AA 2.indd - Colnaghi

The Artist in Art

Preface
This exhibition would not have been possible
without the help and collaboration of a
number of people who have contributed
generously in terms of loans or their expertise.
Above all we would like to thank our partner
in this exhibition, Emanuel von Baeyer. We
would also like to thank Sir Jack Baer, Patrick
Bourne and the Fine Art Society, Green &
Stone of Chelsea, Bob Haboldt, Philip Mould,
Bendor Grosvenor, Rupert Maas, Edmondo
di Robilant, Guy Sainty, Guy Wildenstein and
Rafael Valls. Finally we would like to thank
Sarah Gallagher, Lucia Prosino and Jeremy
Howard, who organised the exhibition and
wrote the catalogue.
Konrad Bernheimer and Katrin Bellinger,
November, 2007.
Front Cover:
JEAN ALPHONSE ROEHN
(Paris 1799 –1864 Paris)
Portrait of an Artist painting her Self-Portrait
Cat.50

The Artist in Art
26th November 2007 – 1st February 2008
COLNAGHI
In association with Emanuel von Baeyer

Introduction
The present exhibition explores the varying
ways in which artists have chosen to depict
themselves and the making of their art. As
such it embraces portraits and self-portraits,
studio interiors, still lifes of artists’ materials
and studies of models; it takes in academies,
themselves outgrowths of studios. It also
includes the collectors, patrons and dealers
who were to be found in the studios and
at academy views and in the museums,
which, from the early nineteenth century,
played an increasingly important role in the
consumption of art.
The delineation of the artist is seen in its
purest form in the self-portrait. Here the
preoccupations of the artist can be honestly
examined, because he has no sitter to flatter
or patron to please. The history of the selfportrait
really begins with Dürer. Prior to his
time, there are a few direct self-portraits and
artists tended to appear in the guise of St Luke,
or as bystanders. Sometimes, as in Van Eyck’s
famous reflected self-portrait in the convex
mirror of The Arnolfini Portrait (National
Gallery, London), they introduced themselves
obliquely into their pictures with the same
stealth that Hitchcock used to appear in his
own films, a conceit that evidently appealed
three centuries later to Fragonard’s sister-in-law
Marguerite Gerard (Plates 1 & 2) who painted
her reflection in a ball. But these images of
artists were essentially self-effacing, perhaps
reflecting their relatively lowly standing.
The improved status of artists in the High
Renaissance is reflected in the growth in the
number of self-portraits, a trend given further
impetus by the tradition in Rome in the later
sixteenth century of presenting self-portraits
to the newly founded Academy of St Luke.
Some artists, such as Van Dyck, preferred
not to present themselves primarily as artists,
but as connoisseurs or courtiers: basking
symbolically in the warmth of royal patronage
in the case of his famous Self-Portrait with a
Sunfl ower (Royal Collection, England), or as
Paris, judge of beauty in his self-portrait in the
Wallace Collection. By contrast, other selfportraits
display a keen interest in the processes
of making art and very little concern to project
an elevated image. In his wild and almost
caricatural self-portrait drawing (illustrated
back cover) the young Toulouse-Lautrec, his
stunted body emphasised by the large brushes
he wields, shows himself in the act of painting
and is quite unconcerned to project the sort
of gentlemanly image conventional in the
eighteenth century. By contrast the flower
painter Spaendonck (Plate 6), lays down his
crayon holder to welcome the spectator from
a Louis XVI chair more redolent of the salon
than the studio. In Tischbein’s remarkable
self-portrait in masquerade costume (Plate
4), there are no indications of his professional
calling and the only allusion to the art of
painting is an indirect one: the mask, a
symbol associated with allegorical depictions

Plate 1
JEAN HONORÉ FRAGONARD
(Grasse 1732 – 1806 Paris ) and
MARGUERITE GÉRARD
(Grasse 1761 – 1837 Paris)
Le Chat Angora
Cat.24
Plate 2
JEAN HONORÉ FRAGONARD
(Grasse 1732 – 1806 Paris) and
MARGUERITE GÉRARD
(Grasse 1761 – 1837 Paris)
Le Chat Angora
DETAIL
of painting, which is worn round the neck
of Pittura in Ripa’s Iconologia to show the
connection between painting and imitation.
Here, though, the artist, like an actor, removes
rather than dons his mask and doffs his hat
to his audience, revealing his “real” self,
presented, though, through the illusion of art.
This is self-portraiture as performance rather
than introspection. Conversely, Pechstein’s
self-portrait drawn in 1917 (Cat.47), a
profound and melancholic study of a young
man who had just returned from the trenches,
shows self-portraiture’s capacity to reveal the
artist’s soul; and Spare’s weird Self-Portrait
with Animal Forms (Cat.58), its ability to
explore the darker areas of the psyche.
Painting self-portraits before the invention
of photography inevitably involved the use
of a mirror, as one can see in the charming
studio interior by Roehn (illustrated front
cover) and the canvas effectively captures
the image seen in the mirror. The process of
translating the mirror image onto the canvas
means that the eyes of artists in self-portraits
look out at us with peculiar intensity and are
separately focused, an effect observable in the
Tischbein (Plate 4) and in Boetius’s engraving
after Mengs’s splendidly assured self-portrait
(Plate 3). This can also lead to an intriguing
interplay between canvas and mirror and the
possibilities of multiple viewpoints. In the
Roehn, we see simultaneously the artist’s face
and the back of her head, her reflected and
painted images. The mirror also provides
opportunities for the artist to explore facial
expressions, as captured by the engraver

Kerrich (Cat.36), which was in line with
academic theories about the training of artists,
particularly in France, where the painting of
têtes d’expression became an essential part of
the curriculum.
The influence of the academy can be felt in
Blanchet’s portrait of Panini (Plate 5). This
stresses the more gentlemanly and intellectual
notion of the artist, which grew out of the
Renaissance idea that painting was a liberal
rather than a mechanical art. Panini taught
perspective at the French academy in Rome
where he was accorded the rare honour (for a
non-Frenchman) of membership. This may
explain why, although a canvas is shown in the
background, he holds a drawing instrument
rather than a brush, and clutches a portfolio of
sketches, emphasizing the primacy of disegno,
the chalk being used to make the first marks
on the canvas. Whereas the Panini portrait
plays down the craft aspects of painting, Le
Carpentier’s portrait of his friend the engraver
Gelée (Plate 10) revels in the processes of
engraving and the tools of the trade: the
magnifying glass, the burin and the copper
plate, though the head turned upwards not
only reflects the process of copying a design, but
also suggests sublimity. Such elevated images
of the artist are a world away from Decamps’
caricatural depiction of the artist as a monkey
(Cat.17), which draws upon a tradition going
back to Teniers, but also perhaps refers to
the notion of artists as the apes of nature, or
Rowlandson’s Manufacturers of Old Masters at
Work (Plate 9), which satirises a particularly
dubious aspect of artistic practice: the faking
of old masters. Rowlandson’s caricature takes
its cue from Hogarth’s earlier satirical assault
on what he called “the Dark Masters” in the
engraving, Time Smoking a Picture, though
it is typical of Rowlandson’s quirky humour
that the pipe that the artist smokes to darken
the picture also cures some hams suspended
from the rafters of the studio. Different again
from the polished portraits of eighteenthcentury
painters is Isidore Pils’ watercolour
of a sculptor at work (Plate 8) where what is
stressed is the physical effort involved in the
production of sculpture. This calls to mind
Leonardo’s observation that, while the painter
sits at ease in his chair in his fine clothes, the
sculptor labours amidst the dust and noise of
his workshop and, in the Pils watercolour, has
to climb up to work on the block.
Paintings of studio interiors can be seen as
extensions of portraiture, which also touch
upon still-life painting. Curiously enough
the two most famous examples of this genre,
Velázquez’s Las Meninas and Vermeer’s A
Painter at Work, would not have been nearly
as familiar to most of the artists in the present
exhibition as they are to us, because Vermeer
was largely forgotten until revived by Thoré
-Bürger in the 1860s and Velázquez’s greatness
was only realised gradually as part of a general
revival of interest in Spanish painting in the
1830s and 1840s. The artists of the past,
whose studios were imaginatively recreated
in the nineteenth century, tended to be the
giants of the Italian Renaissance. The emphasis
was upon episodes in their lives, Leonardo
expiring in the arms of Francois I or Charles V
stooping to pick up Titian’s paint-brush, which
stressed the wordly success of artists and the
rich and powerful paying homage to genius.
Artists also emphasized the polarities of their
temperaments as in Horace Vernet’s Raphael
at the Vatican (Cats.65 & 66), where Raphael
and Michelangelo are brought together, like
rivals in the boxing ring in the presence of
Julius II. Many of the episodes depicted, such
as in Evariste Fragonard’s painting of a quarrel
between Aretino and Tintoretto in the artist’s
studio (Cat.23) probably never happened,
but they tell us a lot about how artists saw
themselves, mirrored in the lives of the artists

of the past, and about contemporary artistic
movements. It was appropriately the romantic
painter Delacroix who executed one of the few
“melancholic” depictions of a historical artist’s
studio, showing Michelangelo brooding
among his statues (in the Museé Fabre,
Montpellier), whereas Ingres’ Raphael and
the Fornarina (Fogg Art Museum, Harvard
University) is a homage paid by the archpriest
of classicism to his much more sociable and
attractive artistic idol. Ingres’ painting also
suggests the possibilities of the studio as a site
of romantic encounters between male artists
and their models, knowingly alluded to by
Baudouin in his prurient Shy Model (Cat.4).
Such pictures, of course, promote an
essentially masculine view of artistic practice.
But, increasingly from the late eighteenth
century onwards, women were playing a role
which is reflected in the growing number of
studio interiors in which they feature. During
the late eighteenth century, women artists
such as Angelica Kauffmann and Elizabeth
Vigée Lebrun enjoyed an unparalleled degree
of esteem, which may explain the relative
confidence of the images of female artists
at this period. But on the whole the female
artists who inhabit the studio interiors of the
nineteenth century are comparatively demure
and inward-turning: the artists in Roehn’s and
Mary Churchill’s studio interiors (illustrated
front cover, Cat.50 & Cat.14) turn their backs
to us while Catherine Engleheart’s female
artist (Cat.21) is rapt in contemplation. But
compelling though these studio portraits
are, it is the uninhabited spaces which are
in some ways the most intriguing, precisely
because we feel the absence of the artist and
are encouraged to build up a picture of his
interests and his artistic personality from the
clues left strewn around the studio, such as the
red shawl in Armand Laureys’ Studio Interior
(Cat.39) or, in the case of the painting by the
Neo-Impressionist Maximilian Luce (Cat.43),
his bedroom. Up until the mid-nineteenth
century art was made in the studio, but with
the growth of plein-air painting we find
German artists such as Metz and Gurlitt
setting up their portable easels, paintboxes
and parasols in front of Nature at Ariccia
(Cat.30) at exactly the same moment, in the
1840s, that the Barbizon painters were paving
the way for Impressionism in the forest of
Fontainebleau.
The tradition of collectors and patrons and
friends visiting the artist’s studio, charmingly
portrayed by Hutin (Cat.33) is one that
stretches back to Alexander and Apelles, and,
increasingly from the eighteenth century
onwards, the dealer figures in these interiors,
reflecting his increasing importance as
artistic middleman, promoter and patron.
Printmaking underpinned the growth of
the contemporary art market in the late
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, which
is why the dealer Paul Colnaghi is portrayed
with a portfolio of prints on his knee (Cat.64),
and by 1871 the Art Journal was reporting
that “to [the dealer] has been due, to a great
extent the immense increase in prices of
modern pictures”. One of the major players
in the 1870s was Sir Coutts Lindsay, seen here
(Cat.42) in his role as an artist, but who is
best known as the proprietor of the Grosvenor
Gallery. It was his championship of Whistler,
the “coxcomb” that Ruskin accused of “flinging
a pot of paint in the face of the public”, that
was an important contributing factor to the
victory of the avant-garde in late Victorian
England. In the meantime, though, artists
in late nineteenth-century Munich (Plate 14)
continued to set up their easels in the museums
and draw inspiration from the “dark masters”
satirised by Hogarth and Rowlandson.
Jeremy Howard

Portraits and Self-Portraits
This section explores how artists presented
themselves or were seen by other artists.
These portraits range from the official images
designed to elevate the status of artists,
such as Blanchet’s Portrait of Panini (Plate
5) to the informal friendship portraits, or
Freundschaftsbilder, particularly popular
with German artists in the early nineteenth
century (Cat.28). They range from the proud
self-portrait of Mengs (Plate 3), who, by the
time of Boetius’s engraving of 1770, was one
of the greatest artistic celebrities in Europe,
through Spaendonck’s urbane drawing of
himself seated in a chair (Plate 6), to the
slightly more diffident portrait of Carle
Vernet, clutching a portfolio of drawings
and turning round towards the viewer by the
female artist Catherine Lusurier (Plate 7), a
pupil of Drouais. Interestingly, none of the
artists illustrated here are shown holding a
paint brush.
Plate 3
CHRISTIAN FRIEDRICH BOETIUS
(Leipzig 1706 – 1778 Dresden), after
ANTON RAPHAEL MENGS
(Czech Republic 1728 – 1779 Rome)
Self-Portrait of the Artist Anton Raphael Mengs
Cat.9
Plate 4
JOHANN HEINRICH TISCHBEIN
(Haina 1722 – 1789 Kasel)
Self-Portrait in Venetian Masquerade Costume
Cat.61
Opposite:
Plate 5
LOUIS-GABRIEL BLANCHET
(Paris 1705 – 1772 Rome)
Portrait of Giovanni Paolo Panini
Cat.7

Plate 6
GERARD VAN SPAENDONCK
(Tilburg 1746 – 1822 Paris )
Self Portrait seated at a Table turned to the Right
Cat.57

Plate 7
CATHERINE LUSURIER
(Paris 1752 – 1781 Paris)
Portrait of the Artist Carle Vernet
Cat.44

Artists at Work
Many of the portraits of artists in the first
section give little hint of their professional
calling, beyond the fixed stare, separately
focussed eyes and turn of the head peculiar to
self-portraits (Plates 3, 4 & 6). This section,
however, explores artists at work, through
portraits and studio interiors in which the
emphasis is on the artistic processes, materials
and the tools of the trade. They range from
Le Carpentier’s affectionate portrayal of his
friend Gelée engraving a copper plate (Plate
10), to Isidore Pils’s watercolour evoking the
dust and physical exertion of the sculptor’s
studio (Plate 8) to Rowlandson’s caricature
of an artist faking old masters (Plate 9) and
smoking a pipe as he does so to darken the
canvas.
Plate 8
ISIDORE-ALEXANDRE-AUGUSTIN PILS
(Paris 1813 – 1875 Douarnenez)
A Sculptor in his Studio
Cat.48
Plate 9
THOMAS ROWLANDSON
(London 1756 – 1827 London)
Manufacturers of Old Masters at Work
Cat.52

Plate 10
PAUL CLAUDE MICHEL LE CARPENTIER
(Rouen 1787 – 1877 Paris)
Portrait of Antoine-Francois Gelée (1796 – 1860)
Cat.11

Academies of Art
Academies, which first evolved in Italy in the
sixteenth century, provided three essential
functions which helped to raise the status
and improve the conditions of contemporary
artists: one was education, another was the
prestige and professional recognition and
the third was a mechanism for selling their
work through exhibitions. Essential to any
access to the “highest” branch of history
painting, was the opportunity to study from
the live naked model, seen here in the Comte
de Paroy’s etching of a drawing academy
(Plate 11). Women artists were under a huge
disadvantage, in being excluded at this period
from life classes for reasons of propriety, which
explains why Angelica Kauffmann and Mary
Moser, the two female founder members,
were not allowed to be present in Zoffany’s
Famous painting of the Life School, The
Academicians of the Royal Academy (Cat.20),
but were represented, rather coyly through
their portraits hung on the wall.
Plate 11
JEAN-PHILIPPE GUY LE GENTIL, COMTE DE
PAROY
(Paris 1750 – 1824), after
FRANCOIS GUILLAUME MENAGEOT
(London 1744 – 1816 Paris)
The Drawing Academy
Cat.31
Allegories of Art
An essential idea behind the growth of
academies was the notion that painting
was not just a mechanical craft as had been
considered to be the case in the Middle
Ages, but was a liberal art, which deserved
to be given equal status with poetry. Artists
were encouraged to draw inspiration from
poetry, and inverting Horace’s notion of
ut pictura poesis (as a painting, so should a
poem be), to paint pictures which were the
visual equivalents of poems, but, so artists
argued, superior in being more lifelike. This
explains why in Toorenvliet’s An Allegory of
Painting (Plate 12), the female personification
of painting draws inspiration from a book,
while other attributes such as a laurel branch
and a skull allude to art’s capacity to promote
fame and ensure immortality.
Plate 12
JACOB VAN TOORENVLIET
(Leiden c. 1635/41 – 1719 Leiden)
An Allegory of Painting
Cat.63

Connoisseurs and Art Lovers
Some of the earliest depictions of artists’
studios show visits from patrons, friends and
art lovers. This was a tradition that went back
to the story of Alexander visiting the studio of
Apelles, a subject which was painted by artists
such as the seventeenth-century Dutch master
Van Haecht, whose version of the subject,
dated in 1628 and now in the Mauritshuis,
was based, in part, on the interior of Rubens’
studio. Rubens as the modern Apelles was also
shown in his studio receiving a visit from the
Archduke Albert. The eagerness with which
male connoisseurs scrutinised erotic pictures
had been satirised by Watteau in L’Enseigne
de Gersaint, which doubtless inspired Hutin’s
witty etching of four connoisseurs examining
a painting of Leda and the Swan (Plate 13).
Vetter’s painting of a largely female group of
art lovers in the Alte Pinakothek, Munich
(Plate 14), while an artist copies a painting
by Rubens, and Adolphe Leleux’s Interior of
the Louvre (Cat.40) show more respectable
aspects of connoisseurship.
Plate 13
PIERRE HUTIN
(Paris c.1720 – 1763 Moscow)
Four Friends in an Artist’s Studio
Cat.33

Plate 14
CHARLES FRIEDRICH ALFRED VETTER
(Kahlstadt 1858 – 1936 Kahlstadt)
A Visit to the Munich Pinakothek
Cat.67

List of Works
1.
CHARLES ARNOUD (Paris, active 1864 – 1880)
Subjects for a Still-Life
Signed and dated lower left: Arnoud 77
Oil on panel
17 x 12 ¼ in. (43 x 31cm.)
2.
JEAN AUBERT (Paris, active Eighteenth Century)
Portrait of the Artist Claude Gillot
Engraving
19 ⅜ x 15 ⅜ in. (48.5 x 38.5 cm.)
3.
JEAN BAPTISTE BERNARD COCLERS
(called LOUIS BERNARD) (Liège 1741 – 1817 Liège)
Portrait of the Artist Jacob Jansons
Inscribed in pencil: no.2
Etching
6 ½ x 5 ¼ in. (16.2 x 13.1 cm.)
4.
PIERRE ANTOINE BAUDOUIN
(French 1723 – 1779)
The Shy Model
Signed lower left on table: B
Oil on canvas
15 ½ x 12 ¾ in. (39.4 x 32.4 cm.)
5.
JEAN BERAUD
(St. Petersburg 1849 – 1936 Paris)
A Portrait of the Artist in his Studio
Signed and dated lower right: Jean Beraud 1876
Oil on board
6 ½ x 3 ½ in. (16 x 9 cm.)
6.
CORNELIS VAN DEN BERG
(Harlem 1699 – 1764 Harlem)
Self-Portrait
Inscribed: Door hem zelfs geteerskend en ge-etst. 1759
Etching
5 ¼ x 2 5⁄6 in. (13 x 6.6 cm.)
7.
LOUIS-GABRIEL BLANCHET
(Paris 1705 – 1772 Rome)
Portrait of Giovanni Paolo Panini
Indistinctly signed and dated on the book lower left:
L G Blanchet It / 1736
Oil on canvas
38 x 30 in. (96.5 x 76 cm.)
With tracing of an old inscription on the back of the
original canvas: ‘Paolo Panini, peintre d’ Architecture/
Orig. [le] Peint par G. Blanchet a Rome’
[Plate 5]
8.
FREDERICK BLOEMAERT,
(Utrecht 1614/17 – 1690 Utrecht), after
ABRAHAM BLOEMAERT
(Gorinchen 1566 – 1651 Utrecht)
The Student Draughtsman: Frontispiece to Konstryk
Tekenboek (Artistic Drawing Book)
Inscribed: Abrahamus Bloemaert inventor. Fredericus
Bloemaert Filius fecit et exe
Chiaroscuro woodcut with etching
12 ⅜ x 9 in. (30.8 x 22.5 cm.)
9.
CHRISTIAN FRIEDRICH BOETIUS
(Leipzig 1706 – 1778 Dresden), after
ANTON RAPHAEL MENGS
(Czech Republic 1728 – 1779 Rome)
Self-Portrait of the Artist Anton Raphael Mengs
Stipple engraving on pink paper
9 ⅞ x 7 ⅝ in. (24.6 x 19 cm.)
[Plate 3]
10.
ADRIEN DE BRAEKELEER
(Antwerp 1818 – 1904 Antwerp)
The Artist’s Studio
Signed lower left: Adrien de Braekeleer
Oil on canvas
20 ½ x 25 ¾ in. (52.5 x 65.5 cm.)
11.
PAUL CLAUDE MICHEL LE CARPENTIER
(Rouen 1787 – 1877 Paris)
Portrait of Antoine-Francois Gelée (1796 – 1860)
Signed, dated and inscribed lower right:
Paul Carpentier p.x 1832 à son ami Gelée
Oil on canvas
30 ½ x 32 ¼ in. (100 x 82 cm.)
[Plate 10]
12.
GUILLAUME-SULPICE CHEVALIER, called
GAVARNI (Paris 1804 – 1866 Paris)
An Allegory of Sculpture
Lithograph on chine collé
17 ¾ x 12 ⅜ in. (44.5 x 30.8 cm.)
13.
DANIEL NIKOLAS CHODOWIECKI
(Gdansk 1726 – 1801 Berlin)
The Painter’s Cabinet
Etching
7 ⅛ x 9 ⅛ in. (18 x 23 cm.)

14.
MARY CHURCHILL
(Active Late Nineteenth Century)
Interior of the Studio with the Artist Painting a Landscape
Signed and dated lower right: Mary Churchill 1887
Oil on canvas
20 ⅛ x 14 in. (51 x 35.5 cm.)
15.
ALBERT HENRY COLLINGS, RBA
(Active Early Twentieth Century, London, died 1947)
The Studio
Oil on board
11 ¼ x 10 ½ in. (28.7 x 26.7 cm.)
16.
ARNOLD CORRODI
(Rome 1846 – 1874 Rome)
Portrait of the Artist’s Father, Salomon Corrodi
Signed lower right: A. Corrodi
Pencil
11 ¼ x 8 ⅜ in. (28.2 x 21 cm.)
17.
ALEXANDRE-GABRIEL DECAMPS
(Paris 1803 – 1860 Fontainebleau)
A Sketch of a Studio Interior with a Monkey Painter
Oil on canvas
12 ⅞ x 16 in. (32.5 x 40.5 cm.)
18.
LOYS HENRI DELTEIL
(Paris 1869 – 1927 Paris)
Woman Artist at an Easel
Etching
17 x 216⁄8 in. (43 x 54.2 cm.)
19.
JEAN-CLAUDE DUMONT
(Lyon 1805 – 1874/75 Lyon)
Still-Life with Artist Palette, Brushes and Ecorché
Figure on a table
Signed lower left: J-C Du…t
Oil on board
7 ¼ x 9 ½ in. (18.5 x 24 cm.)
20.
RICHARD EARLOM
(London 1743 – 1822 London) after JOHAN
ZOFFANY
(Frankfurt 1733 – 1810 London)
The Academicians of the Royal Academy
Mezzotint, published 1733
28 ¼ x 19 ⅞ in (70.63 x 49.7 cm.)
21.
CATHERINA CAROLINE CATHINKA
ENGELHART
(Copenhagen 1845 – 1926 Copenhagen)
Lady at the Window in the Artist’s Studio
Signed with monogram and dated lower left: EC 1843
Oil on board
30 ¼ x 21 in. (77 x 54 cm.)
22.
JOHN FAED, RA RSA
(Burley Mill 1819 – 1902 Burley Mill)
A Gentle Critic
Signed and indistinctly dated lower right
Oil on canvas
18 ½ x 15 ½ in. (47 x 39.5 cm.)
23.
ALEXANDRE-EVARISTE FRAGONARD
(Grasse 1780 – 1850 Paris)
Aretino in the Studio of Tintoretto
Oil on canvas
16 ⅛ x 13 ½ in. (41 x 35.4 cm.)
24.
JEAN HONORÉ FRAGONARD
(Grasse 1732 – Paris 1806) and
MARGUERITE GÉRARD
(Grasse 1761 – 1837 Paris)
Le Chat Angora
Oil on canvas, unlined
25 ½ x 21 in. (65 x 53.5 cm.)
[Plates 1 & 2]
25.
FRENCH SCHOOL
(Late Nineteenth Century)
Artist Painting at his Easel, the Venus de Milo in
the background
Black chalk on brown paper
11 ¾ x 17 ¼ in. (29 x 44.5 cm.)
26.
FRENCH SCHOOL
(Late Eighteenth Century)
Lady Artist in her Studio
Oil on panel
9 ½ x 7 ½ in. (24 x 19 cm.)
27.
MARIA ELECTRINE VON FREYBERG
(Strasburg 1797 – 1847 Munich)
Portrait of a Seated Female Artist with a Pen
Pencil
9 ½ x 7 in. (23.7 x 17.6 cm.)

28.
MAX FÜRST
(Traunstein 1846 – 1917 Munich)
Portrait of the Painter Nikolaus Gysis
(1842-1901), bust-length
Monogrammed and dated lower left: M.F. / 1865 and
inscribed lower right: Studienkollege / N. Gysis / aus
Griechenland
Oil on paper laid down on artist’s board
17 ⅞ x 15 ⅛ in. (45. 5 x 38.5 cm.)
29.
GERMAN SCHOOL
(Second half of Nineteenth Century)
View of the drawing Classroom in the Old Royal Saxony
Arts and Craft School in Dresden
Watercolour over pencil.
6 ½ x 10 ⅞ in. (16.3 x 26.8 cm.)
30.
GERMAN SCHOOL
(Nineteenth Century)
The Painters Metz and Gurlitt working en Plein Air
Inscribed and dated: Maler Metz und Maler Gurlitt,
bei Ariccia 21 7 43
Pencil on paper
8 x 10 ½ in. (20.4 x 27cm.)
31.
JEAN-PHILIPPE GUY LE GENTIL,
COMTE DE PAROY (Paris 1750 – 1824 Paris), after
FRANÇOIS GUILLAUME MENAGEOT
(London 1744 – 1816 Paris)
The Drawing Academy
Etching with roulette and aquatint
10 ⅞ x 16 in. (27.2 x 39.9 cm.)
[Plate 11]
32.
LAURENT GUYOT
(Paris 1756 – 1808 Paris)
The Painter Simon Mathurin Lantara in his Studio
Etching with burin
9 ¼ x 7 in. (23 x 17.4 cm.)
33.
PIERRE HUTIN
(Paris c.1720 – 1763 Moscow)
Four Friends in an Artist’s Studio
Inscribed and dated: pierre. hutin sculp. 1754
Etching
5 ¾ x 3 ⅝ in. (14.3 x 9.1 cm.)
[Plate 13]
34.
CHARLES KEENE
(London 1823 – 1891 London)
Artist in front of an Easel (verso)
Portrait of a Boy Drawing (recto)
Pencil
5 ⅞ x 3 ⅞ in. (14.7 x 9.7 cm.)
35.
ALBERT VON KELLER
(Gais 1844 – 1920 Munich)
Study of Five Female Nudes
Signed lower right: ALBERT. KELLER.
Oil on artist’s board
14 ⅜ x 9 ⅞ in. (36.5 x 25 cm.)
36.
THOMAS KERRICH
(Norfolk 1748 – 1828 Norfolk)
Self-Portrait with Four Different Expressions
Pencil
13 x 7 ⅞ in. (32.5 x 19.8 cm.)
37.
ALPHONSE DE LABROUE
(Metz (?) 1792 – 1863 Metz)
In the Artist’s Studio
Signed and dated lower right: Labroue 1836
Watercolour and ink
17 ¾ x 22 in. (45 x 56 cm.)
[Plate 15]
38.
MARIE LAURENCIN (Paris 1883 – 1956 Berlin)
Self-Portrait
Signed and dated lower right: Marie Laurencin
22 Juillet 1903
Black chalk
7 x 8 in. (17.5 x 20 cm.)
39.
ARMAND LAUREYS
(Brussels 1867 – after 1925 Brussels)
Studio Interior
Signed top right: Arm. Laureys
Oil on canvas
12 ½ x 9 in. (32 x 24 cm.)
40.
ADOLPHE LELEUX (Paris 1812 – 1891 Paris)
Interior of the Louvre
Signed lower left: Adolphe Leleux
21 x 31 in. (52 x 77 cm.)

41.
STEPHEN LEWIN (Active London 1890 – 1908)
Portrait of the Artist at the Easel
Signed and dated lower right: S. Lewin 91
Oil on wood
12 x 9 in. (31 x 23 cm.)
42.
SIR COUTTS LINDSAY
(Balcarres, Collinsburgh 1824 – 1913 London)
Self-Portrait
Oil on mahogany panel
30 x 36 in. (76.2 x 91.5 cm.)
43.
MAXIMILIAN LUCE (Paris 1858 – 1941 Paris)
The Artist’s Studio in Rue Vavin
Signed lower right: Luce and inscribed and dated on
the stretcher: ‘Ma chambre, rue Vavin, 1875’
Oil on canvas
11.8 x 9 ½ in. (29.9 x 24.1 cm.)
44.
CATHERINE LUSURIER
(Paris 1752 – 1781 Paris)
Portrait of the Artist Carle Vernet
Oil on canvas
13 ⅝ x 10 ⅜ in. (34 x 26 cm.)
[Plate 7]
45.
ANDREW McCALLUM
(Nottingham 1821 – 1902 London)
Self-Portrait of the Artist in a Rocky Landscape
Oil on canvas
28 ½ x 22 in. (72.5 x 55.9 cm.)
46.
JACOPO PALMA, IL GIOVANE
(Venice 1544 – 1628 Venice) and
GIACOMO FRANCO (Venice 1550 – 1620 Venice)
Painting and Sculpture
Etching
6 ¼ x 7 ¼ in. (15.6 x 18.2 cm.)
47.
HERMANN MAX PECHSTEIN
(Zwickau 1881 – 1955 Berlin)
Self-Portrait
Signed with monogram and dated lower right:
HMP ‘17
Pen and ink
13 x 9 ⅜ in. (32.5 x 23.5 cm.)
48.
ISIDORE-ALEXANDRE-AUGUSTIN PILS (Paris
1813 – 1875 Douarnenez)
A Sculptor in his Studio
Signed and dated on the lower right: 1872 I Pils
Watercolour over traces of black chalk
11 x 8 in. (28.1 x 20.2 cm.)
[Plate 8]
49.
GIOVANNI MARCO PITTERI
(Venice 1702 – 1786 Venice)
Portrait of Giovanni Battista Piazzetta
Engraving
20 ¾ x 16 ½ in. (51.8 x 41 cm.)
50.
JEAN ALPHONSE ROEHN
(Paris 1799 – 1864 Paris)
Portrait of an Artist painting her Self-Portrait
Signed lower right: alp. Roehn.
Oil on panel
10 ¼ x 8 in. (26 x 20 cm.)
[Illustrated on the front cover]
51.
GEORGES ROUSSIN
(St-Denis 1854 - 1929)
The Artist’s Studio
Signed lower left: G Roussin
Oil on panel
8 ½ x 11 in. (21 x 28 cm.)
52.
THOMAS ROWLANDSON
(London 1756 – 1827 London)
Manufacturers of Old Masters at Work
Watercolour
15 ¾ x 18 ¾ in. (40.5 x 48 cm.)
[Plate 9]
53.
AUGUSTIN DE SAINT-AUBIN
(Paris1736 – 1807 Paris), engraving after CHARLES
NICOLAS COCHIN the YOUNGER
(Paris 1715 – 1790 Paris)
Portrait of the artist Jacques Du Mont, called Le Romain.
Engraving
7 ¾ x 5 ¾ in. (19.2 x 14.3 cm.)57.
54.
ENOCH SEEMAN
(Danzig c.1690 – 1744 London)
Self-Portrait with the Painter’s Brother Isaac
Oil on canvas
50 x 40 in. (127 x 101.2 cm.)

55.
JOHANN GOTTFRIED SCHADOW
(Berlin 1764 – 1850 Berlin)
The Exhibition Audience
Signed and dated in pencil: Dir. Schadow 26 May 1831
Zincograph
12 ½ x 23 in. (31 x 57.5 cm.)
56.
JOHANN GOTTFRIED SCHADOW
(Berlin 1764 – 1850 Berlin)
The Old Painter
Zincograph
14 x 10 in. (34.9 x 25.2 cm.)
57.
GERARD VAN SPAENDONCK
(Tilburg 1746 – 1822 Paris)
Self-Portrait seated at a Table, turned to the right
Black and white chalk, heightened with white,
on light brown paper
14 ¼ x 12 in. (36.7 x 28.8 cm.)
[Plate 6]
58.
AUSTIN OSMAN SPARE
(London 1886 – London 1956)
Self-Portrait with Animal Forms
Signed and dated: Jan AD 1906 Austin O. Spare
Pencil, black ink and grey wash heightened with gold
14 ½ x 10 ¼ in. (37 x 26 cm.)
59.
PHILIPPE JOSEPH TASSAERT
(Antwerp 1732 – 1803 London)
The Drawing Academy
Brush and black ink, grey and black wash over black
chalk, on yellowish paper
13 x 12 ¼ in. (33.2 x 30.8 cm.)
60.
PIETRO TESTA (Lucca 1612 – 1650 Rome)
Self-Portrait
Inscribed: Ritratto di Pietro Testa Pictore eccel. te/
delineavit et sculpsit Romae. Superiorum permisu/ fran.
co. Collignon formis
Etching
9 x 6 ⅝ in. (22.5 x 16.6 cm.)
61.
JOHANN HEINRICH TISCHBEIN
(Haina 1722 – 1789 Kasel)
Self-Portrait in Venetian Masquerade Costume
Monogrammed and dated centre right: HT Pinx / 1753
Inscribed on original canvas support: N=o.98
Oil on canvas
33 ½ x 27 in. (85.1 x 68.6 cm.)
[Plate 4]
62.
HENRI DE TOULOUSE-LAUTREC
(Albi 1864 – 1901 Malromé)
Artist Painting (verso)
Head of a Man, in Profile, wearing a Hat (recto)
With the artist’s stamped monogram
(Lugt 1338, lower left recto)
Pencil on paper
10 ⅝ x 6 ¾ in. (27 x 17 cm.)
[Illustrated on the back cover]
63.
JACOB VAN TOORENVLIET
(Leiden c. 1635/41 – 1719 Leiden)
An Allegory of Painting
Oil on copper
10 ¼ x 12 ¾ in. (26 x 32.5cm.)
[Plate 12]
64.
CHARLES TURNER, A.R.A
(Oxfordshire 1773 – 1857 London)
Portrait of Paul Colnaghi
Brush and sepia
15 ½ x 12 ½ in. (39 x 32 cm.)
65.
ÉMILE-JEAN-HORACE VERNET
(Paris 1789 – 1863 Paris)
Raphael at the Vatican
Oil on canvas
15 ½ x 11 ¾ in. (39.2 x 30 cm.)
Preliminary sketch for the 1833 Salon painting
66.
ÉMILE-JEAN-HORACE VERNET
(Paris 1789 – 1863 Paris)
Raphael at the Vatican
Oil on canvas
18 x 24 ¼ in. (45.7 x 61.6 cm.)
Preliminary sketch for the 1833 Salon painting
67.
CHARLES FRIEDRICH ALFRED VETTER
(Kahlstadt 1858 – 1936 Kahlstadt)
A Visit to the Munich Pinakothek
Signed and dated lower right: C Vetter 1917
Oil on canvas
25 x 23 ¼ in. (63.5 x 69 cm.)
[Plate 14]
68.
FRIEDRICH GEORG WEITSCH
(Braunschweig 1758 – 1828 Berlin)
Self-Portrait
Etching
4 ½ x 3 ½ in. (11.3 x 8.9 cm.)

Plate 15
ALPHONSE DE LABROUE
(Metz (?) 1792 – 1863 Metz)
In the Artist’s Studio
Cat.37

Back Cover:
HENRI DE TOULOUSE-LAUTREC
(Albi 1864 – 1901 Malromé)
Artist painting (verso)
Head of a Man, in Profile, wearing a Hat (recto)
Cat.62
COLNAGHI
15 OLD BOND STREET
LONDON W1S 4AX
UNITED KINGDOM
Tel. +44-20-7491-7408
Fax. +44-20-7491-8851
contact@colnaghi.co.uk
www.colnaghi.co.uk
EMANUEL VON BAEYER
130-132 HAMILTON TERRACE
LONDON, NW8 9UU
UNITED KINGDOM
Tel & Fax: + 44-20-7372-1668
art@evbaeyer.com
www.evbaeyer.com