Vittore Carpaccio Young Knight in a Landscape

Display types

Visible Light

The study using macro photography with visible light enables an in-depth, detailed look at the artist’s technique, and more precisely documents the conservation state of the pictorial layer.

Digital infrared photography

The study with infrared reflectography penetrates the surface of the picture and allows the layers in between to be analysed, revealing underlying drawings, composition modifications and hidden details that include signatures and inscriptions.

X-ray imaging

The study with x-rays provides information on the three-dimensional structure of the painting and more depth regarding the work’s strata, in particular the scope of certain abrasions.

Reverse

Allows the observation of information such as the date of the work or serial numbers, material and age of the canvas, origin and places where it has been, or determine restorations and state of the painting.

ca. 1505

Oil on canvas.

218,5 x 151,5 cm

DESCRIPTION

Image Under Visible Light
Infrared Reflectogram
X-Radiograph
Reverse

Image Under Visible Light

While owned by Baron Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza, the work was restored by William Suhr in New York between 1957 and 1958. Technical studies revealed two cartellini beneath layers of overpaint. The overpaint was removed and both cartellini were recovered. Their texts refer to the person depicted and the authorship of the painting.

Image of the artwork in a property of Baron Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza

The cartellino on the left of the composition displays the knight’s motto: ‘MALO MORI / QUAM / FOEDARI’ (Better to die than be defiled). It asserts the knight’s values and virtue, which are also expressed through other elements, animals and plants included in the painting. The cartellino on the right contains the painter’s signature: ‘VICTOR CARPATHIUS / FINXIT / MDV’. The painting was attributed to Dürer until 1919, but it was put up for auction in London that year as the work of Vittore Carpaccio. The discovery of this cartellino years later reaffirmed Carpaccio’s authorship.

Laboratory analyses confirm that the cartellino bearing the signature contains original pigments and that, although badly abraded and retouched, it was undoubtedly executed by the artist.

The creative process of this work attests to the mastery and experience of Vittore Carpaccio, who laid out the scene in detail before setting about painting it. The composition is apparently simple, though if we look carefully we can see that the central figure is trapped in a web of imaginary lines that connect the various iconographic elements depicted. There is a struggle to achieve a balance between good and evil, between virtue and sin.

The sword may be the axis that structures these two contrasting worlds. The lower part of the knight’s body is protected by a German type of armour and is more arrogantly poised.

In contrast, the upper part of the armour has been considered Italian in style, and here the figure’s resigned attitude culminates in his melancholic facial expression.

This dualism is also reflected in other details of the painting: the lower part of the armour has floral rivets, which link up with the species of flora surrounding the knight, while the upper part displays a pattern of scales or feathers on the arm guards. It indicates a contrast between the earthly and celestial worlds.

Infrared Reflectogram

The underdrawing beneath the paint layers is executed in firm, concise strokes that are very evident in the design of the main figure and in the background architectural elements and landscape.

The lance-bearing knight appears to have been added after the painter had finished the background architecture. Infrared reflectography reveals various drawing strokes completing the outlines of doors and windows of the building – that is, a more finished architectural structure – beneath the paint layers in this figure, which indicate that it was painted afterwards by the artist.

Concealed beneath this knight on horseback is another, smaller figure. It was most likely designed during the initial drawing stage as it is integrated into the underdrawing of the architecture (the horse’s legs can be clearly identified both in both the reflectogram and the X-ray). The concealed figure is facing in the opposite direction to the knight visible in the final version – that is, entering instead of emerging from the wall.

The peacock, which has the appearance of a helmet crest, was also an afterthought. It was probably added to the composition as an element of restraint and balance.

A second deer, precise traces of which are visible beneath the paint in the centre-right of the composition, was subsequently eliminated.

There is an evident change in the young knight’s facial expression. He initially looked straighter ahead at a possible dialogue partner, but at some point during the creative process the artist changed the direction of his gaze to the right of the composition. His expression, which seemed calmer in the preliminary drawing, was slightly modified when the artist altered the slant of the eyebrows, tinging it with melancholy.

The thumb of the hand holding the sheath of the sword rests on top of it in a relaxed position. This is another modification, as this thumb was initially positioned behind the scabbard, gripping it more determinedly.

The cartellino displaying the artist’s name was painted over the finished branch of the trunk to which it is attached. Carpaccio seems to have added it later to leave a record of his authorship.

A few modifications are visible in the background landscape, where a promontory with a grove of trees on the right-hand side has disappeared from the final painting. Further changes can be made out above the fortress, where the artist has eliminated a few details that were present in the initial drawing. The same is true of the thickness or final position of certain figures, such as the ermine and the outline of the knight, as well as of a few plant species that were added during the execution.

X-Radiograph

X-radiography reveals the existence of an inscription in the upper part of the painting which is not visible to the naked eye and reads from back to front: ‘A. Durer’ followed by what appear to be a ‘C’ and an ‘A’. The inscription must have been painted in an X-ray-absorbent pigment on the reverse of the original canvas that is now concealed by the lining. It must have been written when the work was still attributed to Dürer, though it is not documented and its exact date is not known.

The X-ray image shows changes such as in the almost bare oak tree on which the birds are perched, which was not sketched in the initial design. It was added later, over the background and sky, and its position in the central area lends it almost the same importance as the main figure.

Both the peacock and the figure on horseback must have been added during the execution of the final paint layers as they do not appear to have been included in the initial design. An interesting change that can be seen in this area in the X-ray image is the sketched outline of a small horse walking in the opposite direction to the young knight. This composition cannot have convinced the painter, as he covered it over and painted the knight on horseback that is now visible. To do so he enlarged the horse and positioned it facing in the same direction as the young warrior.

Similarly, over the horse and rider the painter added the dog that is walking just behind them and whose body is not completely visible.

Throughout the scene we find modifications made during the paint stage that are surprisingly precise, as they consist of slight adjustments and minimal changes in position. Some are so small that they could go unnoticed. However, there is a more significant change in the direction of the knight’s gaze, which was initially frontal and is now melancholically turned to his left. The light falling on his face was originally more pronounced, accentuating the features of his forehead and right eyebrow.

The painter sketched the knight’s beret in the initial drawing – this choice of a civilian head garment for a soldier in armour is interesting – but later enlarged and slightly modified its dimensions. He deliberately reserved the space for the sword and for the main figure’s majestic poise. The body was furthermore emphasised to stand out over the rest of the elements by means of the gleaming metal of the armour, which is clearly visible in the X-ray image on account of the lead white used to paint it.

Equally striking are the alterations made to the hand holding the sheath of the sword. The thumb, now visible, was initially concealed behind it in a grasping gesture intended to hold the weapon steady, gauging its weight. In the final painting, Carpaccio moved the thumb into a position that is fully visible to the spectator but less realistic.

The artist likewise made minor changes to the armour, widening the space between the breastplate and arm and slightly shifting the decorative semi-circular gilt rivets. He also simplified the details on the pouch containing the letters, located between the knight’s cuisses.

The artist painted the main figure and slightly modified the space occupied by the plants and the path beneath the knight’s feet, which he had initially drawn sloping downwards slightly from left to right in a diagonal. He harmoniously laid out the marshy area beside the ermine, the size and position of whose body he adjusted. He arranged the plants on either side of the knight in a highly naturalistic manner and finally added the two cartellini, characteristic of many of this painter’s works, over the vegetation.

Reverse

The support consists of two pieces of canvas joined in a vertical seam with simple, even stitching. The size of looms of the period sometimes conditioned the width of canvases, making it necessary for artists to join several pieces together. In such cases, they were careful to ensure that the seam did not coincide with important details of the composition in case the support was subjected to movement and tension, which could cause craquelure or paint losses over time.

The scene was originally a few centimetres smaller than its current size (214 x 148.2 cm). This is indicated by the slight enlargements made to all four sides during lining and by the original unpainted margins around the perimeter.

Certain characteristics of the canvas can be observed more easily in the X-ray image. An example is the tension garlands at the edges. They are caused by shrinkage of the threads when the canvas is tensed on the stretcher before the ground layer is applied. This preparatory layer is spread over the canvas before painting in order to limit the absorption of the paint layers, improve elasticity, and sometimes even create a base tone.

Visible details under X-rays of the reverse side of the work

One of the areas where paintings tend to suffer the most damage is at their edges, which are more exposed to rubbing against frames, handling, and other hazards. The dark holes correspond to wear and loss of paint in the places where the original tacks were. Rust probably caused the damage found in these areas of the canvas. Despite a few tears in the canvas and losses of paint, this work is in fair condition.

It was not possible to identify the nature of the fibre of the original canvas because of the lining, and there is no way of taking a sample without affecting the paint. Examination of the support under X-ray, however, shows it to be a textile with a simple tabby weave: one warp to one weft thread.