Magdalene Altar: St Chrysostom

DESCRIPTION

Tools/Materials:

- fluid, black medium and brush

Type/Ductus:

- detailed and freehand underdrawing

- thin to broader lines

- occasional hatching-strokes

Function:

- relatively binding for the final painted version; lines delineate contours and describe the essential details and the facial features; some representation of volume (hatching-strokes)

Deviations:

- minor alterations made during the painting process to clearly define form (e.g. the nose)

INTERPRETATION

Attribution:

- Simon Franck/Master of the Mass of St Gregory?

[Smith, Sandner, Heydenreich, cda 2013]

The underdrawing of the wing panels is efficient, and much more conventional [than that of the predella], exhibiting the confident style of the Cranach workshop routine [1]. It concentrates on the contours and a rough indication of the inner forms to guide the painter.

[1] Compare with the rich body of material in [Exhib. Cat. Eisenach 1998]

[Schawe 2007 B, 236, 238]

Identification of wood species: limewood (Tilia sp.)

- limewood

- consists of eight vertically aligned narrow boards with glued butt joints

- the panel is only 5 to 6 mm thick

- the joins are not additionally reinforced

- original height

- the panel was in a provisional frame when the thin and uniform ground was applied

- barbe has been retained at the top and bottom of the panel

- the material employed was probably a mixture of glue and chalk

- the pigmented or white imprimatura often found on paintings by Cranach and his pupils was not identified here

Infrared reflectograms were made in part of all the elements of the altarpiece in the Doerner Institut […]. These revealed that, excepting some minor alterations, the detailed, dynamic underdrawing, which was probably executed with a brush, corresponds with the final painted version.

No samples were taken, therefore any assessment of the binding medium and the pigments employed remains speculative. It is probably a mixed-media containing both tempera and oil. The regular and very fine craquelé and the fact that the paint layers exhibit no alterations suggests, that the painting was executed with a high degree of skilled craftsmanship.

[Staudacher, Büchel 2007, 228-229]

Conservation treatment

Support:

• trimmed either side

• the panel is now only 5 to 6 mm thick

• when the panels were split wood was lost; in some places the panel has been damaged by the saw on the reverse

• in the 20th century the joins were reinforced with single wooden blocks

Paint Layers:

• extensively overpainted; an opaque overpaint covers the bright paint of the draperies and the blue of the sky

• in all areas the edges of the craquelé exhibit extensive abrasion revealing the ground layer beneath

• these areas of damage were partially retouched during an earlier treatment

Varnish:

• very yellowed

[Staudacher, Büchel 2007, 228, 229, 230]

• consolidation of the paint layers along the edge of the panel; surface cleaning

• although a varnish removal with solvents would have been quick and clean to carry out it would have damaged the already very abraded edges of the craquelé further. The layer was therefore removed mechanically employing a much more complex method; remains of a very yellowed, old coating, particularly in the dark areas, was removed in a similar manner.

• old retouches, which contributed to a patchy appearance were removed mechanically

• the coarse dark blue overpaint in the sky proved to be very stubborn and insoluble; removal would have damaged the underlying original paint layers. It was decided to leave it and optically reintegrated it with retouching

• old fills were retained where possible, where necessary they were refilled and the surface was restructured; new fills were only required along the edge and around the wooden inserts

• after completion of this treatment a thin isolating varnish was applied

• retouching

• application of a final varnish

[Staudacher, Büchel 2007, 232, 233]

• the wing panels were split before 1814

[Staudacher, Büchel 2007, 227]