Art

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 14° London Hi 15°C / Lo 8°C

How restorers ruined the last portrait of Shakespeare

By Arifa Akbar, Arts correspondent

The Folger portrait of Shakespeare in its original state

FOLGER SHAKESPEARE LIBRARY

The Folger portrait of Shakespeare in its original state

When art conservators joined hands to restore two rare portraits of Shakespeare they thought they were removing paint daubed on the canvases more than 100 years after the Bard's death to reveal "authentic" portraits beneath.

Now it has emerged they were, in fact, wiping away priceless insights into the changing appearance of Britain's greatest playwright.

The images which had been superimposed on both paintings had actually been painted in Shakespeare's own lifetime, the Art Newspaper will reveal next week, and showed how he looked as he aged. The so-called "restoration" could now go down in art history as one of the biggest blunders on record.

A newly discovered picture of Shakespeare called the Cobbe portrait (painted when he was still living) and another version called the Folger portrait were both irreversibly "cleaned up" in this way.

New research has revealed both portraits were probably altered during Shakespeare's lifetime, or within a decade or so of his death in 1616, while his friends and associates were still alive. In the Cobbe portrait, the sitter was given a bouffant hairstyle, whereas in the Folger portrait, his hair at the front was replaced by a bald forehead.

But why the changes? The Cobbe work is believed to have been painted for the Earl of Southampton. The Shakespeare expert Stanley Wells suggests the Bard had dedicated his erotic sonnets to him. It is possible the Earl may have wanted a more flattering image.

The Folger portrait, on the other hand, may have been altered to reflect Shakespeare's appearance at the time of his death, six years after the original painting. The original represented Shakespeare aged 46.

Rupert Featherstone, director of the Hamilton Kerr Institute in Cambridge, which undertook technical investigations into the Cobbe portrait, admitted that in hindsight, it was unfortunate conservators had removed the overpaint. "We can no longer peer down a microscope to look at the physical evidence of the overpaint," he said. When the overpaint was removed from the two portraits, in 1988 and 2002, it was not thought that either depicted Shakespeare. Some critics doubted that the Bard sat for either portrait.

The Cobbe portrait was restored in 2002 as part of ongoing conservation work of the Cobbe family's pictures. It was then thought that it depicted an unknown sitter by an anonymous artist. The conservation work was undertaken by Mr Cobbe, who is a professional restorer. Research now shows the Cobbe painting is an original portrait completed in Shakespeare's lifetime, and that the Folger picture is an early copy, painted in 1610 when the playwright was still alive.

Mr Cobbe now believes his portrait may have had the hair repainted as early as a few months after the original work had been completed in 1610.

The Folger painting, which was conserved in 1988, is in the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington. It was acquired in 1932 as an image of Shakespeare, but later downgraded to an anonymous portrait.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

[info]drug_baron wrote:
Saturday, 28 March 2009 at 02:57 am (UTC)
Sheikh Zubair of Basra .

When are we going to be told the truth about Shakespeare; irrespective of the truth being unpalatable ?
Tragic Comedy
[info]living_fossil wrote:
Saturday, 28 March 2009 at 05:26 am (UTC)
Loves labors lost? I don't suppose he even existed they'll say soon enough, airbrushed away by time.
Ooops!
[info]sameth99200 wrote:
Saturday, 28 March 2009 at 09:42 am (UTC)
This reminds me of a run in between Mr Bean and Whistler's Mother. At least they didn't use a can of turps.
[info]frank_brady wrote:
Saturday, 28 March 2009 at 09:44 am (UTC)
Let them paint an inch thick -- to this favour must he come.
Pointless
[info]kodak321 wrote:
Saturday, 28 March 2009 at 03:38 pm (UTC)
Much Ado About Nothing
Shakespeare portrait
[info]mr_wh wrote:
Saturday, 28 March 2009 at 04:10 pm (UTC)
Your caption on the front page, below the portrait of a balding man, states boldly that this is Shakespeare. How do you know? By comapring it with the Droeshout engraving in the first folio? I must point out that the Droeshout image is itself a hoax - the full explanation can be found at: www.shakespearecodes.com
Folger & Cobbe portraits
[info]giott3 wrote:
Saturday, 28 March 2009 at 07:23 pm (UTC)
Both the Folger and the Cobbe portraits were, indeed, painted during Shakespeare's lifetime. Both are highly accomplished and polished examples of Elizabethan portraiture. However, neither depict Shakespeare. The sitter is almost certain to be Sir Thomas Overbury. This has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the two eminent scholars Daniel T. Fischlin and Katherine Duncan-Jones.

The claim that the removal of original paint by art conservators has "[wiped] away priceless insights into the changing appearance of Britain's greatest playwright" is yet another desperate attempt to keep a (very recent!)myth alive!

Angus Neill
Felder
Old Master Paintings

Does it really matter?
[info]mssuperior wrote:
Saturday, 28 March 2009 at 08:47 pm (UTC)
Interesting, yes, but I fear that the important thing is the value of the works of Shakespeare. Not his visual image. It's a bit of a distraction really.
Will'S Portraits
[info]igor1st wrote:
Saturday, 28 March 2009 at 10:02 pm (UTC)
Don't be too hard on the scientists..knowledge is ever expanding...
Max Doerner recounts a story of how, in committee, the authenticity of a possible Rembrandt was decided by throwing alcohol on it and rubbing.... and if the paint dissolved, that was proof it was not a Rembrandt.......
We know now the opposite to be true and one wonders how many great works were destroyed in this fashion.

Re: Will'S Portraits
[info]crackinknuckles wrote:
Tuesday, 31 March 2009 at 10:50 am (UTC)
Authenticity is a strange business - and as England's most celebrated painter once pointed out, so is art. The important thing to remember is that Shakespeare's writings can be interpreted and reinvented many times over with no harm being inflicted on the original. Unfortunately, each time a painting is "marked up" for the ages it is permanent and the integrity of the original is increasingly obscured, or worse - wiped away. Never mind whether Shakespeare posed for this portrait, it is the the poor restoration of the painting which should be in question. I guess it takes a poet's fame to bring justice to light.

Most popular