Transcription

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76 which the.hlel lwd Sisenl fell far short. In the JHel Hnd..S)senl the figures appear as light-an-dark silhouettes depriving the work of mood or atmosphere. The result is one of the least powerful pictures,"vithin the oeuvre of Artemisia. In terms of anatomical depiction, the Detroit picture makes subtle advances over Artemisia's other pictures including the Uffizi Judith, the Penitent il-h{rthilen. and the illinen'll. As for dating the Detroit painting, one should consider that it shows advancement over the above mentioned pictures. To determine a date for Artemisia's pictures, one cannot assume her work shows a linear progression of quality. But in the case of the Detroit Judith, the painting's Caravaggesque lighting and sophisticated space suggest a date in the late part of her Roman years, just before she left for Naples. However, of A.rtemisia's output in Rome, in fact, nothing except the Oonl111oniere and the Burghley 5'U}'iWnH is certainly known. Bissell hypothesized that the Capodimonte Jud.1th Rnd Holofernes might belong to Artemisia's Roman period, but he was not aware of the penlimenli in this picture which led Garrard and later scholars to a different conclusion. 1 Garrard gives it a relatively early date of ca , well prior the date usually hypothesized for the Uffizi version, a Florentine picture, whih as he have seen, it appears to predate. 1Garrard, 1989, 32 and n. 35. National Gallery of "'lash D C The X rays were made at her request in 1983 at the See p. 48 abo\e 64

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113 which Schutze and Willette date within five years following the JOhn T;i.king Lei/Fe, represents a general shift in Stanzione's style.2 Stanzione's Sf 4fl/tb;/ in Capodimonte in its pose, gesture, and contrasting lights and darks call to mind Artemisia's allegorical Clio of 1632, a subject appropriate for academic painters but one which Caravaggio would not have depicted late in his career. Artemisia, nevertheless, worked it up in a manner that derives from the master's method. The figure's flesh and occasional highlights emerge from the darkened background. The paint and the brushwork still depict a freshness and vibrancy even in the blank background.. Artemisia may have adapted more quickly to the freer style of Neapolitan painting, but Stanzione appears to have caught up with her. Unlike Stanzione, Bernardo Cavallino was a painter whose entire output exemplifies the bravura, painterly style associated with Neapolitan painting after He, too, is an artist who, in my view, worked closely with Artemisia. Cavallino was born in 1616 and would have been only fourteen or fifteen years of age when Artemisia came to Naples. In terms of Cavallino's formal training, De Dominici states that he studied with Massimo Stanzione. Given Artemisia's collaboration with Stanzione, Cavallino probably knew Artemisia and was probably influenced by her. But because 2Schutze and Willette, 212. date the Sf. Dorot4v at the end of the 1630s, while the.st. JOhn is given the dates

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156 two left-side figures are pictorially cropped. If this were so, the original painting, mentioned as 8 x 10 p;ilmi(211 x 264 cm), would have been larger than the extant picture which measures 148 x 203 cm. Grabski feels such a disparity in horizontal size between the documented picture and the existing one would allow for a fifth triton to originally have been present on the left side. Certainly, another figure would have balanced the space surrounding the picture's central figure. Though the extant Gal;il.e;/ may have been altered, it is also possible that Artemisia could have painted several Galatea pictures. In the last of Artemisia's letters referring to a Galatea, she wrote, (November, 1649) expressing a willingness to repeat a subject, and went on to emphasize that, "...never has anyone found in my pictures any repetition of invention, not even of one hand." 1 That Artemisia could well have painted another G;/};il.e;/ makes Grabski's hypothesis difficult to prove. Artemisia, like her father, repeated subjects and (despite her above-cited claim to the contrary) compositions, sometimes with variations. (Her many versions of Judith and Holofernes illustrate this propensity.) For this reason, I do not find it necessary to match the extant G;/};il.e;/ with the Ruffo inventory. Conceivably, several Artemisian G;/};/i.eJis could have existed including Ruffo's version with five tritons and the Feigen picture which has four tritons. ITranslation from Garrard, 1989, 397. This quote demonstrates that even first-hand documentation from an artist is not always accurate. 145

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167 dated in her career to 1620 and 1640, respectively. As for dating the Fogg picture, she states, "The styles of the various periods in her career do not seem to be, as yet, clearly enough differentiated to indicate where, between these two dates (the work) should be placed. "I In May of 1976, Fahy changed his attribution, supporting the artist Paolo Finoglia. Since that time, the museum has accepted his suggestion. 2 In 1978, Freedberg acknowledged the complications of the changing attributions but did not refute Fahy.3 To date, the Fogg museum lists the picture as "attributed to Paolo Finoglia". 4 To further add to the debate, Nicolson proposed in 1979 that the artist was a "follower of Simon Vouet. "5 Garrard, in 1989, defended the attribution back to Artemisia and states, "(This) painting is surely by Artemisia, and was probably painted early in her second Roman period... "6 Garrard was supported in her opinion by Stolzenwald in However, Stolzenwald presented no new evidence nor any rationale for her attribution. In addition to the possible painters suggested in publication, the Fogg Museum's files have additional letters suggesting the libido 2Fogg file ( ). 3"Lorenzo Lotto to Nicolas Poussin," Apollo 107, no. 195 (197B), 395 4Ferdinando Bologno, ed., Battistello Caracciolo e i1 primo naturalismo a Naf,!.Q.1i. (Naples: Electa Napoli: 1991), The Fogg picture was lent to this exhibition with the attribution to rinoglia. 5Benedict Nicolson, The International Caravag~ue Moyement, Lists of Pictures by.: Caravaggio and His Followers throughout Europe from 1590 to 1650, (Oxford: Phaidon, 1979),110. 6Garrard, 19B9,BO. 7Stolzenwald, like Garrard, assigns the picture to Artemisia's Roman years. 156

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215 Figure 18. Artemisia Gentileschi, The Annunciatioo. 204

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234 Figure 37. Parents. Massimo Stanzione, Sf John ~1king Le,,1ve of His 223

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246