

A wax surface coating was removed in 1986 and a brush coat of varnish was applied. Scattered losses were inpainted.

[The Walters Art Museum, revised 2015]