Retrato de Uma Jovem (Study of a Young Woman / Portrait of a Young Woman / Girl With a Veil) - Johannes Vermeer

Retrato de Uma Jovem (Study of a Young Woman / Portrait of a Young Woman / Girl With a Veil) - Johannes Vermeer
Metropolitan Museum of Art, Nova York, Estados Unidos
OST - 44x40 - 1665-1667


Study of a Young Woman (also known as Portrait of a Young Woman, or Girl with a Veil) is a painting by the Dutch artist Johannes Vermeer, completed between 1665 and 1667, and now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
The painting was painted around the same time as the better-known Girl with a Pearl Earring, and has a near-identical size. Because of this, and its proximity in tone and composition, it is sometimes considered to be either a variant or pendant painting (counterpart) of Girl with a Pearl Earring. The subjects of both paintings wear pearl earrings, have scarves draped over their shoulders, and are shown in front of a plain black background. In addition, it is likely that the creation of both works involved the use of some optical device, such as a camera obscura or mirror, as the Hockney–Falco thesis speculates.
The sitter is depicted as having a homely face—widely spaced and flat—with a small nose and thin lips. The lack of idealised beauty has led to a general belief that this work was painted on commission, although it is possible that the model was Vermeer's daughter. The artist probably used a live model but, as with Girl with a Pearl Earring, did not create the work as a portrait, but as a tronie, a Dutch word meaning "visage" or "expression", a type of Dutch 17th-century picture appreciated for its "unusual costumes, intriguing physiognomies, suggestion of personality, and demonstration of artistic skill". The picture encourages the viewer to be curious about the young woman's thoughts, feelings, or character, something typical in many of Vermeer's paintings.
Girl with a Pearl Earring and Portrait of a Young Woman are unusual for Vermeer in that they lack his usual rich background; instead the girls are framed by a background of deep black. This isolating effect seems to heighten their vulnerability and seeming desire to place trust in the viewer. In 1994, the art historian Edward Snow wrote that Portrait of a Young Woman conveys "the desire for beauty and perfection into a loving acceptance of what is flawed".
The painting may have been owned by Pieter Claesz van Ruijven of Delft before 1674, then by his widow, Maria de Knuijt of Delft, until 1681; then their daughter, Magdalena van Ruijven, until 1682; her widower, Jacob Dissius, until 1695. The painting is thought to have been part of the Dissius sale of May 16, 1696 (No. 38, 39 or 40). It probably then belonged to Dr. Luchtmans, who sold it in Rotterdam as part of a sale from April 20–22, 1816 (No. 92) for 3 Dutch guilders (about 30 grams of silver), even then a tiny amount. Prince Auguste Marie Raymond d'Arenberg, of Brussels, owned the painting by 1829, and it remained in his family, in Brussels and Schloss Meppen, from 1833 to the early 1950s. In 1959 (or 1955, according to another source), it was bought in a private sale from the Prince d'Arenberg by Mr. Charles Wrightsman and Mrs. Jayne Wrightsman of New York for a sum estimated at around £125,000. In 1979, the Wrightsmans donated the picture to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in memory of curator Theodore Rousseau, Jr. This painting dates from about 1665–67, a period in which Vermeer painted two similar works: Girl with a Red Hat (National Gallery of Art, Washington) and Girl with a Pearl Earring (Mauritshuis, The Hague). The latter is on canvas and is nearly identical in size to the MMA picture.
Until 2001, the MMA canvas was called Portrait of a Young Woman. However, it is certain that Vermeer's bust-length pictures of young women were not intended as portraits, even if a live model was employed. In contemporary inventories, including that of Vermeer's estate, paintings of this type were called tronies, a now defunct term that could be translated as heads, faces, or expressions. Depicting intriguing character types and exotic or imaginary costumes, tronies were made as collectors' items; the materials depicted—such as the blue silk draped around the model's shoulders in this painting—were not secondary but essential motifs intended for the connoisseur's eye, showing the artist's powers of invention and execution.
This may be one of three paintings by Vermeer described as "Een Tronie in Antique Klederen, ongemeen konstig" (A tronie in antique dress, uncommonly artful) in the 1696 Amsterdam auction of paintings owned by Jacob Dissius, the son-in-law and heir of the artist's Delft patron Pieter Claesz van Ruijven (1624–1674). In lighting and palette, it is very different from the Mauritshuis canvas, which employs primary colors in discreet passages and a more emphatic contrast of light and shadow. However, the similar subjects and sizes of the two works along with their complementary formal qualities may indicate that they were meant as a pair.

A Arte da Pintura (Die Malkunst / De Schilderkonst / The Art of Painting / The Allegory of Painting / Painter in His Studio) - Johannes Vermeer

A Arte da Pintura (Die Malkunst / De Schilderkonst / The Art of Painting / The Allegory of Painting / Painter in His Studio) - Johannes Vermeer
Museu Kunsthistorisches, Viena, Áustria
OST - 120x100 - 1666-1668



The Art of Painting, also known as The Allegory of Painting, or Painter in his Studio, is a 17th-century oil on canvas painting by Dutch painter Johannes Vermeer. It is owned by the Austrian Republic and is on display in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna.
This illusionistic painting is one of Vermeer's most famous. In 1868 Thoré-Bürger, known today for his rediscovery of the work of painter Johannes Vermeer, regarded this painting as his most interesting. Svetlana Alpers describes it as unique and ambitious; Walter Liedtke "as a virtuoso display of the artist's power of invention and execution, staged in an imaginary version of his studio ..." According to Albert Blankert "No other painting so flawlessly integrates naturalistic technique, brightly illuminated space, and a complexly integrated composition."
Many art historians think that it is an allegory of painting, hence the alternative title of the painting. Its composition and iconography make it the most complex Vermeer work of all. After Vermeer's Christ in the House of Martha and Mary it is his largest work.
The painting depicts an artist painting a woman dressed in blue posing as a model in his studio. The subject is standing by a window and a large map of the Low Countries hangs on the wall behind. It is signed to the right of the girl "I [Oannes] Ver. Meer", but not dated. Most experts assume it was executed sometime between 1665/1668, but some suggest the work could have been created as late as 1670–1675.
In 1663 Vermeer had been visited by Balthasar de Monconys, but had no painting to show, so it was possibly done "in order to have an outstanding specimen of his art in his studio." Vermeer obviously liked the painting; he never sold it during his lifetime. According to Alpers "it stands as a kind of summary and assessment of what has been done."
The painting has only two figures, the painter and his subject, a woman with downcast eyes. The painter was thought to be a self-portrait of the artist; Jean-Louis Vaudoyer suggested the young woman could be his daughter. The painter sits in front of the painting on the easel, where you can see the sketch of the crown. He is dressed in an elegant black garment with cuts on the sleeves and on the back that offers a glimpse of the shirt underneath. He has short puffy breeches and orange stockings, an expensive and fashionable garment that is also found in other works of the time, as in a well-known self-portrait by Rubens.
The tapestry and the chair, both repoussoirs, lead the viewer into the painting. As in The Allegory of Faith the ceiling can be seen.
Experts attribute symbols to various aspects of the painting. A number of the items, a plaster mask, perhaps representing the debate on paragone, the presence of a piece of cloth, a folio, and some leather on the table have been linked to the symbols of Liberal Arts. The representation of the marble tiled floor and the splendid golden chandelier are examples of Vermeer's craftsmanship and show his knowledge of perspective. Each object reflects or absorbs light differently, getting the most accurate rendering of material effects.
The map, remarkable is the representation of light on it, shows the Seventeen Provinces of the Netherlands, flanked by 20 views of prominent Dutch cities. It was published by Claes Janszoon Visscher in 1636. This map, but without the city views on the left and right can be seen on paintings by Jacob Ochtervelt and Nicolaes Maes. Similar maps were found in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris and in the Swedish Skokloster. In the top left of the map two women can be seen; one bearing a cross-staff and compasses, while the other has a palette, brush, and a city view in the hand.
Vermeer had a theoretical interest for painting. The subject is presumed to be Fama, Pictura, or Clio, the Muse of History, evidenced by her wearing a laurel wreath, holding a trumpet, possibly carrying a book by Herodotus or Thucydides, which matches the description in Cesare Ripa's 16th century book on emblems and personifications entitled Iconologia. However, according to Ripa History should look back and not down as in this painting. Following Vermeer's contemporary Gerard de Lairesse, interested in French Classicism and Ripa, there is another explanation; he mentions history and poetry as the main resources of a painter. The woman in blue could be representing poetry, pointing to Plutarch who observed that "Simonides calls painting silent poetry and poetry painting that speaks", later paraphrased by the Latin poet Horace as ut pictura poesis. If so, the map is representing history.
The double-headed eagle, symbol of the Habsburg Holy Roman Empire, which possibly adorns the central golden chandelier, may represent the former rulers of the Low Countries. The large map on the back wall has a prominent crease that divides the Seventeen Provinces into the north and South (West is at the top of the map). The crease may symbolize the division between the Dutch Republic to the north and southern provinces under Habsburg rule. The map shows the earlier political division between the Union of Utrecht to the north, and the loyal provinces to the south. This interpretation might have appealed to Hitler who owned the painting during the war. According to Liedtke a political interpretation of the map and the Habsburg eagle is unconvincing; they overlook other motives. The map could suggest though that painting has brought fame to the Netherlands; ships sailing over the folds suggest that.
The painting is considered a work with significance for Vermeer because he did not part with it or sell it, even when he was in debt. On 24 February 1676, his widow Catharina bequeathed it to her mother, Maria Thins, in an attempt to avoid the sale of the painting to satisfy creditors. The executor of Vermeer's estate, the famous Delft microscopist Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, determined that the transferral of the work to the late painter's mother-in-law was illegal and, according to John Michael Montias, at least a curious transaction. On 15 March 1677 most of his paintings were sold in an auction at the Guild in Delft. It is not known who bought the Art of Painting; perhaps it was Jacob Dissius. It can not be determined with certainty whether the painting is quoted in the auction Dissius of 1696 as "Portrait of Vermeer in a room with various accessories." The painting was owned by Gerard van Swieten, and passed into the hands of Gottfried van Swieten. In 1813, it was purchased for 50 florins by the Bohemian-Austrian Count Rudolf Czernin. It was placed on public display in the Czernin Museum in Vienna.
Until 1860, the painting was considered to have been painted by Vermeer's contemporary, Pieter de Hooch; Vermeer was little-known until the late 19th century. Hooch's signature was even forged on the painting. It was at the intervention of the German art historian Gustav Friedrich Waagen that it was recognised as a Vermeer original.
In 1935, Count Jaromir Czernin had tried to sell the painting to Andrew W. Mellon, but the Austrian government prohibited the export of the painting. After the annexation of Austria, Philipp Reemtsma with the help of Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring attempted to acquire the painting. The transaction to a private person was refused being cultural heritage. It was finally acquired by Adolf Hitler for the collection of the Linzer Museum at a price of 1.82 million Reichsmark through his agent, Hans Posse on 20 November 1940. The painting was rescued from a salt mine near Altaussee at the end of World War II in 1945, where it was preserved from Allied bombing raids, with other works of art. The painting was escorted to Vienna from Munich by Andrew Ritchie, chief of the Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives program (MFA&A) for Austria, who transported it by locking himself and the painting in a train compartment.
The Americans presented the painting to the Austrian Government in 1946, since the Czernin family were deemed to have sold it voluntarily, without undue force from Hitler. During the early to mid-1950s, Czernin continued in his attempts to claim restitution, each time being rejected. In 1958, Vermeer's The Art of Painting was finally moved from temporary status into the permanent collection of the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna.
In August 2009, a request was submitted by the heirs of the Czernin family to Austria's culture ministry for the return of the painting. A previous request was submitted in 1960s; however, it was "rejected on the grounds that the sale had been voluntary and the price had been adequate." A 1998 restitution law, which pertains to public institutions, has bolstered the family's legal position.