The vagaries of Frans Hals’ artistic reputation are more extreme than those of most artists. After having been the preeminent portrait painter in Haarlem during his day, he was almost totally forgotten after his death. It was not until the late nineteenth century that the vigorous and free brushwork that brought his portraits of Dutch burghers vividly to life was once again appreciated by critics, collectors, and contemporary artists. Hals’ paintings, long relegated to obscurity in back rooms or in attics, were proudly brought forward, sent to exhibitions, and sold to dealers and collectors eager to own works.
This Portrait of a Man first became known to the public when it was exhibited in Vienna in 1873. The New York dealer Léonardus Nardus sold it to P. A. B. Widener in 1898. The work was featured in 1908 in an enthusiastic article about acquisitions of Dutch and Flemish paintings in the United States written by one of the foremost authorities of the day, Willem Martin, who in that same year was appointed director of the Mauritshuis in The Hague. He wrote of this work: “It is treated with splendid dash and fluency, without a single repentir. Every stroke was absolutely right, and nowhere is there any alteration of the original composition.” Martin then proceeded to date the portrait to the years 1640–1645 on the basis of comparisons with other Hals’ portraits.
The vagaries of time, however, affect paintings as well as artistic reputations. Despite Martin’s claims, this work had been subjected to many changes [fig. 1]
[fig. 1] Before conservation treatment in 1990–1991, Frans Hals, Portrait of a Man, 1648/1650, oil on canvas, National Gallery of Art, Washington, Widener Collection, 1942.9.28. As was first noted by Claus Grimm in 1972, the dim shadow of a hat once worn by the sitter could be seen against the gray background. The long, wavy locks that flowed over his collar were later additions, as is evident from a drawing made after the painting by Pieter Holsteyn II (Dutch, c. 1614 - 1673), in which the man’s hair is shorter [fig. 2]
[fig. 2] Pieter Holsteyn II, drawing after Portrait of a Man, c. 1660, black ink, Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam. Photo © Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Since Holsteyn’s drawing does not include a hat, it appears that the portrait had been altered at least twice in its history, once prior to 1673, when the hat was removed, and again at a later date, when the hair was made longer. In 1990 and 1991 National Gallery of Art conservators removed the RepaintingPaint applied after a work is finished. of the hair and the OverpaintA layer of paint that covers original paint. in the background that covered the remains of the hat, which had been largely lost to AbrasionA gradual loss of material on the surface. It can be caused by rubbing, wearing, or scraping against itself or another material. It may be a deteriorative process that occurs over time as a result of weathering or handling or it may be due to a deliberate attempt to smooth the material.. Technical examination helped determine that the hat had been an original part of the composition, and the decision was made to reconstruct its appearance. It is not known why the hat was originally removed, although it may have been a question of fashion.
Since Martin’s initial assessment that the painting should be dated to 1640–1645, various other dates have been proposed. Wilhelm Valentiner suggested circa 1650, Claus Grimm circa 1648, and Seymour Slive circa 1655/1660. A dearth of dated paintings makes it difficult to determine a precise chronology of Hals’ mature works, but the information gained from the conservation of the painting suggests that a date of 1648/1650 is the most probable. The fluid brushwork in the face, on the whites of the collar, and in the blacks of the costume is more broadly executed than comparable areas in Hals’ 1645 portrait Willem Coymans. The broad handling of paint is consistent with his style from the end of that decade (see Adriaen van Ostade). A date from the mid-1650s seems less plausible than it once did, now that the overpainting in the hair has been removed. Hals’ original brushwork defines the individual strands of hair in a manner that is consistent with his style at the end of the 1640s. Also helpful for narrowing the date is the style of the hat. Similar hats, with cylindrical crowns and raised brims, worn high on the head, are found in a number of Hals’ portraits from the 1640s, but they went out of fashion in the 1650s.
The identity of the sitter has not been established. Although Grimm saw a certain resemblance to Michael Willmann, a German artist active in the Netherlands in the 1640s, no evidence of contact between Hals and Willmann has come to light. The idea that the sitter may be an artist, however, is plausible, for Hals represented a number of artists without specific attributes. The manner in which the right hand is brought near the chest, and by implication the heart, is comparable to an established iconographic tradition for artists’ portraiture. This rhetorical gesture conveyed not only the sitter’s sincerity and passion but also his artistic sensibility.
Arthur K. Wheelock Jr.
April 24, 2014
