Posted on 08/31/2021 4:32:37 PM PDT by simpson96
A years-long restoration undertaken by the Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister in Dresden has entirely altered the understanding of a 17th-century painting by the Dutch artist Johannes Vermeer. What was once thought to be a somewhat glum depiction of a young girl reading near a window is now an amorous portrayal thanks to the unveiling of a naked Cupid hanging in the background.
Conservators knew the image of the Roman god of love existed after a 1979 X-ray, although it was assumed that Vermeer had altered the piece himself. Only after they performed a series of infrared reflectography imagings, microscopic analyses, and X-ray fluorescence examinations in 2017 did they realize that the Cupid was covered decades after the painter’s death, even though they still aren’t sure who marred the original piece or when. This dramatic of an alteration is rare during restoration, considering standard processes generally involve simple cleaning and repairs.
“When layers of varnish from the 19th century began to be removed from the painting, the conservators discovered that the ‘solubility properties’ of the paint in the central section of the wall were different to those elsewhere in the painting,” a statement says, explaining further:
Following further investigations, including tests in an archaeometry laboratory, it was discovered that layers of binding agent and a layer of dirt existed between the image of Cupid and the overpainting. The conservators concluded that several decades would have passed between the completion of one layer and the addition of the next and therefore concluded that Vermeer could not have painted over the Cupid himself.
The new restoration—dive into the lengthy process in the video below—is just one of the mysteries that’s surrounded “Girl Reading a Letter at an Open Window” since its creation between 1657–59.
(Excerpt) Read more at thisiscolossal.com ...
Agreed. The cupid inspires the viewer to consider what might have been in the note.
Was it a love letter?
The symbolic fruit already conveyed the message. That big naked baby is overkill.
Looks like one of earliest examples of photo bombing.
Yeah, I'm no art expert like Hunter Biden, but my eyes prefer the Cupid free version. I can understand getting rid of it. The original also had the observer looking in at the girl through an open window, while the repainted version removed the window frame (but not the curtain), removing a somewhat voyeuristic perspective. Between the two changes, the artistic intent is significantly changed.
The fruit was a vague hint. But I like it better with the Cupid. Perhaps a smaller Cupid would have sufficed.
The fruit could also suggest she is reading a grocery list.
Van Meegerin strikes again!
The fruit was a profound hint for the contemporaneous audience. Nothing in painting of that era was “just a grocery list.”
TOTALLY agree!
I don’t understand why Cupid is portrayed as a naked baby. Is there anything less sexy than a fat naked baby, unless you’re a real sicko.
You are on the nose. Vermeer didn’t like it either. That’s why he painted over it. A much cleaner rendition. Even with the colors enhanced elsewhere in the painting . . . Ruined.
Say, is that Scarlett Johansson?
Read the article. Vermeer did not paint over it. He left it original with Cupid. Cupid was overpainted decades later by an anonymous vandal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
