ORDER FORM
❏ Yes, I wish to order a copy of:
❏ The Brueg[H]el Phenomenon
Paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder and
Pieter Brueghel the Younger
with a Special Focus on Technique and Copying Practice
1062 p., 3 paperback vols. in slipcase, incl. colour ills.,
230 x 290 mm, 2012, ISBN 978-2-930054-14-8,
€ 160 / $232.00
(All prices exclude taxes - where applicable - and shipping costs)
Name:
Address:
City: Postcode:
Country:
Tel:
Fax:
E-mail:
❏ Please send me an invoice - VAT N°:
Card N°:
Visa
❏
Mastercard
❏
American Express
Exp. date:
/
Date:Signature:
Please return this order form to:
Begijnhof 67 - B-2300 Turnhout (Belgium)
Tel.: +32 14 44 80 20 - Fax: +32 14 42 89 19
[email protected] - www.brepols.net
ISD
(Orders North America)
70 Enterprise Drive, Suite 2
Bristol, CT 06010 (USA)
Tel: 860 584-6546 - Fax: 860 540-1001
[email protected] - www.isdistribution.com
84PD2031
❏ I wish to pay by credit card: ❏
The Brueg[H]el
Phenomenon
This three-volume book explores the intriguing
Brueg[h]el phenomenon through the two artists’
painting practices. The technical aspects of their works
are investigated using the most up-to-date technology
and are strikingly elucidated with a wealth of colour
illustrations, revealing the accomplished practitioner
behind the genius that is Bruegel the Elder and
the working procedures of his foremost emulator’s
Paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder and
Pieter Brueghel the Younger with a Special
Focus on Technique and Copying Practice
studio. A website annex containing more than 2000
further illustrations, many zoomable, is also accessible
to readers. Moreover, Brueghel the Younger’s own
exceptional qualities as a painter are distinguished from
those of his workshop production. And fresh discoveries
on the father’s creative process through the study of his
son’s copies are also brought to light.
Christina CURRIE & Dominique ALLART
1062 p., 3 paperback vols. in slipcase, incl. colour ills.,
230 x 290 mm, 2012, € 160/ $232.00,
ISBN 978-2-930054-14-8
Series: Scientia Artis 8
89a
89b
Inscriptions
Copies of the Winter Landscape with Bird Trap after Pieter Bruegel the Elder

323b

For the principal trees profiled against the sky, transparent green or brown
dabs of paint, layered with touches of light green, yellow or pink make up the
sprays of leafy branches (fig. , web ). Individual leaves sometimes recall
bird tracks.
Smaller-scale trees in the middle distance are depicted in green-blue, their
individual crowns edged with flecks of light yellow, pink or white (fig. ).
Brueghel painted the trees behind the gallows in delicate pastel shades of yellow,
pink and blue, emphasizing their roundness with arrays of raised dots (fig. ,
web ). Other trees are executed entirely in dark green dots or dashes.
The sunlit walls of the hilltop town to the right are painted in a pale pinkish
colour, their shadow sides intimated by means of a thin greenish-blue layer
applied directly over the imprimatura (fig. b, web ). Thin, dilute bluegreen outlines mark the features. The rooftops, painted in a terracotta hue,
provide a pleasing foil for the tower with its vivid blue roof. Over on the left,
the fortified castle is painted in cooler blue tones over the warm and discernible imprimatura, and highlighted with light pink and white touches (fig. ,
web b-c).
The small village to the left presents a startling juxtaposition of pale pink
walls with complementary light green rooftops (fig. ). Delicately painted
figures attired in a variety of blue, red, white, brown and black clothing provide
anecdotal detail. A hamlet to the right introduces further colour contrasts,
with pink and ochre walls and light blue and terracotta rooftops (fig. ).
Brueghel has painstakingly rendered the plants in the foreground. The
curved fronds of the ferns in the lower foreground, for example, are delicately
delineated in strokes of pale pink or green (web ).
The brushwork in the characters’ costumes generally follows the contours,
helping to articulate them. Colours are bold and restricted to one per garment,
with a transparent pigment for shadows and outlines. The red hose of the gesturing figure, for example, are painted in a plain red, probably vermilion, with
370b
591
Fig. 370 Rocky cliffs and hilltop town
a IRR
b normal light
Fig. 371 Detail behind the gallows, with pastel shades for
the background trees and raised dots and dabs
for foliage
592
Solving a Famous Controversy: Two Versions of the Fall
of Icarus
371
370a


Fig. 591 After Pieter Bruegel the Elder, Fall of Icarus,
73.0 x 111.5 cm, canvas, Brussels, KMSKB-MRBAB
In , during a period of renewed fascination with the art of Pieter Bruegel
the Elder following Georges Hulin de Loo and René Van Bastelaer’s seminal
monograph (), the appearance of a canvas representing the Fall of Icarus
in a style typical of the artist did not pass unnoticed (fig. ). The Musée
de Bruxelles (today the Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van België |
Musées royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, -) immediately
acquired the painting, then considered to be a copy after a lost work by
Bruegel. It was thereafter cited in the great monographs that followed.
Max. J. Friedländer considered it a Bruegel original, while Edouard Michel
leaned in favour of a copy.
The discovery of a second, similar version in  added fuel to the controversy. This painting, owned by the Parisian collector Jacques Herbrand, was
smaller and painted on panel (fig. ). The coexistence of the two paintings
gave the debate a new twist. What was the connection between them? Could
one be considered the original, and if so, which? The version in the  abruptly increased in prestige following a side-by-side comparison
organized by Leo van Puyvelde, the museum’s Chief Curator. In his view the
- painting was more subtle in its conception, as Bruegel had
avoided the anecdotal portrayal of Daedalus. In Ovid’s account (Metamorphoses,
Book VIII, -) Daedalus created wings from birds’ feathers held together
with beeswax so that he and his son Icarus could fly to freedom from the tower
in which Minos had imprisoned them. Despite his father’s stricture not to fly
too low or too high, Icarus soared too close to the sun, which softened the wax
that held the wings together. And so he fell and vanished into the sea. The
Herbrand version represents Daedalus in mid-flight as Icarus plunges into the
waves. To Van Puyvelde, this literal illustration of the narrative was incompatible with Bruegel’s creative genius. The - version was deemed to
have benefited from ‘poetic licence’: Daedalus is not portrayed at all and
the sun is not at its height but close to setting, bathing the whole scene in a
dramatic ambiance. These deviations from a more straightforwardly narrative
interpretation nourished the growing fascination of the - version.
Certain observers remarked on the material condition of the painting, alluding
to probable restorations, though it was a long time before any of them attempted
to define the true nature of these or their effects. The mystery surrounding the
canvas may even have been a significant factor in its attraction. In  the
Fig. 592 After Pieter Bruegel the Elder, Fall of Icarus,
62.5 x 89.7 cm, panel, Brussels, Uccle, Van Buuren
Museum
Outside Brueghel the Younger’s Workshop
Fig. 89 Signature, with the first inscription concealed
beneath the black paint layer
a normal light
b X-ray
The Magpie on the Gallows: a Unique Copy after Pieter Bruegel the Elder
The fascination exerted by the works of the illustrious
Pieter Bruegel the Elder in the decades following his
death in 1569 is matched only by the intense interest they
generate today. At the end of the sixteenth century and
in the first half of the seventeenth, the most ambitious
art collectors fought over the few paintings by the master
that were still on the market. This setting was the catalyst
for the appearance of copies and pastiches – and even
deliberate forgeries. It was then that the elder son of
Pieter Bruegel, known as Pieter Brueghel the Younger
(whose name is spelled ‘Brueghel’ here, conforming to
the signature that he adopted during the initial phase of
his career) emerged as a legitimate successor, producing
astonishingly faithful replicas of his father’s paintings.
This was all the more surprising given that they were often
made after works that were by then dispersed in diverse
and sometimes inaccessible private collections. Operating
within the context of a sizeable workshop, Brueghel
supplied the market with hundreds of copies of variable
quality according to demand. This enterprise merited reevaluation from a technical point of view: how were such
vast numbers of copies produced in practice?
A signature and date were discovered sometime between  and , during
the painting’s cleaning by Joseph Van der Veken. It should be noted straight
away that although Van der Veken is known for his repainting of certain
Flemish Primitives, he never added signatures to these works. None the less,
technical examination of the inscription does raise questions.
The signature and date were applied with a fine brush to the lower right
corner of the painting, in a lead white-based paint (fig. , web ). The
upper register contains the name, ‘’, and the lower register the date in
Latin numerals, ‘···’. Invisible to the naked eye, but perceptible in infrared reflectography, are two black horizontal placement lines above and below
the name. Examination of the inscription and date under the binocular
microscope reveals fine drying cracks, corresponding to those in the black
paint layer on which they are applied, so the inscription cannot have been
applied long after the black paint layer. This concurs with Laurie’s  observations of the signature with the microscope (see above). Oddly, though, an
X-radiograph of the inscription reveals the presence of further painted letters,
concealed beneath the black paint layer. The painted letters ‘’, ‘’ and ‘’
appear to be present in between the two registers of the final painted inscription, commencing just after the ‘’ in the latter. The letter ‘’ is painted
underneath the ‘’ of the date. The hidden ‘’ is slightly larger than the ‘’
in the final version on the surface of the painting. This suggests the presence
of a similar, lead white-based painted signature and date underneath the top
inscription, but slightly lower and to the right. In the absence of systematic
radiography of Bruegel’s works it is impossible to know whether or not there
are precedents for such reworked inscriptions in his wider œuvre. In the case
of the Winter Landscape with Bird Trap it is possible that the artist considered
the work finished, signed it, then changed his mind and modified the lower
right, necessitating a new signature. Indeed, the thinly painted twisting tree
on the far right is a late addition on top of dry paint, and could have been part
of a reworking of the area.

