Diplomatic World 67

A TAXONOMY
OF AUTHORSHIP AND THE HAND
OF SIR ANTHONY VAN DYCK
IN HIS FIRST ANTWERP PERIOD 1615-20
IN MEMORIAM DR. ARNOUT BALIS
Univ. Prof. Dr. hc Jan De Maere
University of Art & Design, Cluj-Napoca
Anthonis Van Dyck and Studio,
Cook version, 112 x 11,5 cm, c. 1620
X-ray Cook version
In red, reworked parts in a second stage
of the Cook version
ABSTRACT
teraction, involved in the two best (known) versions of the Family
portrait of Cornelis de Vos and his Family, interdisciplinary exam-
For the first part of van Dyck’s career, when in Rubens’ studio,
inations high-end technological methods, such as X-radiography,
little can be said about the specific characteristics of the best
X-ray computer tomography, mammographic tomosynthesis and
assistant’s paintings compared to these of Van Dyck’s own hand.
macroscopic X-ray fluorescence, can be employed to render the
Some of Sir Anthony Van Dyck’s early paintings exist in different
overpainted layers visible again.
versions. Different versions, copies and replicas of his paintings
are often contemporary, sometimes from his workshop while
Recently, connoisseurship experienced a revival due to the latest
others are later copies by others.
technological developments of the material analysis and history
As Rubens did, Van Dyck had apprentices and assistants (gezellen)
to work on his paintings. The issue of originality, invention
of old master paintings. Nevertheless, technology did not offer
a definite meta-methodological tool 2 replacing the traditional
connoisseurship. It reveals the need of a special kind of interdis-
Anthonis Van Dyck and Studio,
Baron Janssen version, 115 x 111,5 cm, c. 1620
Xray Baron Janssen version
and authorship while acknowledging the status of a painting had
ciplinary connoisseurship 3 .
become a concern since the last quarter of the XVIth century
in Antwerp. Flemish vernacular language developed a nuanced
Technology allows in some cases to refine the distinction be-
vocabulary for artistic replication with a precise taxonomy. The
tween the production of the master and that of his workshop,
analysis of different versions in the light of the ‘hand of the mas-
and between different versions. The actual state of mastery and
ter’ needs categorization in an adequate taxonomy.
authorship in Anthony van Dyck’s paintings is not tethered to the
physical execution of paintings in the same way as in Modernity,
In the art market, the word ‘workshop’ indicates a lesser qualita-
where the polarization of the terms ‘hand of the artist’ and ‘copy’
tive criterium, but in art history it relates to the precise ontological
are the primary locus for authorship.
context of the creation of the painting. An Antwerp studio of a
famous master was an organized industry directed by a skilful
Authenticity in Antwerp in early XVIIth century terms is more
and educated entrepreneur, the master.
anchored in invention than in execution. As in the earlier painting
practices of the XVth and XVIth centuries, collaboration in
He was assisted, even for his autograph paintings by several
famous artist’s workshops, both vertically and horizontally, often
assistants who had to follow his style. Some of them had some-
involved assistant work on the same panel or canvas 4 .
what creative freedom expressed in their individual ‘ductus’, as
the young Van Dyck in Rubens’s studio 1 . His artistic dialog with
‘Multiple hands’ is the rule for the most successful artists of the
Rubens determined the first Antwerp period of his career.
early 17th century in Antwerp, heavily relying on gifted assistants
5 , but the degree of implication of the master determined
1* THE YOUNG ANTHONY VAN DYCK
greatly pricing.
To reconstruct the genesis and the degree of master-studio in-
The young Van Dyck wants to emulate Rubens and to develop
Comparison X-rays, left Baron Janssen version-right Cook version
108 109