Formal Analysis on Rachel Ruvigny Portrait by Anthony Van Dyke
Formal Analysis on Anthony van Dyck’s Rachel de Ruvigny, Countess of Southampton
Titania Andiani Rosari
Student ID: 24570745
MCD1280 Art Theory A
Essay
January 9, 2013
Formal Analysis on Anthony van Dyck’s Rachel de Ruvigny, Countess of Southampton
There are actually two versions of Anthony van Dyck’s painting of the countess of Southampton; Anthony van Dyck, Rachel de Ruvigny, Countess of Southampton, ca. 1640, National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne (see fig. 1) and Anthony van Dyck, Rachel de Ruvigny, Countess of Southampton as ‘Fortune’, ca. 1638, Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge (see fig.2). There have been discussions on which between the two is the primary version. Ursula Hoff argued that the painting located in Melbourne is the primary version basing on three aspects:
(a) It was the only one to be chosen for engraving; (b) while the other versions were in the possession of the Earl’s daughters, 1246/3 was inherited by the Earl’s third wife, presumably with the contents of Southampton House; (c) an alteration in the Althorp picture shows convincingly that the painter started this version with the design of 1246/3 in mind.
Current scholars and art critics are still arguing the primacy between these two paintings. Our discussion on the other hand, relies specifically on the Melbourne Collezione privata/Private coversion. Anthony van Dyck painted the portrait of Rachel de Ruvigny, Countess of Southampton in the 17th century, around 1640. The painting takes the size up to 222.4 centimetres in height and 131.6 centimetres in width. This is a type of portraiture painting that was done with oil on canvas. This painting also belongs to a particular type of school which appears to be Baroque. Portraiture in this school is done in accordance to verisimilitude, which is the semblance of reality. By briefly observing through the picture plane, this painting has a build up of clouds as the foreground that helps determine where the subject
Titania Andiani Rosari
Student ID: 24570745
MCD1280 Art Theory A
Essay
January 9, 2013
Formal Analysis on Anthony van Dyck’s Rachel de Ruvigny, Countess of Southampton
There are actually two versions of Anthony van Dyck’s painting of the countess of Southampton; Anthony van Dyck, Rachel de Ruvigny, Countess of Southampton, ca. 1640, National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne (see fig. 1) and Anthony van Dyck, Rachel de Ruvigny, Countess of Southampton as ‘Fortune’, ca. 1638, Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge (see fig.2). There have been discussions on which between the two is the primary version. Ursula Hoff argued that the painting located in Melbourne is the primary version basing on three aspects:
(a) It was the only one to be chosen for engraving; (b) while the other versions were in the possession of the Earl’s daughters, 1246/3 was inherited by the Earl’s third wife, presumably with the contents of Southampton House; (c) an alteration in the Althorp picture shows convincingly that the painter started this version with the design of 1246/3 in mind.
Current scholars and art critics are still arguing the primacy between these two paintings. Our discussion on the other hand, relies specifically on the Melbourne Collezione privata/Private coversion. Anthony van Dyck painted the portrait of Rachel de Ruvigny, Countess of Southampton in the 17th century, around 1640. The painting takes the size up to 222.4 centimetres in height and 131.6 centimetres in width. This is a type of portraiture painting that was done with oil on canvas. This painting also belongs to a particular type of school which appears to be Baroque. Portraiture in this school is done in accordance to verisimilitude, which is the semblance of reality. By briefly observing through the picture plane, this painting has a build up of clouds as the foreground that helps determine where the subject
Bibliography: Anderson, Jaynie, and Carl Villis. “Anthony van Dyck 's Portrait of Rachel de Ruvigny, Countess of Southampton.” The Burlington Magazine (The Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd.) 147, no. 1231 (October 2005): 661-667. Jaffe, Michael. “Van Dyck Studies II: 'La belle &vertueuse Huguenotte '.” The Burlington Magazine (The Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd.) 126, no. 979 (October 1984): 602-609+611. Lotha, Gloria. Chiaroscuro. Edited by Chelsey Parrott-Sheffer. 3 September 2007. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/110261/chiaroscuro (accessed December 11, 2012). Martin, John Rupert. Baroque. New York: Harper & Row, 1977. Roskill, Mark. "Van Dyck at the English Court: The Relations of Portraiture and Allegory." Critical Inquiry (The University of Chicago Press) 14, no. 1 (1987): 173-199. Vey, Horst, Nora De Poorter, Oliver Millar, and Susan J. Barnes. Van Dyck : A Complete Catalogue of the Paintings. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004. [ 2 ]. Gloria Lotha, Chiaroscuro, ed. Chelsey Parrott-Sheffer, 3 September 2007, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/110261/chiaroscuro (accessed December 11, 2012). [ 3 ]. Jaynie Anderson and Carl Villis, “Anthony van Dyck 's Portrait of Rachel de Ruvigny, Countess of Southampton,” The Burlington Magazine 147, no. 1231 (October 2005): 663. [ 4 ]. Michael Jaffe, “Van Dyck Studies II: 'La belle &vertueuse Huguenotte ',” The Burlington Magazine 126, no. 979 (October 1984): 607. [ 5 ]. Jaynie Anderson and Carl Villis, “Anthony van Dyck 's Portrait of Rachel de Ruvigny, Countess of Southampton,” The Burlington Magazine 147, no. 1231 (October 2005): 663. [ 6 ]. Horst Vey, Nora De Poorter, Oliver Millar and Susan J. Barnes, Van Dyck : A Complete Catalogue of the Paintings (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), IV 209. [ 7 ]. Michael Jaffe, “Van Dyck Studies II: 'La belle &vertueuse Huguenotte ',” The Burlington Magazine 126, no. 979 (October 1984): 603. [ 9 ]. Mark Roskill, “Van Dyck at the English Court: The Relations of Portraiture and Allegory,” Critical Inquiry 14, no. 1 (1987): 175.