Female Portrait

- limewood (Tilia sp.)

[wood species identified by Dr. Peter Klein, report from 06.04.2008]

- the support consists of 6 boards of varying widths with the grain running vertically, with glued butt-joints; the widths of the boards are from left to right (seen from the recto): Board I 7.5 (t.) 6.2 (b.) board II 15.7 (t.) 16.2 (b.) board III 10.6 (t.) 10.4 (b.) board IV 9.9 (t.) 10.7 (b.) board V 12.2 (t.) 11.8 (b.) board VI 7.8 (t.) 8.1 (b.) cm.

The reverse of the panel is original and from it we can deduce the construction of the panel, which occurred in two stages: first boards I and II as well as boards III to VI were glued together and prepared separately. This is evident when interpreting the concise block plane marks that run vertically on the left side of the panel and diagonally on the right side (see Fig. AT_KHM_GG886_FR430_2008-02-20_Overall_Reverse_Raking-Light). Only then were the two halves joined together to make the panel. One possible explanation for this method of construction could be that the planks were glued together and kept in reserve to use accordingly for the relevant panel. The join between the two parts of the panel was reinforced near the bottom edge with two counter hand-forged nails. The panel is 1.9-2.0 cm thick. The reverse of the panel exhibits a rebate, uneven in width (0.9 to 1.5 cm), on all sides, with the exception of the trimmed bottom edge. Where the rebate is present the panel is c. 0.7 cm thick. It has an anthracite coloured coating.

- a strip the width of the rebate was probably trimmed off the bottom edge

- white ground

- an analysis was not carried out, probably glue bound calcium carbonate

- the ground appplication extends to the edge of the panel, neither a barbe nor unpainted edges are present

- different degrees of x-ray absorption indicates that the separately prepared panel pieces (see support) may also differ in terms of the number and/or composition of the ground layers. (see Fig. AT_KHM_GG886_FR430_2008-03-19_X-radiograph).

The infrared reflectogram shows an underdrawing that was executed in a dry medium with freehand, short, jagged lines, at times repeated (nose). The broken course of the some lines suggests the use of a dry drawing material. The hands and details of the face were essentially characterised with contours and a sparse indication of inner form, shadow are suggested by hatching-strokes only on the joints of the finger and the cheek-bones. The underdrawing was to a greater extent closely adhered to in the painted version, the left ear was shifted further down.

The painted surface extends to the edge of the panel on the sides; along the top edge there is a painted edge c. 0.8 cm in width, the panel may have been fixed in a mortise frame during the painting process. The lower edge is trimmed making any assertion impossible.

As with the male pendant the flesh paint and other light areas like the sleeve and the apron were laid in first, before the red and black areas were applied. Finally the background was painted and at the same time the contour of the figure was defined. The numerous decorative elements like the necklace, the hairnet, the lace collar, decoration of the beret etc. were applied last and overlap the background in many places.

The manner of painting generally corresponds with that of the male pendant (AT_KHM_GG885_FR429), the coloring of the flesh paint is however somewhat cooler and the shadows are painted in brown or grey tones rather than red.

The x-radiograph shows, that light areas like the flesh paint or the apron were initially laid in more generously and only received their final shape in a more advanced stage of the painting process when adjacent areas were painted. The blocked in areas of the sleeve and the background meet without overlapping. A narrow strip of barely covered ground on the inner side of her right upper arm was incorporated into the representation as a reflection.

In can be observed that the areas of the lace and embroidery on the sleeve of her blouse vary in consistency and the method of application; in part the paint was applied wet-in-wet, sometimes the wet paint was blended with a dry brush, finally the details of the pattern were applied with impasto yellow paint. There is no gilding, light reflexes on the rings and chains were achieved with impasto highlights (presumably lead-tin-yellow).

- not original

[Translation, Smith, cda 2013]

Identification of wood species: Dr. Peter Klein, report from 06.04.2008

[Kunsthistorisches Museum, revised 2012]

[Translation, Smith, cda 2013]

DESCRIPTION

Tools/Material:

- dry drawing material, black chalk or stylus

Type/Ductus:

- freehand underdrawing

- delicate, fine lines; short and jagged, partially reinforced

- occasioinal hatching-strokes

Functiion:

- relatively binding for the final painted version; the lines define the main contours, sparse description of essential details and facial features; volume represented by hatching-strokes: hands and left cheek only

Deviations:

- minor adjustments were made during the painting process to forms, small changes (e. g. the position of the left ear)

INTERPRETATION

Attribution:

- Lucas Cranach the Younger

[Sandner, Smith-Contini, Heydenreich, cda 2016]

Support:

• the panel exhibits old woodworm damage, which is more concentrated in three of the six planks (II, V and VI). The support must have been affected by woodworm before the planks were used as numerous exit holes on the painted side have been filled with a fill material -probably containing lead white (see Fig. AT_KHM_GG886_FR430_2008-03-19_X-radiograph).

• there is a dent of c. 10 cm in length and 1.4 cm in depth between planks IV and V. Here the remaining wood is only 0.5-0.6 cm thick.

• The panel was trimmed along the bottom, and as a result wood fibres have broken off along the cut edge.

Paint Layers:

• a curtain was also added later, mirror-invert to that on the male pendant. The coat-of-arms painted beneath in the upper left corner is clearly visible in the x-radiograph (see Beschreibung/Diskussion/Forschungsgeschichte ). It is not documented when this intervention occurred.

The coat-of-arms was overpainted in a frame, as the paint layer does not extend to the edge of the panel, but creates a barb c. 1 cm from the left edge (see Fig. AT_KHM_GG886_FR430_2008-03-02_Photomicrograph-M6x-018). The paint layer of the curtain exhibits a strong x-ray absorption and presumably contains lead white or lead-tin-yellow.

• the paint layers exhibit only a few, mostly very small losses; further isolated losses are located along the edges, particularly along the bottom edge.

[Monika Strolz, Ute Tüchler, Kunsthistorisches Museum, revised 2012]

[Translation, Smith, cda 2013]

Restaurierbuch 1, 1929/Nr. 54:

numerous large and small blisters in the lower quarter of the painting were consolidated

[Kunsthistorisches Museum, revised 2012]

[Translation, Smith, cda 2013]

Restaurierbuch 1, 1924/Nr. 373:

varnish removal

[Kunsthistorisches Museum, revised 2012]

[Translation, Smith, cda 2013]