Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin

Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin, c. 1435–1440. 137.5 x 110.8cm. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin is an oil and tempera on oak panel painting attributed to the Early Netherlandish artist Rogier van der Weyden. It shows Luke the Evangelist, patron saint of artists, sketching an apparition of the Virgin Mary as she cradles the Child Jesus. The figures are positioned in a bourgeois interior which leads out towards a courtyard, river, town and expansive landscape. The courtyard contains an enclosed garden, one of the many symbols of Mary's purity. Illustionic carvings of Adam and Eve on the arms of Mary's throne emphasise her son's role in redeeming mankind from original sin. The panel's atmospherics are achieved through the use of chiaroscuro, iconography and symbolic motifs.

Van der Weyden probably completed the work between 1435 and 1440, perhaps for the Guild of Saint Luke in Brussels. The original is housed in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, with three near contemporary versions in the Alte Pinakothek in Munich, the Groeningemuseum, Bruges, and the Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg.[1] The Boston panel is established as the original from underdrawings that are both heavily reworked and absent in the other versions. It is in relatively poor condition having suffered considerable surface damage despite extensive restoration and cleaning since 1932.

Rogier was strongly influenced by Jan van Eyck, and the image a close copy of Madonna of Chancellor Rolin.[2] It closely follows van Eyck's composition, especially the arches, elements of the landscape and the colours of the figures' drapery. However van der Weyden makes significant deviations. Luke is depicted as the foremost actor, and his profession as a painter is heavily emphasised. He uses silverpoint, a very difficult medium to control 'on the fly', as shown here. Van der Weyden associates himself with giving Luke by depicting the saint with a likeness that is almost certainly a self-portrait.[3] Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin was probably donated to the City Painter of Brussels, following his apprenticeship with Robert Campin.[4] As the work depicts the patron of artists interacting with a member of the holy family, it may reflect the 15th-century change in the status of painters from craftsmen to artistic creatives.[5]

Commission

Copy after Rogier van der Weyden, Saint Luke drawing the Virgin (detail), c. 1491-1510. Groeningemuseum, Bruges

Luke the Evangelist was thought to have been a portraitist, according to legend widely disseminated in western Europe by the 10th century, and painted the first portrait of the Virgin and Child.[6] Until the early Renaissance painters aspired to exactly follow his idealised model. Thus their depictions were relatively static until the end of the Byzantine era of icons. During the Early Renaissance, images of the Virgin and Child were more commonly found in Northern than Italian art; in the Low countries, Luke was often anointed patron of painters' guilds.[7] This historical link to the holy family explains the high instance of faithful reproductions of images of this type.[8] St Luke is credited with painting the Cambrai Madonna, a copy of an earlier Byzantine depiction of Virgin and Child, immensely popular to which "numerous miracles were attributed", which became a model for devotional works.[9] The original was relocated to France from Rome in 1440, and within four years at least 15 high quality copies were in existence.[8] It was regarded as an example of St Luke's skill and contemporary painters strove to emulate him in their depictions of Mary. Popular belief held the essence of the Virgin was captured in Luke's portrait of her.[10]

Van der Weyden's Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin may have been commissioned for the Cathedral of St. Michael and St. Gudula, Brussels, where he is buried,[11] or the Brussels' painters' guild.[12] It was probably not designed as a single, standalone panel, but as a triptych altarpiece.[13] St Luke celebrates a specific trade, in this case painting,[12] and in that aspect is similar to Petrus Christus's A Goldsmith in His Shop.[14] By depicting a saint as a fellow practitioner, van der Weyden confers "special status on its practitioners".[12] It is believed to be the oldest extant Netherdandish panel depicting St Luke painting the virgin.[1]

After van Eyck

Jan van Eyck, Madonna of Chancellor Rolin, c. 1435. Louvre, Paris

Van der Weyden closely follows van Eyck's c. 1435 Madonna of Chancellor Rolin, though there are significant differences. The landscape is less detailed and contains fewer human figures. While van Eyck's landscape is left open, van der Weyden's is enclosed,[15] and is set at a considerably higher distance and altitude.[16] The most obvious similarity is the two figures standing at a bridge looking out into the distance, who may not carry specific identities,[17] but those in the van der Weyden have occasionally been identified as Joachim and Anne, the Virgin's parents.[18] The left hand figure in the van Eyck might represent the artist's brother Hubert, who died around 1426. In van Eyck's painting the right hand figure wears a red turban, a motif widely thought to be the artist's indicator when placing a self-portrait; similar images can be found on the London Portrait of a Man and subtly in the knight's shield in the Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele, now in Bruges.[19] If van Eyck placed a diminished self-portrait into his Rolin panel, that van der Weyden responded with a very direct self-portrait of his own in his free copy is, according to art historian Paul van Calster, little short of remarkable. In the Rolin painting this figure turns to face his companion, pointing outwards. In the van der Weyden, the figure seems similarly protective of his friend, who in this panel is female.[20]

The positioning of the figures is reversed compared to the van Eyck; the Virgin appears to the right,[15] a positioning that became predominate in later Netherlandish diptychs. Van der Weyden switches the colour of their costumes; Luke is dressed in red or scarlet, Mary in warm blues. The Virgin type has further been changed, here she is depicted as a Maria Lactans. This presentation differs with the Hodegetria (Our Lady of the Way, or She who points the way) Virgin type most usually associated with Byzantine and Northern 15th-century depictions of St Luke. According to art historian Annette de Vries, Mary's breasts represent "redemption of mankind by Christ as human … [and] spiritual nourishing",[21] and according to Blum, she is thereby brought "closer to humanity" in the earthly realm.[22]

Compared to the van Eyck, the approach is warmer, and emphasises the artist's profession by having Saint Luke draw the Virgin Mary in silverpoint – an exacting medium that required a firm stylus and steady hand – implying the artist's skill and confidence. According to Smith, van der Weyden displays his ability, and that "the viewer is invited to compare the drawing, which will be the model for the ultimate picture, with the "flesh and blood" head of the Virgin".[23]

Description

Detail showing figures who maybe Joachim and Anne. As in the van Eyck, the right hand figure points his finger outwards

Setting

The scene is set within an architectural space that may be a castle porch.[24] The area has a barrel vault ceiling, inlaid tiled flooring, and stained glass windows. The outer wall, or loggia, sits on a bridge over a river or harbour bay.[25] The figures are framed by three arches looking outwards towards a detailed background city and landscape.[26] Art historian Jeffrey Chipps Smith notes how the transition between the grounds establishes a "complex spatial space in which [van der Weyden] achieved an almost seamless movement from the elaborate architecture of the main room to the garden and parapet of the middle ground to the urban and rural landscape behind".[23] The background shows a garden with plants set in vertically aligned tiers.[15] Mary sits before a brocade canopy which is painted in layers of beige and now appears as mostly dark green, though it was probably painted with predominant browns.[27] The canopy acts as a cloth of honour,[28] and is situated on a wooden bench attached to the wall behind her.[29]

Figures

Mary's hair is loose and she wears a purplish red-embroidered dress which is lined with fur. Around her neck is a light veil, and she is shown in the act of nursing.[22] Her dress is a centerpiece of the panel, composed of a variety of blues overlaid with lead white and deep blue lapis lazuli highlights. The inner parts of her robe contain violet coloured fabrics, which are lined with greyish blues and purples.[30]

Many features, including Luke's hat and fur-trimmed red clothing, are of contemporary fashion; indicators of highborn 15th-century aristocracy. In contrast to earlier portrayals, Luke is beardless and relatively youthful; close to the age van der Weyden would have been in the mid-1430s.[31] His features are not idealised; he is middle-aged with light stubble and greying hair.[22] A small ink bottle hangs from his belt.[32] The room behind Luke contains his symbols including a sleeping ox and open book representing his Gospel.[23]

St Luke's eyes are attentively fixed on the Virgin,[29] and he is painted with more naturalism than the Virgin; his eyes are more realistically drawn. Christ's conform to the then idealised form, as simple crescents. Mary's are formed from curved lines typical of late Gothic ideals of feminine beauty.[33]

Smith describes the panel in terms of an "exposition of the art of painting", observing that van der Weyden records the essential skills any successful artist should master while claiming to be an heir to St Luke.[23] Luke works on a silverpoint drawing – the preparatory stage of a portrait. This allows van der Weyden to show Luke unencumbered with the paraphernalia of painting, such as an easel, seat or other items which might clutter the composition and place a barrier between the divine and earthly realms.[34]

Jan van Eyck, Madonna of Chancellor Rolin, c 1435 (detail)

The two figures in the mid-ground stand at a battlement wall, their backs turned against the viewer, looking outwards. Technical analysis shows that they were heavily reworked both in the underdrawing and the final painting.[16] The art historian Alfred Acres views the mid-ground figures set in the center of the painting as preoccupied with "looking". The male figure points outwards to indicate the landscape both to his friend, and the viewer.[35] Carol Purtle explains that looking at images was a form of devotionalism that van der Weyden was familiar with; through looking at an image, meditating on its meaning, the "beholder experienced visions of transports of ectasy," she writes.[36]

Detail. Note that the figure on the right also wears a red headdress. This was an indicator of self-portraiture for van Eyck; probably included here as a mark of respect for the older master

Studies of the underdrawing shows the artist intended a van Eyckian angel crowning the Virgin, but omitted it from the final painting.[37] He heavily reworked the positioning of the three main figures even towards the end of completion. Mary's head was tilted to the right, but ends up upright.[38] The draperies of the mantles were at first larger.[39] Christ's body at first faced Luke, but was later tilted in the direction of his mother. The mother and child were brought closer together. Luke's head was at first level with the Virgin's, but in the final painting is raised slightly above.[40] The differences extend beyond those in the foreground. The fortifications of the inner courtyard were at first smaller. The two figures looking out over the river were smaller, the river itself narrower.[39]

Material

The panel is from four individual pieces of oak, and painted with chalk ground which is bound with glue.[41] The dominant pigments are lead white (often used in the panel to highlight blue and green passages), charcoal black, ultramarine, lead-tin-yellow, verdigris and red lake.[42] There has been some discolourisation, some greens are now brown, including pigments used to depict grass in the background.[30] The panel underwent major cleaning and conservation in 1932 and has been subject to restoration at least four times.[18] It is in poor condition, with substantial damage[17] to both its frame and surface. Compared to contemporary paintings of this type, the work is unusually free of inscriptions; they appear only in the book left open in the room behind Luke, on the ink bottle and in the speech scroll emanating from the ox's mouth. The banderole under the table is blank.[43]

Iconography

The painting is filled with actual and implied iconography. The arm-rests of her seat contains figures illusionistically painted as if they were carved into the wood. They depict Adam, Eve and the serpent before the fall from paradise.[26] The far right of the anteroom shows a writing desk, beneath it a kneeling ox. The animal presumably represents one of the apocalyptic beasts from the Book of Revelation.[33] In the rear, the loggia faces towards a enclosed garden, another emblem of the Virgin's chastity.

Van der Weyden uses the idea of "the room as sacred space" as distinct from the earthly realm to show the Virgin manifest as a heavenly apparition. This approach is emphasised by the secondary figures placed at a distance in tightly delineated areas, while the main figures are positioned in an elevated room complete with a throne, grand arches and wood carvings. Van der Weyden's setting is less artificial than van Eyck's; here Luke and Mary face each other as equals, rather than in van Eyck's painting where, as Shirley Blum describes "a divinity and a mortal" face one-another. There is no winged angel holding a crown hovering above the Virgin; such figures were sketched out in the underdrawings, but eventually abandoned. The landscape is more secular than van Eyck's, which is dominated by church spires.[44]

The idea of St Luke painting the Virgin originates from a 3rd-century Marian icon. However, later icons tended to focus on his depiction of the Virgin, rather than him or the event. In the late 13th century, many of the newly emerging institutions of painters guilds were nominating Luke as their patron saint.[29] Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin is among the first known depictions of St Luke in Renaissance art,[45] along with a similar work, a lost triptych panel by Robert Campin.[33] Van der Weyden presents a humanized Virgin and Child, as suggested by the realistic contemporary surroundings,[44] the lack of halos, and the intimate spatial construction. Yet he infuses the panel with extensive religious iconography. A representation of Adam and Eve is carved on the arm-rest of the Virgin's seat.[33] Though Mary is placed under a damask canopy of estate, she does not sit on the bench but rather on its step, an indication of her humility.[46] The throne and canopy indicate her role as Queen of Heaven, although her humility and modesty are referred to by the fact that she sits not on the throne but on its step.[33]

In the medieval period, Mary was seen as the crucial symbol of the church and was often shown as Maria Lactans, symbolizing the nurturing church. Just as she provided sustenance to Jesus, she provided sustenance during times of famine and was considered an intercessory image. In this sense, Purtle explains, van der Weyden provides an iconic motif in the painting that his viewers would have understood. In St Luke's act of painting the Virgin the viewers would have understood the representation of the "sacred role of the artist".[47]

Self-portrait

Van der Weyden, The Justice of Trajan and Herkinbald, detail from a lost painting, here represented in a tapestry copy. This head is considered another probable self-portrait.[48]

Luke's face is widely considered a self-portrait. He may have wanted to associate himself both with the saint and the founder of painting. This is reinforced by the fact that Luke is shown drawing, off the cuff, in silver point; an extremely difficult medium used for preparation, and that demands high concentration.[3] He boldly presents his own his ability, emphasising the preparatory sketches in silverpoint on white prepared paper; one of his which survives today in the Louvre. The self-portrait accomplishes a number of purposes; he gets to pay tribute to his abilities, measure himself against van Eyck, and more generally put forward a case for the legitimacy of the craft of painting.[8] By portraying himself as St Luke, in the act of drawing rather than painting, De Vries believes van der Weyden reveals an "artistic consciousness by commenting upon artistic traditions and by doing so presents a visual argument for the role and function of the artist and his art, one at that time still predominantly religiously defined."[21]

Detail of Saint Luke; probable van der Weyden self-portrait

Van der Weyden appears to be in his mid-30s, intelligent and handsome, if not a little weather worn.[49] He is known to have inserted a self-portrait into one other work; the lost Justice of Trajan and Herkinbald, known through a tapestry copy held in the Historical Museum of Bern.[50] Later northern artists, including Dirk Bouts and Jan Gossaert, followed his lead, placing self-portraits in their own depictions of Luke.[51]

Attribution and dating

During the 19th century the painting was variously associated with Quentin Massys and Hugo van der Goes. In the early 20th century, art historians attributed van der Weyden, but were unsure as to which extent the panels were original and which were copies.[18] Infrared reflectography has revealed underdrawing in the Boston version which contains heavy redrafting and re-working. This is absent in the other versions, strong evidence the panel is an original.[52] The approach to the underdrawing is very similar to the paintings where attribution to van der Weyden is established, such as the Descent from the Cross in Madrid, and the Miraflores Altarpiece in Berlin. They are built up with brush and ink, with the most attention given to the outlines of the figures and draperies. Hatching is used to indicate areas of deep shadow. In each, the underdrawing is a working sketch, subject to constant revisions, which continued even after painting had begun.[53]

Art historians gradually revised the painting to earlier in the artist's career, from 1450 to the currently accepted 1435–40. Dendrochronological examination of the growth rings in the wood suggest that the timber was felled around 1424. Around the 15th century, wood was typically stored for around 20 years before use in panel painting, giving an earliest date in the mid 1430s. Analysis of the Munich version places it in the 1480s, around 20 years after van der Weyden's death.[54] For some time it was unclear which version was the van der Weyden original. The version in Bruges is in the best condition and of exceptional quality, but dates from c. 1491-1510.[39]

Tapestry after van der Weyden, c 1500. Louvre, Paris

The portrait of Mary is similar to a 1464 silverpoint drawing now in the Louvre, and attributed to his circle. Both are of a type van der Weyden was preoccupied with; "an ongoing refinement and emphasis on [Mary's] youthfulness … [which is] traceable throughout his work".[55]

The panel is usually thought completed around 1435. This estimate is based on three factors; the dating of the Rolin Madonna, van der Weyden's opportunity of viewing it, and his ability to produce his work after such a viewing. He is known to have visited Brussels – where van Eyck kept his studio – in 1432 and again 1435. Erwin Panofsky suggested c. 1434 as the earliest possible date, while estimating that the Rolin panel was completed in 1433 or 1434. Julius Held is sceptical of this dating, noting that if we accept it we are "forced to assume that within one year of Jan's work Rogier received a commission which gave him an opportunity to adopt Jan's compositional pattern while subjecting it at the same time to a very thorough and highly personal transformation, and all this in Bruges, under Jan's very eyes".[56]

Held argues for a date between 1440–43, observing that although the painting became highly influential, copies do not appear until mid-century. In addition he sees the work as more advanced than other paintings by the artist from the mid-1430s, writing that it contains "considerable differences" when compared with his other early works, especially the c. 1434 Annunciation Triptych.[57]

Influence

Rogier van der Weyden, Diptych of Jean de Gros (left wing), c. 1450
Master of the Legend of St. Ursula, Virgin and Child, late 15th century

The painting's widespread influence established van der Weyden's reputation as a progenitor and "inventor [of] authoritative models...at the foundation of Netherlandish art".[58] If it was part of the Guild of Saint Luke's chapel in Brussels, then many near-contemporary artists would have been able to view it. Van der Weyden's interpretation was hugely influential during the mid-15th and early-16th centuries, both in free and faithful adaptations and copies[37] exist in Brussels, Kassel, Valladolid and Barcelona.[59] This is reflective of its quality, and the fact that he presents an ideal image of an artist as a self-portrait, legitimising and elevating the trade.[8] Also influential was his madonna type, which he used again for the c. 1450 Diptych of Jean de Gros, featuring a 'Virgin and Child' wing directly modeled on his St Luke panel, extending the devotional aspect to include a donor whose image appears in the same panel hers, thereby integrating the donor with the virgin whose likeness Luke captures.[60]

Hugo van der Goes, Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin, c 1470-80. National Museum of Ancient Art, Lisbon

Depictions of Luke drawing the Virgin rose in popularity in the mid to late-15th century, with van der Weyden's panel the earliest known from the Low Countries[58] – Campin's earlier treatment was by then lost.[61] That van der Weyden was so widely copied around this time might be attributed to Albrecht Dürer's mentioning of the panel in his recount of his visit to Brussels.[62] Most were free copies (adaptations) of van der Weyden's design. The Master of the Legend of St. Ursula incorporated the Maria Lactans type for his Virgin and Child, now in New York. By referencing Luke, artists implied a representation based on first hand contact and thus reflected her true likeness.[63] Other artists producing works directly influenced by van der Weyden's portrait include Hugo van der Goes, Dieric Bouts, Derick Baegert and Jan Gossaert. Some artist copied van der Weyden by placing their own likeness in place of St Luke, notably Simon Marmion and Maarten van Heemskerck.[64]

Van der Goes's is the earliest extant autographed copy, and one of the most important. This panel was originally a diptych wing of which the accompanying panel of the Virgin and child is lost, and was also probably made for a guild. Luke is dressed in a heavy red robe, draws a preparatory sketch in silverpoint, and wears a melancholy expression.[65] Building on van der Weyden's theme of the role, practice and craft of an artist, van der Goes places pieces of charcoal, a knife and the feathers of a small bird on the ground in front of the saint.[66] The similarities to the van der Weyden are many and striking, and include the painting utensils, red robes, physician's cap and blue mantle. The figure has the same middle-aged facial type and his position, kneeling on a green cushion, although reversed to van der Weyden's, is the same.[67] However van der Goes goes further than van der Weyden, in implying that the Virgin has visited Luke's workshop, as opposed to having merely received him in her own domain. Van der Goes's adaption both increased van der Weyden's' standing in the eyes of the later artist's followers, and lead to a new breed of copies that were model on the later painting.[49]

A tapestry version woven in Brussels c. 1500 is now in the Louvre.[68] It was probably designed after a drawing of an inverse of the painting.[69]

Provenance

Despite the eminence of the painting and its many copies, little is known of its provenance before the 19th century. It seems likely that it is the painting Albrecht Dürer mentions in his diary recollection of his visit to the Low Countries in 1520.[70] It is probably the same work recorded in an 1574 inventory Philip II kept at the Escorial, Madrid.[11] The painting is recorded in 1835 in the collection of Don Infante Sebastián Gabriel Borbón y Braganza, a grandnephew of Charles III of Spain, himself an artist, whose inventory notes attributed the work to Lucas van Leyden and suggest an earlier restoration.[18] It was donated to the Museum of Fine Arts in 1893 by Henry Lee Higginson in lieu of their New York auction purchase of 1889. The museum held an exhibition in 1989 around the work titled "Art in Context: Rogier van der Weyden's Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin".

Gallery

References

Notes

  1. 1 2 van Calster (2003), 465
  2. ↑ van Eyck is credited as the forerunner based on his usual placing as before and influencing Rogier. However a number of art historians have argued that because both were completed c 1934-35, their lineage may be less than straight forward
  3. 1 2 Rothstein (2005), 4
  4. ↑ Ishikawa (1990), 59
  5. ↑ Kann, 15
  6. ↑ Bauman (1986), 5
  7. ↑ Smith (2004), 16
  8. 1 2 3 4 Harbison (1995), 102
  9. ↑ Ainsworth (1998), 104
  10. ↑ Ainsworth (1998), 139
  11. 1 2 "Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin". Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Retrieved 27 December 2014
  12. 1 2 3 Sterling et al, 69
  13. ↑ Harbison (1995), 10
  14. ↑ Sterling et al, 66
  15. 1 2 3 Campbell (2004), 21
  16. 1 2 Borchert (1997), 78
  17. 1 2 Campbell (2004), 54
  18. 1 2 3 4 Eisler, 73–74
  19. ↑ Ridderbos et al. (2005), 68
  20. ↑ van Calster, 477
  21. 1 2 de Vries, Annette. "Picturing the Intermediary. Artistic Consciousness in Representations of Saint Luke Painting the Virgin in Netherlandish Art: The Case of Van der Weyden’s Saint Luke". Historians of Netherlandish Art, 2006. Retrieved 27 December 2014.
  22. 1 2 3 Blum (1997), 107
  23. 1 2 3 4 Smith (2004), 21
  24. ↑ Powell, 720
  25. ↑ Nash (2008), 157
  26. 1 2 Kleiner, 407
  27. ↑ Newman (1997), 1423
  28. ↑ Mcbeth, 118
  29. 1 2 3 Borchert (1997), 64
  30. 1 2 Newman (1997), 142
  31. ↑ Marrow (1999), 54
  32. ↑ Acres (2000), 98
  33. 1 2 3 4 5 Ishikawa (1990), 54
  34. ↑ Nash (2008), 158
  35. ↑ Acres (2000), 25
  36. ↑ Purtle, "Picturing Devotion", 8
  37. 1 2 Borchert (2001), 213
  38. ↑ Ishikawa (1990), 57
  39. 1 2 3 van Oosterwijk, Anne. "After Rogier Van der Weyden: Saint Luke drawing the Madonna". vlaamsekunstcollectie.be (Museums of Fine Arts of Antwerp, Bruges, Ghent). Retrieved 18 January 2015
  40. ↑ Ishikawa (1990), 53
  41. ↑ Newman (1997), 135
  42. ↑ Newman (1997), 136
  43. ↑ Acres (2000), 10
  44. 1 2 Blum (1977), 105
  45. ↑ Hornik and Parsons, 16–17
  46. ↑ Harbison (1995), 7
  47. ↑ Purtle, "Picturing Devotion", 10
  48. ↑ Campbell (2004), 8
  49. 1 2 White (1997), 43-44
  50. ↑ Koerner (1997), 128
  51. ↑ Brush, 19
  52. ↑ Spronk (1996), 26
  53. ↑ Ishikawa (1990), 51
  54. ↑ Ishikawa (1990), 58
  55. ↑ "Head of the Virgin". Louvre. Retrieved December 05, 2014
  56. ↑ Held (1955), 225
  57. ↑ Held (1955), 226
  58. 1 2 White (1997), 39
  59. ↑ Hand et al (2006), 265
  60. ↑ Bauman (1986), 49
  61. ↑ Sterling et al, 73
  62. ↑ Borchert (2011), 203
  63. ↑ Bauman (1986), 58
  64. ↑ Ainsworth (1998), 82
  65. ↑ White (1997), 40
  66. ↑ White (1997), 42
  67. ↑ White (1997), 43
  68. ↑ Smith (2004), 19
  69. ↑ Delmarcel (1999), 52
  70. ↑ Campbell; van der Stock (2009), 254

Sources

  • Acres, Alfred. "Rogier van der Weyden's Painted Texts". Artibus et Historiae, volume 21, No. 41, 2000
  • Ainsworth, Maryan. In: From Van Eyck to Bruegel: Early Netherlandish Painting in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York: Metropolitan Museum, 1998. ISBN 978-0-8709-9870-6
  • Bauman, Guy. "Early Flemish Portraits 1425–1525". New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, volume 43, No. 4, Spring, 1986
  • Billinge, Rachel; Campbell, Lorne; Dunkerton, Jill; Foister, Susan. "The Materials and Techniques of Five Paintings by Rogier van der Weyden and his Workshop". London: The National Gallery Technical Bulletin, volume 18, 1997
  • Blum, Shirley Neilsen. "Symbolic Invention in the Art of Rogier van der Weyden". Journal of Art History, volume 46, issue 1-4, 1977
  • Borchert, Till-Holger. "The Case for Corporate Identification". In ''Staint Luke Drawing the Virgin: Selected Essays in Context. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1997. ISBN 2-5035-0572-4
  • Borchert, Till-Holger. "Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin", in Van Eyck to Dürer. London: Thames & Hudson, 2011. ISBN 978-0-500-23883-7
  • Brush, Craig. From the Perspective of Self: Montaigne's Self-portrait. New York: Fordham University Press, 1994. ISBN 0-8232-1550-4
  • Campbell, Lorne. Van der Weyden. London: Chaucer Press, 2004. ISBN 1-9044-4924-7
  • Campbell, Lorne; van der Stock, Jan. Rogier Van Der Weyden: 1400-1464 : Master of Passions. Zwolle: Waanders, 2009. ISBN 978-9-0852-6105-6
  • Delmarcel, Guy. Flemish Tapestry from the 15th to the 18th Century. Lannoo, 1999. ISBN 9-0209-3886-X
  • De Vos, Dirk. Rogier Van Der Weyden: The Complete Works. New York: Harry N Abrams, 2000. ISBN 0-8109-6390-6
  • Eisler, Colin Tobias. New England Museums. Brussels: Centre National de Recherches Primitifs, 1961
  • Gardner, Helen; Kleiner, Fred. Gardner's Art Through the Ages: the Western Perspective, Volume 2. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009. ISBN 0-4955-7364-7
  • Kleiner, Fred. "Gardner's Art Through the Ages". Boston: Wadsworth, 2008. ASIN: B00FKYCIWY
  • Koerner, Joseph Leo. The Moment of Self-Portraiture in German Renaissance Art. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997. ISBN 0-2264-4999-8
  • Hand, John Oliver; Metzger, Catherine; Spronk, Ron. Prayers and Portraits: Unfolding the Netherlandish Diptych. National Gallery of Art (U.S.), Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten (Belgium), 2006. CT: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-12155-5
  • Held, Julius. Review of: "Early Netherlandish Painting, Its Origin and Character by Erwin Panofsky". The Art Bulletin, volume 37, No. 3, 1955
  • Hornik, Heidi; Parsons, Mikeal Carl. Illuminating Luke: The Infancy Narrative in Italian Renaissance Painting. Continuum, 2003. ISBN 1-5633-8405-1
  • Harbison, Craig. The Art of the Northern Renaissance. London: Laurence King Publishing, 1995. ISBN 1-7806-7027-3
  • Ishikawa, Chiyo. "Rogier van der Weyden's 'Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin' Reexamined". Journal of the Museum of Fine Arts, volume 2, 1990
  • Nash, Susie. Northern Renaissance Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. ISBN 0-1928-4269-2
  • Newman, Richard. "Painting Materials Used by Rogier Van ver Weyden in Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin". In: Purtle Carol, Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin: Selected Essays in Context. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1997. ISBN 978-2-5035-0572-5
  • Powell, Amy. "A Point 'Ceaselessly Pushed Back': The Origin of Early Netherlandish Painting. The Art Bulletin, volume 88, No. 4, 2006
  • Purtle Carol (ed). Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin: Selected Essays in Context. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1997. ISBN 978-2-5035-0572-5
  • Ridderbos, Bernhard; Van Buren, Anne; Van Veen, Henk. Early Netherlandish Paintings: Rediscovery, Reception and Research. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2005. ISBN 978-0-8923-6816-7
  • Rothstein, Bret. Sight and Spirituality in Early Netherlandish Painting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. ISBN 0-5218-3278-0
  • Smith, Jeffrey Chipps. The Northern Renaissance (Art and Ideas). London: Phaidon Press, 2004. ISBN 0-7148-3867-5
  • Spronk, Ron. "More than Meets the Eye: An Introduction to Technical Examination of Early Netherlandish Paintings at the Fogg Art Museum". Harvard University Art Museums Bulletin, volume 5, No. 1, Autumn 1996
  • Sterling, Charles; Ainsworth, Maryan. "Fifteenth-to Eighteenth-Century European Paintings in the Robert Lehman Collection". New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1998
  • van Calster, Paul. "Of Beardless Painters and Red Chaperons. A Fifteenth-Century Whodunit". Berlin: Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte. Bd., H. 4, 2003
  • White, Eric Marshall. "Rogier van der Weyden, Hugo van der Goes, and the Making of the Netherlandish St. Luke Tradition". In: Purtle Carol, Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin: Selected Essays in Context. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1997. ISBN 978-2-5035-0572-5

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Monday, February 15, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.