Historical Painting Techniques, Materials, and Studio Practice

Abstract

Based on extensive information from
cross sections and infrared reflectog­
raphy, this paper presents some as­
pects of painting technique that were
held in common by Jan van Scorel,
the head of a productive sixteenth­
century North Netherlandish work­
shop, and Maarten van Heemskerck,
his best-known assistant. Some of the
idiosyncrasies in Heemskerck's paint­
ing technique differ from Scorel's
studio routine and are more apparent
in this artist's early works.

Maarten van Heemskerck and Jan van Scorel's Haarlem

Workshop

Molly Faries*

Henry Radf ord Hope School of Art

Indiana University

Bloomington, Indiana 47405

USA

Christa Steinbuchel

Wallraf-Richartz-Museum

Bischofsgarten 1

W-5000 Kaln

Germany

J. R. J. van Asperen de Boer

Groningen University

Department for the History of Art and Architechture

Oude Boteringestraat

p. 0. Box 716

9700 AS Groningen

The Netherlands

Introduction

From the records of the Mariakerk in Utrecht where Jan van Scorel held

clerical office, the precise dates of his stay in Haarlem are known: 29 April

1527 to 28 September 1530. Karel van Mander's Schilder-Boeck, the primary

source on the workshop Scorel established in Haarlem during that time, re­

ports that Scorel rented a house in order to take on students. In the biog­

raphies of other sixteenth-century North Netherlandish painters, including

Jan Swart van Groningen or Jan Vermeyen, Mander implies that these painters

were either Scorel's students or were somehow in contact with his shop.

Modern scholars have added other likely (and not so likely) names to Man­

der's list, including Comelis Buys, Herman Postma, and Jan Stephan van Cal­

car, but the assistant whom Mander described at some length was Maarten

van Heemskerck. According to Mander, Heemskerck applied himself dili­

gently in Scorel's Haarlem studio, eventually producing works that were in­

distinguishable from those of his master. In Mander's rather dramatic account,

Heemskerck finally surpassed the de Const (artistry) of his master, only to be

dismissed from the shop, ostensibly because of Scorel's jealousy (1). However

anecdotal this story might seem, art historians have indeed had difficulties

distinguishing early works by Heemskerck from Scorel's work. For most of

the twentieth century, early Heemskerck artworks were attributed to Scorel;

it was not until the 1980s that several key attributions were changed, primarily

in the 1986 Art Before Iconoclasm exhibition (2). Jeff Harrison's recently

published dissertation on Heemskerck is the first to outline a new and plau­

sible chronology fo r his early works (3).

Jan van Scorel's technique

Full technical studies have been carried out by Molly Faries and J. R. J. van

Asperen de Boer on a number of paintings by Jan van Scorel from this period,

including examination by binocular microscope, infrared reflectography, X­

radiography, dendrochronology, and sampling. Until the new shifts in attri­

bution, few early works of Heemskerck had been studied as thoroughly. This

situation changed with the recent cleaning of Lamentation (Wallraf-Richartz­

Museum, Cologne), a painting attributed variously to Scorel, Heemskerck, or

an anonymous artist from the same period. The research in conjunction with

this restoration, carried out under the direction of Christa Steinbuchel, has

* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Faries, Steinbuchel, and van Asperen de Boer 135