Art Work20320 Little Girl With Broom Sweeping in Brown Dress

Every bit she leans over the gate of a wooden fence a young girl stares direct at the viewer. In her left hand is a broom. The argue appears to surround a well, whose nighttime, round form is visible in the foreground. The well is flanked by a large overturned saucepan on the right and a dark object, maybe a trough, on the left. While the daughter'due south form is lit strongly from the left, the dark background and even the expanse around the well remain relatively undefined and obscured in shadow. [one] [1]
This entry is a revised version of the text that appeared in the Nationalmuseum itemize of Rembrandt och Hans Tid [Rembrandt and His Age] (Stockholm 1992), no. 83, and the symposium papers published thereafter (Arthur K. Wheelock Jr., "A Girl with a Broom: A Trouble of Attribution," in Görel Cavalli-Björkman, ed., Rembrandt and His Pupils [Stockholm, 1993], 142–155). I have benefited greatly from my many conversations with Susanna Pauli Griswold about the issues discussed in this entry. I would also similar to thank Dennis Weller and Melanie Gifford for their helpful comments.

A Daughter with a Broom, in big part considering of the appealing features of the young daughter and the genre-similar character of the subject, has long been admired as ane of Rembrandt's virtually sensitive depictions of figures from his immediate environs. This attractive model has been identified repeatedly as a young servant daughter in Rembrandt's household, but her identity remains unknown. [ii] [two]
This identification was first proposed by Émile Michel, Rembrandt: Sa vie, son oeuvre et son temps, two vols. (New York, 1893), 1:75. It was reiterated past, among others, Otto Benesch, "The Rembrandt Paintings in the National Gallery of Art," Fine art Quarterly 6 (Winter 1943): 26. Geertje Dirckx could not have served every bit the model; having been born around 1610, she would have been too old to be this sitter, who is probably about twelve to fifteen years old. Hendrickje Stoffels, who was born in 1626, and who entered Rembrandt's household around 1647, would also have been too old. The model who posed for Girl with a Broom probably too posed for Girl at the Window, 1645 [fig. 1] [fig. 1] Rembrandt van Rijn, Girl at a Window, 1645, oil on canvas, Dulwich Picture Gallery, London. Photo reproduced by permission of the Trustees of Dulwich Picture Gallery . The girls accept comparable hairstyles; they accept relatively broad faces with widely separated eyes and low, flat eyebrows; their noses, the tips of which accept a slightly bulbous appearance, are like; and finally, their broadly formed lips are virtually identical. [3] [three]
Computer examinations of the physical characteristics of the heads in these two paintings accept been undertaken at the National Gallery of Art. The results accept reinforced the notion that the model was identical. I am particularly indebted to Ambrose Liao and Donna Mann for their enthusiastic inquiry on this project.

Whether this piece of work was meant every bit a portrait or equally a genre scene has been a thing of some discussion. Should information technology have been possible to identify the girl, the painting would almost certainly be classified as a portrait because of the frontal pose and conscientious depiction of the features. [four] [4]
See, for instance, Rembrandt's Titus at His Desk, 1655 (Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam, inv. no. 512), which would probably be classified as a genre scene where the sitter not known. Nevertheless, the setting and accoutrements give the painting the character of a genre scene, albeit one that is non fully explained to the viewer. Why, for example, is the daughter holding the broom while leaning over the wall surrounding the well, and does the prominently placed bucket have any iconographic significance? [5] [5]
Susan Koslow, "Frans Hals's Fisherboys: Exemplars of Idleness," Art Message 57 (September 1975): 429, has associated the crossed-arm pose of the daughter with idleness. This interpretation, nonetheless, is not convincing. The blazon of well depicted appears to be similar to that in The Village Holiday by Daniel Teniers the Younger (1610–1690) (Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, Richmond, no. 56–23). In this painting a broom and a bucket stand next to the well.

Contempo scholars accept doubted the attribution to Rembrandt and some accept fifty-fifty speculated that the painting is eighteenth century in origin. [6] [half-dozen]
Near all scholars since Abraham Bredius, Rembrandt: The Complete Edition of the Paintings, revised by Horst Gerson (London, 1969), 580, no. 378, take doubted the attribution to Rembrandt. Because A Girl with a Broom has a distinguished provenance that reaches back to 1678, when information technology is near certainly listed in the inventory of the collection of an acquaintance of Rembrandt'southward, Herman Becker, the latter suggestion is clearly unacceptable. Even though the painting was attributed to Rembrandt when it was in Becker's collection, its mode differs in plenty cardinal ways from that of Rembrandt'due south authentic paintings to warrant the doubts mentioned in the literature.

The primary reason that A Daughter with a Broom has been associated with eighteenth-century images is its concrete appearance. The surface is deformed in areas, particularly in the face up and hands, past pronounced Wrinkling Small furrows and ridges in pigment or cloth due to shrinkage, folding, or compression. of the pigment similar to that found in certain English paintings of the eighteenth century [fig. 2] [fig. 2] Raking light, Rembrandt Workshop (Possibly Carel Fabritius), A Girl with a Broom, probably begun 1646/1648 and completed 1651, oil on sheet, National Gallery of Art, Washington, Andrew W. Mellon Drove, 1937.1.74 . [seven] [7]
Abraham Bredius, Rembrandt: The Consummate Edition of the Paintings, revised by Horst Gerson (London, 1969), 580, no. 378 wrote: "The surface is equanimous of small particles of paint curling slightly at the edges, such as 1 observes on pictures which have been exposed to boggling heat or on pictures of the eighteenth century. The latter possibility, in the present country of Rembrandt research, should not be excluded." The outcome was further taken upward by Hubert von Sonnenburg, "Maltechnische Gesichtspunkte zur Rembrandtforschung," Maltechnik-Restauro 82 (1976): 12. Von Sonnenburg associated the "gerunzelte Farbschicht" with that found in eighteenth-century English paintings. This issue, he wrote, resulted from an excess of drying oil or from the character of the medium itself. He questioned whether the painting had been made by a follower of Rembrandt and called for a serious scientific analysis of the piece of work. This outcome had, until the painting'due south conservation handling in 1991–1992, been exacerbated by the thick layers of pigmented varnish. Technical analysis undertaken at the time of the handling indicated that the wrinkling in the surface resulted from the interference of an underlying paint layer that had not sufficiently stale. The X-radiographs [see X-radiography A photographic or digital image analysis method that visually records an object'south power to blot or transmit x-rays. The differential absorption pattern is useful for examining an object'south internal structure as well as for comparing the variation in pigment types. ] reveals that the girl's confront was painted over an earlier head looking upwardly to the right [fig. 3] [fig. 3] Ten-radiograph composite, Rembrandt Workshop (Mayhap Carel Fabritius), A Girl with a Broom, probably begun 1646/1648 and completed 1651, oil on sheet, National Gallery of Art, Washington, Andrew Westward. Mellon Collection, 1937.1.74 . To judge from the 10-radiograph, the pb white modeling around the nose and cheek of the underlying head is quite dense. Little or no wrinkling appears on the surface image covering these areas of the underlying image. The wrinkling on the surface is most pronounced where information technology overlaps transparent areas of the underlying images, such every bit eye sockets. It thus appears that these shaded areas were modeled in night, medium-rich glazes that had not yet stale at the fourth dimension the tiptop layers were applied. [viii] [eight]
I would particularly like to thank Karin Groen, who analyzed a group of samples taken from this painting and confirmed the cess of the problem developed by the Scientific Research department at the National Gallery of Art (letter, Dec 4, 1992, in NGA curatorial files). She specifically noted that medium-rich paint (high oil content) can be observed in many of the layers. A night chocolate-brown underlayer, sandwiched betwixt medium-rich layers, contains manganese, probably in the form of umber, which promotes a fine blazon of wrinkling. Layers near the surface contain cobalt, which promotes surface drying. Once the surface dries prior to the drying of the underlying layers, wrinkling of the paint occurs. She as well noted the presence of vermilion virtually the proper right manus that belonged to the later alter in the composition.

Although the existence of an earlier grade below the girl'southward head is adequately piece of cake to distinguish in the Ten-radiographs, evidence of an underlying layer is more difficult to discern for the rest of the body. Nevertheless, an earlier shape for the blouse, blocked in with paints with little density, tin be distinguished in various places. [9] [nine]
The X-radiographs [see X-radiography] measure out only the relative density of metal-based paints, hence other components of the initial pigment layer could be that cannot exist read with this exam process. More information could possibly be gained through test with neutron autoradiography. The most obvious of these is along the outer contour of the girl'southward right sleeve. An earlier layer, probably the same, can too be made out under the handle of the broom both in the X-radiographs and with the naked eye. Also visible through the brown color of the broom handle is the full extent of the girl's thumb. [10] [ten]
The thumb is also visible in the X-radiographs. Since the daughter's easily take surface distortions much as those found in the head, underlying pigment layers hither must take had paint characteristics like to those in the shaded portions of the earlier head.

Whatever the explanation for the unusual nature of the paint in the flesh areas, neither technical nor visual bear witness provides an argument for removing A Girl with a Broom from the firsthand orbit of Rembrandt. [11] [11]
Although a comparable wrinkling outcome is not plant in the impastos of paintings by Rembrandt, similar problems practise exist in the backgrounds of at least 2 of his works, Abduction of Proserpine (Gemäldegalerie, Berlin; Br. 463), and Alexander (City Art Gallery and Museum, Glasgow; Br. 480). Not simply is the image appealing in field of study affair, the modeling of the features is sensitively rendered, and the folds in the daughter's white blouse are executed with great bravura.

Notwithstanding the inherent qualities of A Girl with a Broom, a close comparing of it with ii comparable paintings by Rembrandt—Daughter at a Window, 1645, in Dulwich [fig. 1] [fig. one] Rembrandt van Rijn, Daughter at a Window, 1645, oil on canvas, Dulwich Picture Gallery, London. Photo reproduced by permission of the Trustees of Dulwich Picture Gallery and Servant Girl at a Window, 1651, in Stockholm [fig. four] [fig. 4] Rembrandt van Rijn, Retainer Daughter at a Window, 1651, oil on canvas, Nationalmuseum, Stockholm —points out differences that clearly call into question the attribution to Rembrandt. The centrally placed figure remains isolated in the composition and does not activate the surrounding infinite as do the girls in the Dulwich and Stockholm paintings. Specifically, in comparison to the Dulwich painting, the modeling of the blouse in A Girl with a Broom is much freer, fifty-fifty in the folds of her right sleeve that are similar in character. Whereas in Daughter at a Window Rembrandt created the illusion that the textile actually rises and turns over upon itself, the folds in A Girl with a Broom have been formed with distinctive brushstrokes highlighting the uppermost ridges of the cloth. Nix in the Dulwich painting is comparable to the extremely expressive brushwork in the left sleeve, where chiaroscuro effects are achieved past highlighting illuminated folds with slashing strokes of white impasto. Finally, while the blouse is more freely rendered hither, the daughter's features are not modeled with the same degree of plasticity as they are in the Dulwich painting. There, Rembrandt boldly modeled the eyes, nose, and rima oris with nuanced strokes that clearly convey the structure of the girl's head. In the discipline'due south face in A Girl with a Broom, as well as in her blouse, pigment is more than at the service of light than of construction. Accents effectively highlight the hair, forehead, nose, and upper lip, just they are not used to create underlying form. The difference in approach is virtually distinctly seen in the area of the right eye, where a general halftone shadow does niggling to suggest three-dimensional character. Instead, the centre's structure, particularly the upper eyelid, is created with painted lines.

Significant stylistic differences also exist between A Daughter with a Broom and Rembrandt's Retainer Girl at a Window [fig. 4] [fig. 4] Rembrandt van Rijn, Servant Girl at a Window, 1651, oil on canvass, Nationalmuseum, Stockholm , even though the ii works are dated the same year. The young woman represented in this latter painting is mayhap, although not necessarily, the same; the pose, however, like that of the daughter in the Dulwich painting, appears more than natural and organic than in the Washington painting, where the girl'south head seems likewise large for her body. The subject's confront in the Stockholm Servant Girl is more freely brushed than that in the Washington painting and modeling is accomplished with quick and certain strokes. Accents of light help enliven her class, specially around the eyes, in a way that is absent-minded in A Girl with a Broom. The blouse, red jacket, and right hand of the servant girl in the Stockholm painting are also modeled with broad strokes that are quite consistent throughout and assistance create the painting's harmonious effect. In the Washington painting, on the other hand, while the brushwork of the sleeves is assuming and vigorous, that of the face and easily is relatively restrained, and that used to paint the broom is insufficiently timid.

The contrasts in manner of execution betwixt A Girl with a Broom and both of these related paintings are so intrinsic to an artistic approach that information technology seems improbable that A Girl with a Broom was executed by the same paw. The differences between the Washington and Dulwich paintings are such that it does not seem possible to business relationship for them by differences of date, even if the Dulwich painting were executed in 1645 and the Gallery's painting in 1651. It is even more improbable that Rembrandt would have created such dissimilar images equally the Washington and Stockholm paintings in the same year. The signature and date of A Girl with a Broom, moreover, are certainly suspect. Although there is no evidence to propose that they accept been added at a later appointment, they are written in an uncharacteristic form, placed, as they are, effectually the circular inner edge of the well. [12] [12]
The signature appears to be integral with the paint surface, and no varnish has been constitute betwixt it and the underlying pigment. Should in that location take been no date inscribed on the painting, the similarity in the historic period, hairstyle, and general appearance of the girl in the Washington and Dulwich paintings would accept chosen for a projected appointment for A Girl with a Broom of 1646/1648, only a few years after the Dulwich Daughter. [thirteen] [xiii]
Information technology is a curious coincidence that the Stockholm Retainer Girl at a Window is also dated 1651. Both paintings were in France in the eighteenth century, as was the Dulwich painting. One of these three paintings may have been the work described by Roger de Piles in the preface to his Cours de Peinture par Principes (Paris, 1708), 10–11, every bit quoted in Seymour Slive, Rembrandt and His Critics, 1630–1730 (The Hague, 1953), 129: "Rembrandt diverted himself one twenty-four hour period by making a portrait of his retainer in order to exhibit information technology at his window and deceive the eyes of the pedestrians. . . . While in Kingdom of the netherlands I was curious to meet the portrait. I found information technology painted well and with bully strength. I bought it and still exhibit it in an of import position in my cabinet." One possible explanation for the discrepancies of date and style, given the existence of an earlier paradigm, is that the painting was begun in the late 1640s and just finished in 1651. This work, thus, may be one other example of a painting executed over an extended menses of time (run into, among the Rembrandt paintings in the Gallery'southward drove: Saskia van Uylenburgh, the Married woman of the Artist , The Campaigner Paul , and The Descent from the Cross .

Few specifics are known about the nature of Rembrandt's workshop in the late 1640s and early 1650s. Samuel van Hoogstraten (1627–1678), in his Inleyding tot de Hooge Schoole der Schilderkonst (Rotterdam, 1678), indicates that he was active in the chief'due south workshop before he returned to his native city of Dordrecht in April 1648. The young man students he mentions were Carel Fabritius (Dutch, c. 1622 - 1654) and Abraham Furnerius (c. 1628–1654). Among other artists working with Rembrandt in the tardily 1640s were Karel van der Pluym (1625–1672), Constantijn van Renesse (Dutch, 1626 - 1680), and Nicolaes Maes (Dutch, 1634 - 1693). It seems probable that Willem Drost (Dutch, c. 1630 - later 1680) and Abraham van Dijck (1635/1636–1672) likewise became Rembrandt pupils around 1650, although aught certain is known about their human relationship to Rembrandt. Indeed, many questions remain virtually paintings from Rembrandt's workshop around 1650 (see, for instance, Portrait of Rembrandt ) because it is extremely difficult to establish the contained identities of Rembrandt's pupils during these years. Zilch in the oeuvres of artists known or idea to accept been working with Rembrandt in the early 1650s can be effectively compared either thematically or stylistically to this work. A more likely appointment, in terms of the way of execution, appears to exist the belatedly 1640s.

Although no documentary proof has survived that clarifies the unlike roles of student and assistant in Rembrandt's workshop during the 1640s, the more than advanced of his students, for example Hoogstraten and Fabritius, would take worked equally assistants in the workshop subsequently they finished their apprenticeship. [fourteen] [14]
Fabritius seems to have studied with Rembrandt in the early 1640s before returning to Midden-Beemster in 1643. Virtually nothing is known about him during the late 1640s, but information technology seems unlikely that he remained in Midden-Beemster the entire time without standing his contact with Rembrandt in Amsterdam. Midden-Beemster is only about 30 kilometers from Amsterdam and was a community that had many ties with Amsterdam. In 1648 or 1649 Fabritius painted the portrait of a wealthy Amsterdam silk merchant, Abraham de Potter (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. no. A1591). By 1650 he had moved to Delft. For further data on Fabritius meet Christopher Dark-brown, Carel Fabritius (Oxford, 1981), and Frederik J. Duparc, Carel Fabritius, 1622–1654 (The Hague and Schwerin, 2004). In all likelihood they continued to help execute paintings that would exist sold under Rembrandt's name, even after they had begun working independently and signing their ain works. [15] [15]
In this respect their relationship to Rembrandt would have been much the same as that of Anthony van Dyck to Peter Paul Rubens during the belatedly 1610s. In those years Van Dyck simultaneously painted in Rubens' style when working in Rubens' studio and in his own personal manner when painting in his own workshop. Paintings created for Rembrandt's workshop, to judge from those that take recently been attributed to these artists, would oftentimes be free adaptations of Rembrandt'south own compositions. These works, in one case accepted by the principal every bit worthy of his product, would be inscribed with his signature and the date.

A Daughter with a Broom fits into this scenario. It is ane of a number of paintings loosely derived from Rembrandt's Girl at a Window in Dulwich. Hoogstraten was particularly fond of this compositional type, if one is to judge from his belatedly 1640s Immature Man in a Hat, at a One-half-Door in the Hermitage. [16] [sixteen]
Immature Man in a Hat, at a Half-Door is not signed. It was first attributed to Hoogstraten by Werner Sumowski, Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler, 5 vols. (Landau i.d. Pfalz, 1983), ii:1339, no. 856. The painting was as well cataloged as by Hoogstraten in Christopher Chocolate-brown, January Kelch, and Pieter van Thiel, Rembrandt: The Chief and His Workshop: Paintings (New Haven and London, 1991), 356, no. 74. The quality of this work, yet, is comparatively mediocre, and it is impossible to reconcile the simplistic handling of paint seen here with that found in A Girl with a Broom. A much finer painting of a comparable type that has been attributed to Hoogstraten, Young Adult female at an Open up Half-Door, signed and dated Rembrandt 1645 [fig. 5] [fig. 5] Rembrandt van Rijn (or follower), Young Woman at an Open Half-Door, 1645, oil on canvas, Mr. and Mrs. Martin A. Ryerson Collection, 1894.1022. Photo © 1994, The Art Institute of Chicago. All Rights Reserved , is as well executed in a style distinctively different from that of A Girl with a Broom. [17] [17]
The painting was included in Christopher Brown, January Kelch, and Pieter van Thiel, Rembrandt: The Master and His Workshop: Paintings (New Oasis and London, 1991), 350, no. 72, every bit by Hoogstraten. I would like to thank Martha Wolff at the Art Institute for her observations about the differences in technique between these two paintings and for sending me detailed photographs of the Chicago painting. In add-on to the Chicago painting, some other Rembrandt School painting from this menstruum, depicting a immature male child leaning against a metal railing, is in the Cincinnati Art Museum. Come across Mary Ann Scott, Dutch, Flemish, and German language Paintings in the Cincinnati Fine art Museum (Cincinnati, 1987), 107–110, no. 38. As is axiomatic in comparisons of the hands ( [fig. 6] [fig. six] Detail of hands, Rembrandt Workshop (Possibly Carel Fabritius), A Daughter with a Broom, probably begun 1646/1648 and completed 1651, oil on canvas, National Gallery of Art, Washington, Andrew W. Mellon Collection, 1937.one.74 and [fig. 7] [fig. 7] Particular of left hand, Rembrandt van Rijn (or follower), Young Adult female at an Open Half-Door, 1645, oil on canvas, Mr. and Mrs. Martin A. Ryerson Collection, 1894.1022. Photo © 1994, The Art Found of Chicago. All Rights Reserved ), the forms in the Chicago painting are executed in a far crisper manner, with flatter planes of color and fewer nuances of shading. Differences in character betwixt the white sleeves of the girl in the Washington painting and the white shirt of the girl in the Chicago painting besides betoken out that the Gallery's A Daughter with a Broom was executed by an artistic personality that favored a freer, more painterly approach.

The artist in Rembrandt's circumvolve during this period who was well-nigh capable of both the nuanced modeling of the face up and hands and the rough bravura brushwork constitute in the sleeves was Carel Fabritius, but specific comparisons with other works past him are difficult to make because few paintings can be firmly attributed to him during the mid-1640s. Thus only a tentative attribution to him is suggested. [18] [18]
In 1993, at my suggestion, the attribution of this painting was changed from "Rembrandt van Rijn" to "Carel Fabritius and Rembrandt Workshop," and the painting was exhibited as such in Stockholm (Rembrandt och Hans Tid [Rembrandt and His Historic period] [Stockholm, 1992], no. 83). The Fabritius attribution, nevertheless, was not generally accustomed. A number of colleagues felt that insufficient comparative material existed to brand a house attribution. Walter Liedtke, "Stockholm: Rembrandt and His Historic period" (review of the exhibition Rembrandt och Hans Tid), The Burlington Magazine 124 (December 1992): 829–830, believes that the creative person of the Chicago painting (fig. 5), which he attributes to Samuel van Hoogstraten, also executed A Girl with a Broom. Egbert Haverkamp-Begemann (personal communication, 1993) would prefer to exit the attribution of the Washington painting every bit "bearding." I of the few comparisons to Fabritius' work that can exist made is to his evocative Self-Portrait, c. 1645–1648 [fig. 8] [fig. 8] Carel Fabritius, Self-Portrait, c. 1645–1648, oil on sheet, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam. Photograph: Studio Tromp, Rotterdam . Although the modeling of the face of the girl in A Girl with a Broom is more nuanced than that of the Self-Portrait, where modeling is achieved with vigorously applied cleaved impastos, these differences may well relate to unlike artistic intents. The boldly uncompromising application of paint in the Cocky-Portrait was conspicuously intended to help characterize the artist's personality, whereas the careful modeling in the girl's face up was advisable to her sexual practice and historic period. The character of the brushwork in the faces of these ii paintings, indeed, is far more comparable than one might initially suspect. In both instances paint is densely applied with wide, interlocking brushstrokes that model facets or planes of the face. Similarly placed accents, moreover, assistance define the cheekbone and nose. A specific betoken of comparison is in the structure of the eyes: in each instance the upper portions of the relatively large, apartment, almond-shaped eyes are defined by a blackness line rather than by modulations in tone. This particular manner of articulating optics is not found in paintings by other artists in Rembrandt's circle.

1 other painting can be brought into this discussion, a Portrait of a Adult female attributed to Fabritius by the Rembrandt Research Project (RRP). [19] [19]
Stichting Foundation Rembrandt Enquiry Project,A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings, vol. 3, 1635–1642, ed. Josua Bruyn et al. (Dordrecht, Boston, and London, 1989), C107. The painting and its pendant (Br. 251), which are traditionally identified every bit portraits of Adriaentje Hollaer and her hubby, the painter Hendrick Martensz Sorgh, are in the collection of the Duke and Duchess of Westminster. See also Abraham Bredius, Rembrandt: The Consummate Edition of the Paintings, revised by Horst Gerson (London, 1969), 291, no. 370. Although this painting is signed and dated "Rembrandt.f/1647," the RRP has concluded that it was executed by Fabritius around 1642. Whether or non such a redating is justified, and I would maintain that the date on the painting reflects the menstruum of its execution, the attribution of this portrait to Fabritius is convincing. The differences in style between the carefully modeled head of this woman and Fabritius' more broadly and roughly executed Rotterdam Self-Portrait, still, demonstrate the range of techniques Fabritius was capable of during these years. The daughter's head in A Girl with a Broom falls somewhere between these ii works. The easily of the woman in Fabritius' Portrait and those of the subject in A Girl with a Broom as well evidence marked similarities. In both instances they are modeled with interlocking planes of colour that are generally brushed across the forms, particularly the fingers, rather than forth their length. [20] [20]
For a detail photograph of the hands of the Portrait of a Woman run into Stichting Foundation Rembrandt Research Project,A Corpus of Rembrandt Paintings, vol. 3, 1635–1642, ed. Josua Bruyn et al. (Dordrecht, Boston, and London, 1989), 677, fig. 4.

The hypothesis that A Girl with a Broom could have been created during the mid-to-late 1640s by Fabritius in response to Rembrandt's Girl at a Window, however, needs to remain extremely tentative because of the 1651 appointment inscribed on the painting. Fabritius almost certainly would non have added the signature and date considering he had moved to Delft in 1650. It is possible, however, that the prototype was reworked and brought to completion by another artist at this date. The footing for this hypothesis is the stylistic discrepancy that exists betwixt the execution of the broom, the saucepan, and even the contend surrounding the well, and that of the figure. Neither the broom nor the bucket is executed with the same surety as the figure itself. The tentative brushstrokes do not model the forms with assuming accents comparable to those institute on the girl's blouse. The relationships of calibration between the girl and these objects are likewise peculiarly discordant.

Technical evidence seems to support the hypothesis that the broom may have been worked up after the initial blocking in of the figure had occurred. As has been mentioned, an earlier form of the blouse and the girl's left thumb were painted under the broomstick. Whether or not the broom was part of the original concept is of some debate. In the X-radiographs (see [fig. 3] [fig. three] 10-radiograph composite, Rembrandt Workshop (Possibly Carel Fabritius), A Daughter with a Broom, probably begun 1646/1648 and completed 1651, oil on sail, National Gallery of Fine art, Washington, Andrew W. Mellon Drove, 1937.1.74 ) in that location is the appearance of a reserve left for the broom. The area of little density within the costume, however, would not take been blocked in with dense paints since information technology conforms to the position of her ruddy shoulder strap. To the correct of the broom this scarlet is painted over a dark layer, while to the left of the broom the red is painted over the white shirt, which may be an indication that information technology was applied as a result of a design change. Immediately above the shoulder is a dark area in the X-radiographs that seems to conform to the shape of a portion of the broomstick. Whether this diagonal shape is a reserve is too hard to make up one's mind, in part because it abuts another nighttime expanse side by side to the girl'south head that has no logical human relationship to the final image. [21] [21]
The simply possibility that I can come up with is that the combined forms may take been a reserve for an implement with a horizontal piece at the end of the handle. In any event, the definition of the "reserve" that seems to correspond to the shape of the broom has been enhanced on the left by the paints containing atomic number 82 white that were used at the last phase of execution to silhouette the figure against the dark background (and to cover Pentimenti An amending made by the artist to an area that was already painted. in the girl'south shirt).

One chip of technical show that links the signature and date, the broom, and the saucepan concerns their distinctive reddish orange accents, which have a vermilion component. Similar accents also appear on the girl's curls and on her shoulder to the left of the broom, indicating that these other areas of the painting may have been finalized at this fourth dimension every bit well. [22] [22]
This ascertainment has been confirmed through Karin Groen's analysis of the paint layers. See notation 8. Merely why A Girl with a Broom would take been worked on at two unlike stages is not known, although it may well be that the painting was non originally brought to completion because distortions in the surface from the wrinkling pigment had speedily adult.

Arthur K. Wheelock Jr.

April 24, 2014

knightwifice.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.81.html

Share this post