"Miniature portraits have neither sustained consistent interest nor experienced intense revivals. They comprise a branch of art which is frequently connected with the saccharine and superficial, with the petty and precious. Indeed, the term miniature often connotes a judgment of quality rather than an indication of size. Yet, these "paintings in little" have much to offer, for they reveal a dexterity, a sensitivity to materials and subject matter, and a perceptivity about the psychological dimension reflected in the human face which is quite remarkable."--First paragraph.Includes bibliographical reference

Welber, Beverly Zisla

English

University of Missouri: MOspace

A Signed Portrait Miniature Miniature portraits have neither sustained consistent interest nor experienced intense revivals. They comprise a branch of art which is frequently connected with the saccharine and superficial, with the petty and precious. In-deed, the term miniature often connotes a judg-ment of quality rather than an indication of size. Yet, these "paintings in little" have much to offer, for they reveal a dexterity, a sensitivity to materials and subject matter, and a percep-tivity about the psychological dimension re-flected in the human face which is quite remarkable. A few years ago the Museum of Art and Archaeology received a hinged black tortoise-shell box' having on its lid a miniature which is an excellent example of these three character-istics (Fig. 1). The miniature is a portrait bust of a young woman (Fig. 2) . Painted in gouache on a thin ivory plaque,2 the miniature is fixed in a simple gold frame with gold-filled prongs;3 this in turn is set into the lid of the box. 4 Along the left side of the miniature is the signature "Stanislas Corwin Kollakowski." The size and • /J /lclf< Ov.J J k I neck and hair, and she wears dangling pearl earrings. Her head ornament has a large blue stone in the center. Behind her is a curtain with golden tassels visible on the right; a column stands behind the drapery at the left. This composition is quite usual. 5 The frame obscures the complete signature; without removing the portrait from it, only the first two names can be read, along with the first few letters of the last name. Before removing the miniature from the frame, two clues were available to establish the date and place of the portrait. First, the ground, the technique and the style of the work enable one to ascribe a general date; second, the costume of the sitter can be more specifically dated. A variety of materials C IN 11'l 1\.011 o ~ 1. Box with portrait miniature framed in gold, in the shape of the box do not suggest any special function. The young woman faces forward, while her bust is in profile . She wears a low-cut, diaphanous white gown with gold ornamenta-tion on the sleeves. Strands of pearls adorn her 44 Museum of Art and Archaeology. was used for painting miniature portraits. Beginning in the sixteenth century, parchment and vellum were employed, supplemented by the paper of which playing cards were then made. Even chicken skin, sometimes stretched onto a playing card, was used. 6 In the eighteenth century ivory began to be employed as the base; its use represented a major breakthrough, for it has several advantages over the other materials mentioned. Ivory is lustrous as well as white. In the most skilfully executed miniatures no paint would be applied to the lightest areas, allowing the translucent ivory to be seen.7 In addition, the smooth, non-absorbent surface of ivory allows an artist to apply colors either in thin layers or in a thick impasto. Parchment even of the highest quality resists the brush, so that delicacy of stroke and variety of color application are not possible. Sometimes the thin ivory plaque was backed by a piece of white paper, or foil of gold or silver, thus increasing the brilliant effect of the ivory in those passages which were left unpainted. The type of brushstroke employed by miniaturists also has a history, with the high point of the development occurring, again, in the eighteenth century. Beginning in the sixteenth century the method employed by English artists was hatching, by continental artists, stippling. In the early eighteenth century these two techniques were combined with the methods of a very influential miniaturist, Rosalba Giovanni Carriera (1675-1757), whose work is characterized by broad, lively strokes.8 The early eighteenth-century works reflect Rosalba's interest in applying paint thinly in the flesh areas to allow the ivory to show through (she was perhaps the first to paint miniatures on ivory) but artists still relied largely on almost mechanical use of stippling or hatching. By the end of the eighteenth century Rosalba's free brushstroke had exerted its strongest impact. Intimacy and unity, and the crea tion of a vibrant whole on a small scale are two essential elements of the aesthetic of miniatures. Before photography, miniature portraits were the means by which one could remain close to loved 2. Portrait of the young woman, removed from its frame . ones, and their small size makes it obvious that they were intended to be portable and were suitable for individual perusal. The limited color scale employed by the artists is a reflection of the intimate nature of the art. A base color, toned down in the flesh areas and used in a concentrated form in the background and garments, was the hue upon which the entire scale was built. Another aesthetic consideration focuses on the creation of a lively and visually exciting work, which because of the limitations of size cannot rely on techniques such as dramatic compositions, dramatic color passages, or the 45 • 3. Miniature of the Duchesse De St. Leu, by Jean-Baptiste Isabey. Photo courtesy of The Nelson Gallery-Atkins Museum, Ka nsas City, Missouri . Gift of Mr. and Mrs. John W. Sta rr . inclusion of many details. At its best the miniature fulfills this requirement through the dramatic tension created between the material (ivory) and the medium (generally gouache). Gouache, applied as thick, matte color contrasts with the luminous ivory, both in terms of surface (part covered with a build-up of paint, part flat) and in terms of color (part rich with pig-ments, part strikingly white) . The Missouri miniature is executed in a combination of broadly painted, heavily built up areas and stippled areas, the former apparent in the background and hair, the latter in the skin and the cos tume. Only five colors are employed throughout the work (gold, white, blue, brown, pink), with blue the base color, 46 appearing as pure color in the hair ornament and eyes, toned down in the drapery, the column and the shading of the dress. Gold is used in the stippled passages (in combination with blue and pink for the flesh, for example), gold tassels hang from the drapery, gold details accent the sleeves and pearls, the latter rendered as specks of white on a gold and brown-flecked base. The use of ivory as a base, and the care taken to have the ivory show through in some places (e.g., on the sleeves), the limited pa!ette, the combination of stippled and broadly painted areas, and the overall unity achieved through the placement of a few colors (gold, for example) suggest a late eighteenth or early nineteenth-century date. Having established the general date of the work, the next step was to examine late eighteenth and early nineteenth-century cos-tumes. Between 1799 and 1818 women's garments were high-waisted, with a square, low-cut neckline and a narrow belt below the bust; the earliest sleeves were short and puffed. In 1808 white gowns were at their zenith.9 A number of female costumes dating from 1800-1818 can be used for comparison. The gowns of the attendants in Jacques-Louis David's The Coronation of Napoleon and Josephine in Notre Dame (ca. 1807) in the Louvre,1O are extremely like the gown of the woman in our miniature. The miniature of the Duchesse De St. Leu (Fig. 3)11 by Jean-Baptiste Isabey (1767-1855) bears a general resemblance to ours, particularly in the hair style and the low-cut gown with the ruffle. Another miniature which reveals several similarities to ours is one dated 1809 (?), entitled Three Children of Andoche Junot, Due d' Abrantes (Fig. 4)12 by Paul F. L. Quaglia (1780-1853) . Again we find the style of dress~ hair, and head adornment close to the Missoun work. Moreover, the figures are placed in front of a drapery and a column. 4. Detail from miniature of Three Children of Andoche Junot, Due d'Abrantes (7) by Paul F. L. Quaglia. Photo courtesy of The Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, Maryland. A miniature which bears a very close resemblance to the Missouri work is that of the Empress Josephine (Fig. 5)13 by Daniel Saint (1778-1847). This miniature, dated 1805-1806, shares a number of details with ours. The bodices of the gowns are similar; the details on the sleeves and the ruffle are virtually identical in the two. The hair styles appear similar, although Empress Josephine's crown somewhat obscures her hairdress. The jewelry worn by the two also is much alike; the earrings are the same, and the pearls of the Missouri miniature seem to be a simplified version of the Empress's elaborate jewels. From 1804 to 1810 the French empire was at the height of its power;l4 during this time France was the style center of Europe, and the fashions worn there were duplicated throughout the continent. One may infer at this point that the costume of our miniature suggests a date of ca. 1810, but its origin is still unknown. The name of the artist suggests that he was Polish, and it is known that during the reign of Poland's last king, Stanislaus-Augustus (1764-1795), French styles were quite prevalent throughout the country. 15 Thus, French fashion was widely imitated in Poland at least as early as the late eighteenth century, and since the flow of fashion through travelers, and indeed through miniatures themselves, was very easy, there is no problem in accepting a costume by a Polish artist bearing such close connections to the French style of clothing. Moreover, the artist may have lived and worked in France. A short but interesting entry in Thieme-Becker16 provides some additional information and presents a new problem. Kollakowski is, according to this source, known by one work only: a portrait on ivory of an old man, signed "Stanislaus Korvinus Kollakowski" and dated 1811. These facts help confirm the date we have ascribed to the Missouri work and enable us to record our miniature as a second work by this little known miniaturist. Pursuit of the bibliographical references given by Thieme-Becker did not yield any material other than a description of the miniature of the man. I7 The problem which the discovery of another signed Kollakowski created has two aspects: what accounts for the discrepancies in the signature (Stanislaus Korvinus on the 1811 work, and Stanislas Corwin on the Missouri work) and what has happened to the other miniature? An effort to trace the earlier known work resulted in the conclusion that it is lost.18 It is hard to believe that a painter with so much skill would have painted only two miniatures. The signature on ours is meticu-lously done, and although we cannot examine the miniature of the old man, the fact that it 47 too bears all three names suggests that Kollakowski would have signed his works. We are thus left with several mysteries, beyond the question of the location of the Kollakowski miniature of the old man. Who was this competent miniaturist; do other works of his exist; and who is the lovely young woman depicted in the Missouri miniature? She wears the costume of the Napoleonic court, and yet her facial features seem Slavic-high cheekbones, broad nose and full lips, suggesting that she is not French. Is she a princess visiting the French court, a foreign court attendant, or a middle-class girl who had a pretentious portrait done of herself in court dress? We may never know the answers to these questions, but fortunately, while we search, we still possess a well painted miniature by Stanislas Corwin Kollakowski of a most enchanting young woman. BEVERL Y ZISLA WELBER Univ ersity of Missouri-Columbia I Actually the shell is that of a sea turtle (erethmochelys). Acc. No. 69.1030. 8.1 cm. x. 5.3 cm. x 2.2 cm. Gift of Miss Sarah Catherine France. See Muse 4 (1970) 12, 14. I am grateful to Professor D. Metter of the Division of Biological Sciences of the University of Missouri -Col umbia for the identification of the material of which the box is made. 2 8 cm. x 3.5 cm. Thickness 0.5 mm. 3 Charles Phillips of Buchroeder's Jewelers, Columbia, Missouri , made the identification. 4 This arrangement is quite common. See, e.g., boxes in A.K. Snowman, Eighteenth Century Gold Boxes of Europe (Boston 1966) pIs. 216-217, 392 and 395; C. Le Corbeiller, Europeall and American Snuff Boxes 1730-1830 (London 1966) pIs. 224-230. 5 See. for example, miniatures in The Walters Art Gal/ery, A Selectioll of Portrait Miniatures (Baltimore 1966) pIs. 33, 35,43. 6 G. C. Williamson, Portrait Miniatures (New York 1910) 3. 7 T. H. Colding, Aspects of Miniature Painting, Its Origins and Developlllellt (Copenhagen 1953) 134. This work forms the basis for the particular historical and aesthetic considerations trea ted here. For additional information see op. cit., 134-163. 48 5. Miniature of the Empress Josephine, by Daniel Saint. Photo courtesy of The Cleveland Museum of Art, the Edward B. Greene Collection. 8 H . B. Wehle, "Portrait Miniatures, their History," in Portrait Miniatures: The Edward B. Greene Col/ection, The Cleveland Museum of Art (Cleveland 1951) 21. 9 F. Boucher, 20,000 Years of Fashion . The History of Costume and Adornment (New York n.d .) 346. 10 See M. Contini, Fashion from Ancient Egypt to the Present Day (New York 1965) 218. II Published in The Starr Collection of Miniatures in the William Rockhill Nelson Gallery (Kansas City 1971) 79. 12 Published in The Walters Art Gallery, A Selection of Portrait Miniatures (Baltimore 1966) pI. 51 . Some doubt is expressed concerning both date and title of the painting. 13 Published in Portrait Miniatures: The Edward B. Greene Collection, The Cleveland Museum of Art (Cleveland 1951) pI. 38. 14 Contini, op. cit., 221. 15 Boucher, op. cit., 329 . 16 Ulrich Thieme and Felix Becker, Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Kuenstler 21 (Leipzig 1927) 238. The first name is here written as Stanislaus and the middle name as Korvinus; the Missouri miniature is signed Stanislas Corwin. 17 This miniature was part of the Bourgeois freres sale in 1904, item 1370 in the sale catalogue. It was described as 11 cm. x 8 cm., on ivory, in a deteriorated state. The old man is said to be wearing a dark coat and a large white tie, and has "salt-and-pepper" hair. The miniature is also referred to in the following manner: "The Berlin Exhibition 1906 contained under No. 1234 a portrait of a man, sign; Stanislaus Korvinus Kollakowski fecit 1811 (Herman Emden Coli., Hamburg)," in L. R. Schidlof, The Miniature in Europe in the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th Centuries (Graz 1964) 439. I am grateful to Mr. Edgar Munhall, Curator of The Frick Collection, New York, and Mr. William S. Talbot, Assistant Curator of Paintings of The Cleveland Museum of Art, for research suggestions. 18 I am grateful to Dr. Axel von Saldern of the Museum fuer Kunst and Gewerbe, Hamburg, and to Dr. Hans Werner Grohn of the Hamburger Kunsthalle, who attempted to locate the miniature of the old man . 

A Signed Portrait Miniature

https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/10355/83531/1/muse1974v08p44-48.pdf

A Signed Portrait Miniature

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Missouri: MOspace