Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
As you see here, Leticia, the figure of the Count Duke seems to have undergone a modification.
It was previously shorter, but then the head and the entire torso were raised ,
in relation to the figure’s position next to the King.
That’s really interesting,
as in the entire series of battle paintings
one in which the two principal figures of the Spanish realm are depicted: namely Philip IV and the Count Duke.
So when he was initially positioned he was shorter, as we can see from what would be the outline of the armour.
Then he elevated the figure more, including the head.
This is the initial face as it was located in the composition.
Which was on a level with the depiction of the victory.
Then he raised it up higher to this position, bringing it up from a lower one.
In other words, he wanted to emphasise the Count Duke’s role in the events depicted?
I think so but I’ll leave that to the art historians.
What we can say from the viewpoint of the Museum’s Technical Documentation Department is that it is interesting that Maíno changed the position of the Count Duke.
Leticia, this other work is interesting as it depicts
the *** with the Three Kings but there also seems to be another figure
If we turn the painting 180 degrees from this part upwards
there seems to be a face of another *** and some hands in an open position. I don’t know if you can see that.
Oh yes. But upside-down, isn’t it?
Yes, it’s turned 180 degrees.It would seem to be an initial composition for an Adoration,
not of the Magi but of the Shepherds.
Maíno returns to a Medieval iconography in which the *** is shown in the act of veneration
and the Christ Child is on the ground, not on a straw bed. However,
the artist decided against this concept and opted for a different composition.
So he took the canvas, turned it upside-down, probably re-primed it
so that the initial composition did not disturb him and depicted a different scene,
which is the one we see now, working on the opposite end to the one where he started.
This is good from the viewpoint of preventative conservation as he did not overlay too many layers of paint:
he started in the lower part, then turned the canvas around and worked on the upper part.
What is interesting is that he rejected an initial composition and then reused the canvas.