Historical Painting Techniques, Materials, and Studio Practice

118

to prevent Adonis from leaving for the hunt, is considered one of the few of

Titian's autograph paintings on the subject (Plate 26). In addition to this work

and the Venus and Adonis in the Prado, another of Titian's paintings by the

same name is located at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.c.

(Plate 27).

Conservation work on the Getty Museum's recent acquisition of Venus and

Adonis gave the authors the opportunity to perform a technical examination

of the painting. It was examined with the use of the following: microscopic

methods, including polarized light microscopy (PLM) and scanning electron

microscopy (SEM); spectrometric methods, including ultraviolet visible spec­

troscopy (UV Ivis), Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, fluores­

cence (FS) spectroscopy, and energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence (EDXRF)

spectroscopy; and chromatographic methods, including gas chromatography

(GC) and thin-layer chromatography (TLC). X-ray diffraction (XRD) and a

number of staining tests and microchemical tests were also used (2). The

cooperation between conservators and scientists proved instrumental in gain­

ing a better understanding of Titian's painting technique. This understanding

was greatly improved through the cooperation of David Bull of the Wash­

ington National Gallery who gave us the opportunity to examine a later

version of the Venus and Adonis in the gallery's collection using a stereomi­

croscope. This examination made it possible to compare Titian's execution

of the same theme at different stages in his career. Our study was greatly

facilitated by Joyce Plesters's pioneering publications on the examination of

Titian pieces in the London National Gallery. Her work served as an example

for our own research and as a continuing source fo r comparison, and helped

in the interpretation of the analytical results. It also helped the authors place

the technique of this particular painting in relation to that of other paintings

of the same period, as well as those of Titian's later and earlier periods.

Support

The painting measures 160 X 196.5 cm. The original canvas is a plain weave

linen, having 16 threads per centimeter in the warp direction and 18 threads

per centimeter in the weft direction. It is made of two strips of canvas, joined

by a vertical seam. The right strip measures 101 cm; the left-hand strip is

slightly smaller and measures 95.5 cm. The painting has been cut on all sides;

it is possible that the left side was cut by 5-9 cm. PI esters has fo und that the

loom width of sixteenth-century Venetian canvases tends to range between

1.06 and 1.10 cm (3).

The painting was first documented in the collection of the Queen Christina

of Sweden and then in that of the Duc d'Orleans. The French eighteenth­

century engraver Delignon made prints of objects in the duke's collection

(4). One of these prints shows the Getty Venus and Adonis, in which it can

be seen that the original composition may have extended out a bit more on

the left side and that it was not originally cut off as close to Venus's fo ot as

it is now. Since the scalloping of the original canvas on the left side is clearly

still visible, the losses cannot have been too extensive.

In the Prado version, which measures 186 X 207 cm (as compared to the

National Gallery version, which measures 107 X 136 cm), the painting's

surface extends a bit fu rther to the left. Comparison of the loss in the Getty

painting with corresponding areas in the print and in the Prado version leads

to the conclusion that the width of the loss may be accounted fo r by the

difference between the present 101 cm strip and the 106-1 1 0 cm width of

the average sixteenth-century Venetian loom. At the right of the Getty paint­

ing, a relatively large section of the dog's tail, still complete in the Delignon

print, is cut off. The amount of the loss is difficult to estimate, but judging

from comparison with the print (the Prado version has suffe red an even

greater loss), it is probably not more than 4-5 cm.

The loss at the upper side, again based on comparison with the Delignon

print, and the London and Prado versions, is more extensive. The shaft of the

Historical Painting Techniques, Materials, and Studio Practice