Portrait of the Artist in His Studio

1673

Michiel van Musscher(Rotterdam 1645 – 1705 Amsterdam)oil on panel
37.4 x 28.6 cm
MM-103Currently on view at: The National Museum ofChina, Beijing© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Portrait of the Artist in His Studio
Page 2 of 10

How To Cite
Van Tuinen, Ilona. "Portrait of the Artist in His Studio." In The Leiden Collection Catalogue. Edited by Arthur
K. Wheelock Jr. New York, 2017.
https://www.theleidencollection.com/archive/.
This page is available on the site's Archive. PDF of every version of this page is available on the Archive,
and the Archive is managed by a permanent URL. Archival copies will never be deleted. New versions areadded only when a substantive change to the narrative occurs.

© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Portrait of the Artist in His Studio
Page 3 of 10

The young Michiel van Musscher sits in his workshop and looks straight at

Comparative Figures

the viewer with supreme self-confidence. He is fashionably dressed in abrown velvet beret and a purplish brown, satin Japonse rok tied around his
waist with a pink, patterned silk scarf.[1] His eyebrows are slightly raised
and his lips are parted, as though he is preparing to engage inconversation with us. In his right hand he holds a palette, brushes, and amahlstick, whereas his left hand is partially raised in a rhetorical gesture,
directing the viewer to an exquisite display of objects on a narrow stone
ledge in front of him: an open watch attached to a pink ribbon, a blue sheetof paper partially revealing a washed drawing of a female nude, a tatteredsketchbook, an open book with geometrical drawings resting on a large,
closed book, and a celestial globe. In the background, in an opening

Fig 1. Detail of Michiel van
Musscher, Portrait of the Artist in
His Studio, MM-103, showing theright sleeve of the silk rok

framed by the figure on the left and a rich tapestry hanging on the right, isan easel standing by a window and containing an unfinished painting withthree figures.
This early painting by Van Musscher is executed with an astounding levelof detail, and foreshadows the artist’s interest in depicting different fabrics,
which would come to full development in his late career. Van Musscher
achieved the glistening quality of the satin rok, possibly the actual “paersesautijne Japonse Rock” listed in Van Musscher’s posthumous 1705
inventory,[2] by applying highlights along the folds of the garment with athick brush (fig 1), and by offsetting the rok against the finely painted bareFig 2. Detail of Michiel van
Musscher, Portrait of the Artist in
His Studio, MM-103, showing thetapestryfloorboards behind him. He also achieved a remarkable realism in thetapestry, especially in the extraordinary detail of the slightly frayed edges,
by alternating short, opaque brushstrokes with tiny dots to simulate theweave pattern (fig 2). The care Van Musscher took to depict his objects
down to the most minute details is particularly evident in the open book,which has been identified as two pages from the 1555 Dutch edition of
Sebastiano

Serlio’s(1475–1554)

famoustreatiseTutte

l’opered’architecttura et prospetiva. These pages explain how to draw anoctagonal shape in perspective (fig 3).[3] The globe showing a hint of thestar sign Ursa Major has been executed with such precision that it has
been identified as the celestial globe engraved by Pieter van den Keere(1571–ca. 1646) after a design by the Dutch astronomer and cartographer

Fig 3. Sebastiano Serlio, Boeckvan Architecturen Sebastiani
Serlij / tracterende van
Perspectyven, trans. Pieter
Coecke van Aelst (Antwerp,
1555), fols. 7v and 8r (second
book, third chapter “Van
Perspectiven aengaende den
corporen / oft Massijven dingen”)

Petrus Plancius (1552–1622) of around 1625 (fig 4).[4]Although the painting is unsigned and undated, an old and now illegible
inscription on the back of the panel once read: Pinxit 1673 [or 1683].[5]© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Portrait of the Artist in His Studio
Page 4 of 10

Around 1932 this work was attributed to Van Musscher on an RKD(Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie/Netherlands Institute for
Art History) photo mount, an attribution that was generally, though notunanimously, adopted in the literature.[6] It does seem certain, however,that Van Musscher painted this self-portrait. The figure’s facial features,
especially the prominent, straight nose and almond-shaped eyes, areconsistent with those in the artist’s signed self-portraits, as, for instance,
his 1679 Self-Portrait in Rotterdam (fig 5) and his 1685 Self-Portrait in
Amsterdam (fig 6). Moreover, Serlio’s book and Plancius’s celestial globe
also appear in Van Musscher’s Rotterdam painting.[7] Finally, theexecution of the painting is consistent with that seen in Van Musscher’sother works. The handling of the shimmering silk and the almost porcelainlike flesh tones, for example, are comparable to those in Van Musscher’s
1687 pendant portraits of Pieter Ranst Valckenier and Eva Suzanna
Pellicorne, (see MM-102.a–b).

Fig 4. Detail of Pieter van den
Keere after Petrus Plancius,
Celestial Globe with the Ursa
Major, engraving, ca. 1625,
published in Michiel van
Musscher (1645–1705): The
Wealth of the Golden Age, ed.
Robert E. Gerhardt, Tonko
Grever, and Francis Griep (Exh.
cat. Amsterdam, Museum vanLoon) (Zwolle, 2012), 15

If, as seems probable, Van Musscher indeed executed this painting in
1673, he would have been at that time 28 years old. He was just starting
his successful career as one of the most important portraitists in
Amsterdam.[8] It has been suggested that the young artist created thispainting to showcase his abilities as a portraitist and as a craftsman who
could realistically render the materials and textures of the world aroundhim.[9] In doing so, Van Musscher apparently took as his model one ofGerrit Dou’s most famous and important self-portraits, which the Leiden
master had painted some eight years earlier in ca. 1665 (fig 7).[10] The twocompositions are remarkably similar, especially the postures of the artists,
the manner in which they hold their palettes, and the views into the studiowith its easel. In each work, moreover, a tapestry is elegantly draped fromFig 5. Michiel van Musscher, SelfPortrait, 1679 oil on panel, 56 x
46.5 cm, Het Schielandshuis,
Rotterdam, inv. no. HMR 10567

the upper edge of the composition. The two paintings are also thematicallyrelated; neither artist is dressed in a painter’s smock, but rather in an
upper-class wardrobe that suggests his erudition: Dou in the fur
tabbaard worn by scholars in his day, and the younger Van Musscher in amodern, fashionable rok.[11] This theme of the intellectual artist isreinforced in both paintings by the presence of the globe and the books. At
the same time, by including an open watch Van Musscher was also
touching upon the concept of vanitas, he was perhaps hinting that his art
will triumph over his own mortality.[12]The fact that the book and the globe in this self-portrait are identifiable sets

Fig 6. Michiel van Musscher, SelfPortrait, 1685, oil on canvas, 20.5
x 17.8 cm, Rijksmuseum,© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Portrait of the Artist in His Studio
Page 5 of 10

this work apart from Dou’s self-representations. The Leiden master

Amsterdam, inv. no. SK-A-4232

depicted books and globes generically for their symbolic value. By
specifically including Serlio’s book and Plancius’s celestial globe, Van
Musscher asserted the full range of his artistic expertise, which included acommand of perspective and an ability to render abstract concepts. The
drawing directly under the book emphasizes his skills as a draughtsman.
The ultimate testimony to Van Musscher’s talents is, however, provided by
the actual painting’s beautiful execution, which is every bit as impressive
as the expertise suggested by the painted objects.
-Ilona van Tuinen
Fig 7. Gerrit Dou, Self-Portrait,ca. 1665, oil on panel, arched top,
59 x 43.5 cm, Rose-Marie andEijk van Otterloo Collection,
Boston© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Portrait of the Artist in His Studio
Page 6 of 10

Endnotes
1. For the Japonse rok, see Marieke de Winkel, “Rollenspel,” in Kopstukken: Amsterdammers
Geportretteerd 1600–1800, ed. Norbert Middelkoop (Exh. cat. Amsterdam, Amsterdam
Museum) (Bussum, 2002), 96–97. This exotic and relatively costly kimono was often wornas an informal housecoat. Because of its elegant appeal and the different possible
variations, it was common for men in the late seventeenth century to wear this garment in
portraits.
2. For a partial transcription of this posthumous inventory, dated 20 July 1705 and kept at theStadsarchief Amsterdam, NA 4837, see Marieke de Winkel,Fashion and Fancy: Dress andMeaning in Rembrandt’s Paintings (Amsterdam, 2006), 351, Appendix II, U. If the “purple,
satin Japonse rok” mentioned here is indeed identical to the one in the painting executed
some thirty years earlier, Van Musscher would have had this valuable gown in his
possession for a long time.
3. For the identification of the treatise, see Robert E. Gerhardt, “Michiel van Musscher: TheBest Amsterdam Painter of Small Portraits,” in Michiel van Musscher (1645–1705): The
Wealth of the Golden Age , ed. Robert E. Gerhardt, Tonko Grever, and Francis Griep (Exh.
cat. Amsterdam, Museum van Loon) (Zwolle, 2012), 12. The Dutch edition, Boeck van
Architecturen Sebastiani Serlij / tracterende van Perspectyven , was translated by Pieter
Coecke van Aelst (1502–50) and published by his widow in 1553 in Antwerp. Click here foran online edition of Coecke’s edition published by the University of Utrecht. The pages
depicted here are fol. 7v and 8r from the second book of the third chapter entitled “Van
Perspectiven aengaende den corporen / oft Massijven dingen” (On the Perspective ofBodies and Solids). For an English translation of these pages, see Sebastiano Serlio on
Architecture: Volume One, Books I–V of ‘Tutte l’opere d’architecttura et prospetiva’ by
Sebastiano Serlio, trans. Vaughan Hart and Peter Hicks (New Haven and London, 1996),
48–49.
4. For the identification of the globe, see Robert E. Gerhardt, “Michiel van Musscher: The Best
Amsterdam Painter of Small Portraits,” in Michiel van Musscher (1645–1705): The Wealthof the Golden Age, ed. Robert E. Gerhardt, Tonko Grever, and Francis Griep (Exh. cat.
Amsterdam, Museum van Loon) (Zwolle, 2012), 12.
5. The inscription was first mentioned on an old RKD (Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische
Documentatie/Netherlands Institute for Art History) photo mount around 1932, and repeatedin the literature. See also the Technical Summary. Annette Rupprecht was unable to detect
the inscription with visible, ultraviolet, and infrared illumination.
6. H. van Hall was the first to adopt this attribution in H. van Hall,Portretten van Nederlandse
Beeldende Kunstenaars (Amsterdam, 1963), 223, no. 6. Pieter van Thiel, however, felt that© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Portrait of the Artist in His Studio
Page 7 of 10

the attribution was not correct; see Pieter J. J. van Thiel, “Andermaal Michiel van Musscher:
Zijn zelfportretten,” Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 22 (1974): 147 n. 10. Recently, Robert
Jan te Rijdt attributed this painting to Gerrit Dou’s student Dominicus van Tol (ca. 1635–76);
see Robert Jan te Rijdt, “Het toeval helpt een beetje: Tibout Regters—Jan
Verkolje—Dominicus van Tol,” in Face Book: Studies on Dutch and Flemish Portraiture of
the 16th–18th Centuries—Liber Amicorum Presented to Rudolf E. O. Ekkart on the
Occasion of His 65th Birthday , ed. Edwin Buijsen, Charles Dumas, and Volker Manuth(Leiden, 2012), 469–72. He based this attribution on the striking similarities between thispainting and the descriptions of a painting attributed to Van Tol in 1773 and 1774 auction
catalogues (see Provenance). The attribution to Van Tol is problematic. First, it could wellhave been an erroneous attribution made by the auctioneer in 1773. The high level of finish,
the porcelain-like depiction of the human flesh, and the careful, typical rendering of thefabrics appear to betray Van Musscher’s hand rather than the looser and less polishedtechnique of Van Tol. Unfortunately, no self-portraits by Van Tol appear to have survived,
making it impossible to do a physiological comparison as one can with Van Musscher’s selfportraits.
7. Thanks to Robert E. Gerhardt, correspondence January 2013, copy on file at the Leiden
Collection, for bringing this information to my attention. Gerhardt is currently completing amonograph on Michiel van Musscher.
8. See Piet Bakker’s biography of the artist in this catalogue. See also the entry on Van
Musscher’s 1687 pendant portraits of Pieter Ranst Valckenier and Eva Suzanna Pellicorne,
MM-102.a–b, which the artist painted when he was already well-established.
9. Robert E. Gerhardt, “Michiel van Musscher: The Best Amsterdam Painter of Small
Portraits,” in Michiel van Musscher (1645–1705): The Wealth of the Golden Age , ed.
Robert E. Gerhardt, Tonko Grever, and Francis Griep (Exh. cat. Amsterdam, Museum vanLoon) (Zwolle, 2012), 12–15.
10. See Robert E. Gerhardt, “Michiel van Musscher: The Best Amsterdam Painter of Small
Portraits,” in Michiel van Musscher (1645–1705): The Wealth of the Golden Age , ed.
Robert E. Gerhardt, Tonko Grever, and Francis Griep (Exh. cat. Amsterdam, Museum vanLoon) (Zwolle, 2012), 12–15, who also compares Van Musscher’s self-portrait to this workby Dou.
11. For a discussion of Gerrit Dou’s Self-Portrait, see Ronni Baer, “Self-Portrait,” in Gerrit Dou,
1613–1675: Master Painter in the Age of Rembrandt , ed. Arthur K. Wheelock Jr. (Exh. cat.
Washington D.C., National Gallery of Art; London, Dulwich Picture Gallery, and The Hague,
Mauritshuis) (New Haven and London, 2000), 122–23. Dou wears a fur-lined scholar’stabbaard, fashionable for intellectuals in the first half of the seventeenth century. Van
Musscher’s fashionable Japonse rok became increasingly popular among the upper classfrom the 1660s onward, including among scholars, as testified by Van Musscher’s own© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Portrait of the Artist in His Studio
Page 8 of 10

Portrait of the Mathematician and Astronomer Barend van Lin , signed and dated, bottom
right, 1671, oil on canvas, 59.5 x 51.5 cm, Amsterdam Museum.
12. Van Musscher continued to refer to his mortality in his other self-portraits, culminating in his
1685 Amsterdam self-portrait (fig. 6), in which the moralistic inscription connects “Van
Musscher’s hand that drew these outlines to remember his appearance” to the “hour glass . .
. that teaches us of the brevity of life” (“Dus heeft hier Muschers handt, deez Omtreck zelfs
geg[even] / Tot een geheugenis, hoe zijn gedaente was” / “De Tijd . . . thoond’ . . . dat zijn
glas, / Al veel verloopen is en leerd ons ‘t brosze leven”).

Provenance(Possibly sale, Johannes van der Marck, Amsterdam, 25 August 1773, no. 464, as by
Dominicus van Tol [to Fouquet for 200 guilders]).
Possibly Comte Du Barry (his sale, 21 November 1774, no. 70, as by Dominicus van Tol [toLanglier for 656 livres]).
Unknown collection, Russia.
[Dr. Curt Benedict, Charlottenburg, Berlin, by June 1932.][Otto Naumann Ltd., New York, by 1997.]
Bert van Deun, Oberageri, Switzerland; by descent to his widow [Otto Naumann Ltd., New
York, 2004].
From whom acquired by the present owner in 2004.

Exhibition History
Amsterdam, Museum van Loon, “Michiel van Musscher (1645–1705): The Wealth of theGolden Age,” 9 March–10 June 2012 [lent by the present owner].
Beijing, National Museum of China, “Rembrandt and His Time: Masterpieces from The
Leiden Collection,” 17 June–3 September 2017 [lent by the present owner].

References© 2017 The Leiden Collection

Portrait of the Artist in His Studio
Page 9 of 10

Van Hall, H. Portretten

vanNederlandse

Beeldende

Kunstenaars .

Amsterdam,

1963,

no. 6.
Van Thiel, Pieter J. J. “Michiel van Musscher’s vroegste werk naar aanleiding van zijn
portret van het echtpaar Comans.” Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 17 (1969): 33 n. 21, no. 4.
Van Thiel, Pieter J. J. “Andermaal Michiel van Musscher: Zijn zelfportretten.”Bulletin van
het Rijksmuseum 22 (1974): 147 n. 10, as probably not by Michiel van Musscher.
Raupp, Hans-Joachim. Untersuchungen zu Künstlerbildnis und Künstlerdarstellung in den
Niederlanden im 17. Jahrhundert. Hildesheim and New York, 1984, 292.
Russell, Margarita. “The Artist in His Studio: A Self-Portrait by Michiel van Musscher.”
Apollo 127 (1988): 13, 15, no. 6.
Gerhardt, Robert E. “Biography: The Man and the Artist.” In Michiel van Musscher(1645–1705): The Wealth of the Golden Age. Edited by Robert E. Gerhardt, Tonko Grever,and Francis Griep-Quint, 12–15. Exh. cat. Amsterdam, Museum van Loon. Zwolle, 2012.
Jonker, Michiel. “Tapijtenkoning.” Museumtijdschrift 2 (2012): 48–50.
Te

Rijdt,

RobertJan.

“Het

toevalhelpt

een

beetje:TiboutRegters—Jan

Verkolje—Dominicus van Tol.” In Face Book: Studies on Dutch and Flemish Portraiture of
the 16th–18th Centuries: Liber Amicorum Presented to Rudolf E. O. Ekkart on the
Occasion of His 65th Birthday . Edited by Edwin Buijsen, Charles Dumas, and Volker
Manuth. Leiden, 2012, 469–72, fig. 7, as by Dominicus van Tol.

Technical Summary
The support is a single plank of vertically grained, rectangular, wedge-shaped oak with bevels
along all four sides.[1] The unthinned and uncradled panel has machine toolmarks, a red wax
seal, an import stamp, a label remnant, and various handwritten inscriptions, including anillegible three-line handwritten ink inscription previously wet out with varnish, but no stencils or
panel maker’s mark.
A dark brown-colored radio-opaque ground has been thinly and evenly applied, followed by oil
paint smoothly applied with extremely fine detail that includes strokes of dots and dashes tocreate the illusion of the tapestry pile and fringe and no use of impasto.
The X-radiograph reveals two significant compositional changes made during the paint stage
and a number of minor shifts in positions of objects. The two significant changes are as follows.
First, originally the upper edge of the painting had been painted as a continuous arch, which
formed an architectural niche; the left side of the arch remains visible, whereas a tapestry swag
added to the upper and right edges obscures the right side of the arch. Second, the open bookon perspective lying on a closed leather-bound book was added. Originally a rolled document,oriented parallel to the lower panel edge, lay on the cover of the closed leather-bound book.
© 2017 The Leiden Collection

223,

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Portrait of the Artist in His Studio
Page 10 of 10

The figure drawing on blue paper was added after the sheet of white paper lying directly on thetable had been completed. The left edge of the sheet of white paper was shifted to the right, andthe corner hanging over the table edge was changed from one that formed a right angle to one
with an indented notch. The figure’s proper right hand has been raised and shifted away from thefigure’s body. The angle of the mahlstick in the figure’s proper left hand has been lowered.
Originally, the tip of the mahlstick was closer to the paintbrushes and the angle of the stick had
been more parallel to the brushes. Lastly, the figure’s face is particularly radio-opaque and thewisps of hair along the figure’s forehead are not visible in the X-radiograph at all.
No underdrawing is readily apparent in infrared images captured at 780–1000 nanometers. The
images reveal the rolled document was originally depicted resting on the cover of the closed
leather-bound book, and the positions of the palette and the figure’s thumb have been shiftedslightly forward, away from the figure’s body (similar to the shift of the proper right hand visible in
the X-radiograph).
The painting is unsigned and undated although the illegible inscription along the reverse may
include a date of 1673.
The painting was cleaned and restored in 1996 prior to its acquisition in 2004 and remains in an
excellent state of preservation regardless of areas of thinness through the background.

Technical Summary Endnotes

1. The characterization of the wood is based on visual examination only.

© 2017 The Leiden Collection