For nearly 60 years the portrait of a baby-faced Philip IV by Velázquez hung in the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s European paintings galleries, a stunning example of the only 110 or so known canvases by that 17th-century Spanish master. ARTKABINETT social network for fine art collectors has visited this artwork many times, and viewed a similar painting in Madrid's Prado.
Majestic in size, it was rare in its depiction of a young, uncertain monarch and was the earliest known portrait of Philip by Velázquez, who, as the king’s court painter, went on to record his image for decades
So it was quite a shock when, in 1973, the Met, reconsidering 300 of its most treasured works, declared that the painting was not a Velázquez and was probably executed in his studio by an assistant or follower.
But in the museum world, 37 years is several lifetimes, especially considering how extraordinarily technology and scholarship have advanced. Now, after a year of examination and restoration, curators, conservators and scholars have changed their minds.
They are convinced that this full-length portrait of the 18-year-old king is indeed by Velázquez. The painting, which has been undergoing restoration since August 2009, will be back on display Tuesday.
“It is the restitution to Velázquez of a very important work,” said Keith Christiansen, the Met’s chairman of European paintings. “For the museum, how could it not be important? One of the greatest painters of Western tradition — and a royal portrait to boot — is vindicated.”
Jonathan Brown, the leading Velázquez scholar in the United States, who for years thought the painting was by the artist’s workshop, has been making regular visits to the Met, observing the painting during each step of the restoration process. Now he agrees with Mr. Christiansen.
“I was surprised,” he said in a telephone interview. “Although it has suffered losses, what remains is by Velázquez.”
One recent afternoon Mr. Christiansen stood in the museum’s conservation studio, a north-facing space overlooking Central Park, and explained that the “workshop” attribution had bothered him for years.
The 1973 reconsideration had downgraded a full 15 percent of what was then the museum’s European paintings collection, including works that had been attributed to El Greco, Rembrandt and Vermeer.
But in this case the museum had the receipt signed by Velázquez and dated Dec. 4, 1624 — the same year the work was painted — that was proof of payment for this portrait of Philip.
It was only after Michael Gallagher, the Met’s chief paintings conservator, cleaned a later Velázquez portrait of King Philip from the Frick Collection that Mr. Christiansen asked him to take a look at the Met’s painting.
The men knew they were pushing their luck. This is the second reattribution the museum has made of a painting by Velázquez.
Last year, after considerable study and conservation, Mr. Christensen and Mr. Gallagher concluded that “Portrait of a Man,” (pictured right) a bust-length portrait of a mustached man in his mid-30s, was also by Velázquez and not by his workshop.
But the portrait of Philip was a far more daunting conservation project. First, it is large, nearly seven feet tall, depicting Philip standing full-length wearing a black suit, a black woolen cape and a wide, flat ruff with only the simplest of pleating.
And unlike “Portrait of a Man,” which was always in good condition, this canvas has been in poor shape for a long time. So poor, in fact, that Mr. Gallagher was at first terrified to touch it.
“I thought I was opening a potential can of worms,” he recalled.
Tomorrow…restoration leads to authentication...
{First of two part story, courtesy Carol Vogel, New York Times}
