“It used to be better”: Vermeer’s painting after restoration caused controversy on the Web

Jan Vermeer is a 1657th century Dutch painter. His work is considered the pinnacle of Dutch Golden Age art. His most famous paintings are: “Girl with a Pearl Earring”, “Procurer”, “The Milkmaid”, “Allegory of Painting” and “Girl Reading a Letter at an Open Window”. The latter was painted in 1659-250 and has been kept in the Old Masters Gallery in Dresden for more than XNUMX years.

“completely different work”

For the first time, the existence of a “picture in a picture” became known only in 1979 thanks to radiography. It turned out that behind the back of the heroine is an image made by Vermeer, but painted over by someone a few decades after his death. In 2009, specialists conducted infrared reflexography and confirmed this fact.

After another ten years, the restorers removed the top layer of paint and cleaned up the image of Cupid. And the picture played with completely different colors. “This is the most sensational event of my entire career,” says Uta Neidhardt, senior museum restorer. “Thanks to the restoration, we see a completely different work.” So now art historians are boldly talking about the “new” Vermeer.

What did the image of Cupid bring to the picture? Previously, art lovers could only guess about the meaning of the letter in the hands of the heroine. Only a vase of apples hinted at its love content, referring to the theme of the fall of Adam and Eve. Now the meaning of the canvas has become quite unambiguous: the girl is “struck” by Cupid’s arrow.

did it get better or worse?

Art critic Slava Shvets posted on Facebook an image of the canvas before and after restoration and asked subscribers to share their opinions about the painting. And it turned out that not everyone liked Vermeer’s original idea. What arguments do art connoisseurs give on different sides of the artistic barricades?

“Against” restoration

• “In my opinion, Cupid overloads the picture and distracts attention from the girl. The emptiness of the wall enhances the feeling of solitude and focus on writing.”
• “The first option is more natural. The picture “littered” the space.
• “I’m probably a terrible person and don’t understand much, but with a bare wall it was better…”
• “It’s probably strange to contradict the artist, but it’s nicer without Cupid, and not only because it’s more familiar. There is more air, yes, but the interpretation of the letter is also expanding. And not “only Cupids are alone in the mind.”
• “More air. And somehow… cleaner and more authentic. Cupid seems to be from a slightly different time period.”
• “Everything is so cumbersome at once, space is occupied … And without it, it is clear what the letter is about, everything is written on the face … Now there is no romanticism!”
• “Compositionally, the restored version seems to be better. But in the old version there was an almost postmodern use of negative space – the emptiness behind the female figure, which occupies a significant amount of the picture, created a feeling of anxiety, some kind of hidden tragedy.

For the restoration

• “I definitely like the picture with Cupid more, the empty wall was unnatural. Although I don’t really like the figure of Cupid.”
• “With Cupid, there was a dynamic – it’s as if he is about to close the curtain and hide the girl with the letter from us.”
• “The composition has become sharper, the image of Cupid indicates the content of the letter, the canvas hangs in a large dark mass.”
• “Better after restoration. Life is in full swing around the heroine, a patterned coverlet, ripe fruits, a window painted in bright colors, and a picture on the wall about the same. Only the letter causes alarm – apparently, bad news in the middle of this celebration of life. In the modified version, there is suddenly a bare prison wall in the background. Probably, some hypocrite ordered to cover up Amur, so the author’s concept broke down.
• “I like Amur more. It’s alive, it’s alive.”

“Both versions are great”

• “Everything has changed, the whole story has changed. I would pay attention to how this Cupid makes the atmosphere of the picture heavier. The whole environment seems to be pressing on the girl, the still air has become heavy, the open window is the only source of fresh air and light. The room from the morning, spacious has become cramped, cluttered. The girl seems small and lonely among large objects. Neither better nor worse. Other story”.
• “The second option is more energetic, slightly more playful. The second is calmer, attention is riveted on the girl.
• “Such different opinions, such different pictures. Without Cupid – a mystery, what is this dark spot behind the girl, what is it about? With Cupid, it is immediately clear – the era, meaning, feelings, completeness.
• “If you have known and loved a painting for a long time, it is difficult to accept changes. But the empty wall was still too empty. The second plan was filled not only physically, but also brought additional meaning and new guesses.
• “I like both. The first is concise, quiet, calm, we snatched a moment from life and admire it ourselves, apart from what was and will be – the moment is self-sufficient. The second is dynamic, something is clearly happening on it, history is being created with its own twists and turns. Cupid in motion and big, growing (growing out of the head?). The moment is part of the plot and the plot itself also reveals. Or closes.
• “With an empty wall, there was an incredibly tense diagonal composition. Maximum focus. Out of time and with a bunch of additional meanings. With Cupid, that tension is gone. The author, of course, knows better what to write. It is a pity that it is impossible to keep both options in life.