|
Underdrawings and pentimenti reveal intermediate states of a painting and thus may shed light on the working
methods of some artists. It has been claimed that Lorenzo Lotto used optical projections during the execution
of Husband and wife (1543) and, recently, that underdrawings in that work might reveal evidence of tracing
of optical projections. We analyze x-ray images of this painting-captured under careful, museum-laboratory
conditions and enhanced through digital image processing-with special attention to the possibility of evidence
of the use of optical projections in the central passage of the depicted carpet. We also study the work in situ and
in high-resolution macro optical images of the central portion of the carpet pattern. These photographs reveal
that the top portion of the keyhole pattern is not "blurry, like an out-of-focus image," but instead was merely
executed in a somewhat broader brush than was neighboring passages. Furthermore, x-ray, infra-red and visible
light inspection show that the white portions and black contours were executed atop a broad layer of dark red and
reveal no record of an optical projection would have been present when Lotto executed the visible portion. As
such, an evidence of putative underdrawings in this region has no bearing on the optical projection claim. There
is no evidence of tracing marks-in charcoal or in any medium-in the top, visible portion of this passage either.
As such, this visual, infra-red and x-ray evidence does not support the claim that this painting was executed
under optical projections. We also discuss the difficulties with the projection theory with special reference to
Lotto's preparatory drawing in the Rijksmuseum-specifically the need for a needlessly complex optical system
(two lenses rather than one). We also review briefly contemporary textual evidence in early 16th-century Venice
that has been used to support the optical projection claim for Lotto and conclude that it also fails to support
the projection claim for this painting.
|
