Talk:Lucas Horenbout

message: Why is the miniature of Henry VIII erroneously listed as one of the earliest? The note acknowledges it is incorrect, Jean Fouquet painted a portrait miniature in 1450.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.246.56 (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Miniature

message: I've just read this article. What a delight it is to find such a thorough, well-researched article on a little-known, but in some ways seminal, figure. Many congratulations to Johnbod for another invaluable piece of work.
I cannot myself give much credit to Horenbout for the portrait of Holbein, because it is so similar to Holbein's self-portrait in pen and chalk, apparently a preparatory drawing for a panel painting. The gaze is the classic gaze of the self-portrait, surely. qp10qp (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My view too, but I've only seen it attributed to LH. I thought perhaps it's some sort of joint effort whilst he was teaching HH the limning game. The drawing is certainly better than LH can usually manage.  Actually I had forgotten it was in the Wallace Collection - I've just looked at their 1980 Miniatures catalogue (reduced to £1 - thank you) by Reynolds, who did the Royal Coll one too. He says it was always thought of as a self-portrait until recently, but on technical grounds now looks (I think mainly to him) as though it is by LH based on the Uffizi drawing. Possibly done as a memorial portrait in the 6 months between their deaths. Strong I think concurs.   Thanks for the compliments - It's (fairly) easy when you have the books to hand! Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's easy in one way, but it takes time and concentration and is an achievement. Yes, I don't dispute that it's by Horenbout, but I wouldn't give him the accolade he gets in the caption, considering the painting is derivative. Apparently Holbein did at least one painted version, which is lost. The practice of artists copying one another's paintings was so common that it just makes everything murky. As does the practice of painting people after they had died or of making them older and younger, from a standard base. I just noticed that Holbein's portrait of John Chambers, in which the subject looks about forty, was done when he was actually 88. François Clouet's portraits of Charles IX age him beyond his death, in my opinion, having been painted as a job lot in advance. It's infuriating, but I suppose one has to escape from the modern mindset of the painter as auteur. I've also noticed that de Critz and Gheeraerts, as far as one can tell when attributions are so elusive, were painting at times from the same base portrait, which is confusing (but, well, their families were interrelated). The practice becomes exposed in artificial group paintings, where we see standard figures inserted into compositions, often anachronistically or beyond the grave. It's fascinating, though. qp10qp (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Holbein portrait

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lucas Horenbout. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110813190103/http://cms.sal.org.uk/search?SearchableText=cast+Shadow+Workshop to http://cms.sal.org.uk/search?SearchableText=cast+Shadow+Workshop
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified