Η μελέτη των εικόνων με υπογραφή του Εμμανουήλ Λαμπάρδου στο Μουσείο Μπενάκη με τη συμβολή της τεχνικής εξέτασης
Part of : Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας ; Vol.39, 2000, pages 189-220
Issue:
Pages:
189-220
Parallel Title:
Icons Signed by Emmanuel Lambardos in the Benaki Museum
Section Title:
Articles
Author:
Abstract:
A.The Benaki Museum Icon Collection includes five panels signed by the famous Cretan painter Emmanuel Lambardos: St Catherine dated 1627, inv. no. 2985 (Fig. 1), Bust of Christ, inv. no. 2988 (Fig. 2), the Virgin Hodegetria, inv. no 2987 (Fig. 3), the Virgin of Tenderness (Glykophilousa), inv. no. 2984 (Fig. 4) and a second Virgin Hodegetria, inv. no. 2986 (Fig. 5). The signatures on the two last icons are undoubtedly forged. The signature on the Hodegetria no. 2986, is a 20th-century forgery, one of the many that appeared on icons sold in the market during the first half of the century. Besides, the characteristics of this painting differ from the original icons by Emmanuel Lambardos. On the other hand, the signature on the Virgin of the Tenderness was added in the late 18th century, when the icon was restored. The main goal of our research was to determine whether the impressive icon of the Glykophilousa, which has been the subject of a long debate among scholars, is an original creation of E. Lambardos, and therefore the later inscription repeated the authentic signature of the artist. To this end, we examined the style and technique of the three panels with authentic signatures (inv. nos 2985, 2988, 2987) in comparison to the Glykophilousa. Furthermore, since we have the information that two painters, an uncle and a nephew, bearing the same name, Emmanuel Lambardos, were active almost simultaneously in Crete, during the first half of the 17th century, we tried to investigate if their work can be distinguished and identified. The problem is further complicated by the fact that they both seem to use the same type of signature, as a trademark of the workshop. The similarities between the four paintings lead us to the conclusion that the Glykophilousa icon should be attributed to Emmanuel Lambardos. As far as the issue of the two homonymous painters and the distinction of their work are concerned, all we can say is that St Catherine and the Glykophilousa, as well as other signed icons in various collections are characterized by a superior artistic quality, and a more intimate relation to the paintings of the 15th and 16th centuries. These icons could be attributed to the elder Emmanuel Lambardos. On the other hand, the Virgin Hodegetria and the Bust of Christ, although technically impeccable are less expressive and are either creations of the younger painter or the result of mass production in the workshop. B. Technical analysis The aim of this study was to investigate the technique and to identify the materials used in making the four icons; to detect particular characteristics of the artist's technique - as these are recorded in the three original icons - and to compare these to the corresponding features of the Glykophilousa. Special photographic techniques were applied (ultraviolet fluorescence, black-and-white infrared and false-colour infrared photography), the icons were X-rayed and the paint surface was studied in detail under magnification. In order to define accurately the technique of the artist and identify the materials used, samples were taken from carefully chosen areas of the icons and cross-sections were prepared. The stratigraphy and the pigment mixtures were studied with the aid of a polarizing microscope. Electrone microprobe analysis was applied in order to identify the pigments and staining tests to determine the binding medium. Wood identification was based on comparison of thin sections. The construction of the four icons presents many similarities as regards: the kind of wood used for the support (cypress), the thickness of the panels (aprox. 2 cm), the joins, the treatment of the back of the boards and the form of the battens. The carefully chosen wood (in second use in all cases) and the covering of the back side of the panel with a thin layer of ground probably contributed to a great extent to the almost perfect preservation of the supports. The use of fine cloth directly over the wooden panel has been certified in all cases except in the Hodegetria. In all four cases, the support is covered by a thin layer of ground, of even thickness, hard and compact, consisting of gesso and animal glue. The underdrawing is incised on the ground layer in detail. The high quality of the burnished gilding on the background is characteristic, despite the absence of an intermediate layer of bole. Regarding the painted surface, with minor exeptions, the four icons present great similarities when comparing areas of common colour and technique. The flesh, the hair and certain garments are executed in the standard technique, according to which successive layers of gradually brighter colours are laid upon each other. Crimson and deep green garments are always covered by a coloured glaze which determines their final tone. Finally, the orange tunic and the furniture are highlighted with gold brushstrokes, which are applied directly over a flat underpaint. What may be distinguished as a particular feature of the painter's technique is the use of extremely narrow brushstrokes of thinned colour, which are laid in a dense parallel order, for the rendering the flesh and the shading of several garments. The same pigments - ochres, cinnabar, minium, red lake (insect dye on aluminum base), green earth, azurite, indigo, lead white and bone black - have been identified in all four icons. With these pigments, a large variety of colours is finally achieved. The pigments have heen mixed (with rare exeptions) in a stereotype manner. The binding medium is a proteinaceous material, most probably egg yolk.
Subject:
Subject (LC):
