While some comments herein are speculative in nature, as we don’t have certain evidence of authorship, the following is support for the idea that the principal painter was Jan Brueghel the Elder and that the painting was completed in the early 1620’s.

Indications pointing to Brueghel:

1) Stylistic: The genre of painting, that of formal “gallery interiors” or “cabinets of collections”, was developed in the second decade of the 17th century in Antwerp and was popularized by Jan Brueghel the Elder, Peter Paul Rubens and Franz Francken the Younger. Several scholars and dealers familiar with these and other painters of the period have indicated that the detail within the painting and extraordinary quality of execution point to Jan Brueghel the Elder.

2) Provenance: The Rothschild’s family records indicate that Jan Brueghel the Elder was the painter. When the painting was sold by the Rothschild’s to the family of Mellon-Evans in 1957-58, it was represented as by Brueghel. While certainly not dispositive, there is a reasonable likelihood that these owners from the mid-19th to the mid 20th century had certain provenance and authorship information which led them to this conclusion.

3) Preparatory drawing: The preparatory drawing (in the Windsor collection) appears to contain three identifiable portraits within it. The principal party in the group—looking out at the viewer, a technique often expressing authorship—is essentially identical to self portraits of Peter Paul Rubens. The second likeness, with “wild” hair, is highly suggestive of Jan van Dyck who was a student of Rubens during the couple of years just prior to 1620. Finally, the third party, with elegant dress and formal posture, resembles portraits of Peter Linder, the German merchant living in Milan at that time, whose family crest is clearly identifiable at the top of the window on the left of the finished painting. At the time that Van Dyck was working in Ruben’s studio Jan Brueghel the Elder and Peter Paul Rubens were completing their extraordinary joint creative effort, sometimes referred to as the “Senses” paintings, now residing in the Prado Museum in Madrid. The close personal relationship between Rubens and Brueghel is well documented.

4) Patron/Milan connection: The family crest in the upper left window of the painting has been identified as that of the German merchant Peter Linder who was resident in Milan in the 1620’s. A letter to Mutio Oddi, a mathematician and scientist from Urbino, dated 1629, makes specific reference to its writer having just been in the Linder home and seeing the painting “conceived” by Mutio Oddi. Peter Linder was a student of Mutio Oddi whose likeness appears on one of the medallions on the center table of the Linder Gallery painting. Peter Linder was a friend of Cardinal Federico Borromeo of Milan, who, during the period from just before 1600 to around 1630, with the assistance of his agent Ercole Bianchi, was collecting and displaying important works by Jan Brueghel the Elder. Jan Brueghel the Elder lived in Borromeo’s house in the mid 1590’s before returning to Antwerp.

Issues to overcome as to Brueghel’s authorship:

1) Jan Brueghel the Elder died in early 1625. One of the books on the center table in the painting, Tabula Rudolfine by Johannes Kepler, was published in 1627, after Brueghel’s death. However, this critical mathematical summary of the observations of Tycho Brahe of the orbit of the planet Mars through the sky was created and finished more than a decade earlier and prominent scientists such as Mutio Oddi could very well have known about it. In the critical reference to the cosmological system of Brahe, included in the planetary drawing on the center table, the inclusion of Kepler’s book would have been very relevant. The book’s official publication date notwithstanding, the painting could very well have been completed in the early 1620’s by Brueghel the Elder informed by Oddi’s knowledge of Kepler’s work

2) A Medallion of Mutio Oddi was apparently cast after Brueghel’s death (see the references by Alexander Marr). However, given Oddi’s apparently central role in conceiving the cosmological and other mathematic representations in the painting, it would have been natural to include his portrait along with those of Michelangelo, Durer, Cardenas, Alciati, and Bramante. A drawing of the Oddi Medallion (no actual copies of which are apparently extant) may be slightly different than the difficult to resolve likeness of Oddi on the coin in the painting.

There may be archival material not yet discovered in Peter Linder’s family papers or in those of Borromeo or Bianchi or Brueghel or Rubens. Until such material is found, unless some other directional clues are discovered, absolutely certain attribution to Jan Brueghel the Elder is difficult to make. However, from the stylistic and relational connections described above his being the principal painter continues to be a reasonable likelihood.

If any reader has comments, related information, and/or educated judgments on these matters please feel free to offer your thoughts by clicking on “CONTACT” in the header of the website and forwarding your observations!

Ron Cordover

www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/B/bo9478167.html

“A Mysterious Masterpiece. The World of the Linder Gallery introduces the Linder Gallery painting to a broad audience through an in situ conversation of six specialists and generalists who discuss the work in the owner’s (Ron Cordover’s) living room. Thus, it is an unusual book about an unusual painting that was virtually unknown until now.  The decision to use a lively conversation instead of a dry, scholarly narrative approach (with all of its annotations, footnotes and a long bibliography), makes the volume accessible and adds a measure of appeal to the ideas as well because the participants draw out each other’s knowledge as they talk. What is perhaps most exciting about the book is the subject matter itself.  Although the walk through the details of the piece is rudimentary, this quick survey does expose how many facets of a unique moment in the history of ideas are contained within its parameters…” For the full review visit http://www.leonardo.info/reviews/aug2010/ione_gorman.php

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g919679010

Here’s Tim’s description of how he created the new images, which I hope you’ll agree, are spectacular:

The camera used to take the image was a Hasselblad H2d with a 39 mega pixel multi-shot back. The multi-shot shoots five separate times for each exposure with the color filter array shifting one pixel each time (one preview and then Red, Green 1, Green 2, Blue). Since each pixel has all the color data the processing does not require an algorithm to interpolate the missing information. This results in not only better color fidelity but also a significant improvement in clarity and detail. The lighting was with studio strobes with polarization on both the lights and on the camera lens to keep any reflection off the surface of the painting to a minimum.

Even though the camera captures a very large image with each exposure (about 250 MB) we soon realized that to get the detail we wanted it would require stitching together multiple images. Ultimately the painting was shot in a grid of 20 images (five across and four down). The biggest challenge was the precise movement and alignment of the camera for each shot. The use of a heavy duty studio camera stand made it possible to shift the camera with the degree of accuracy needed (though getting the studio stand, and all the other equipment, into the residence proved to be challenge in itself). The raw files were converted to TIFF and then assembled using a stitching software. The program gets the final image close but I have found that there is still a lot of minor tweaking, alignment and adjustment needed to have all the pieces fit perfectly. Also, in spite of the polarization, with such high magnification any flaws or dirt in the varnish are very apparent and I spent quite a bit of time in Photoshop digitally “cleaning” the painting. The painstaking work paid off with the resulting final image measuring 24,000 x 16,300 pixels (a 3 gigabyte file). At screen resolution that is like looking at an image 27 feet wide by 18 feet high. As my wife Diane pointed out, that is as if you were viewing a life size version of the actual gallery!

The one thing I find most amazing is the degree of detail that can be seen even with such extreme enlargement. Clearly, nothing depicted in the painting is there without careful consideration and everything must be considered a clue to its meaning.

Having spent the time going over the image in great detail, there are a few observations that we hope you find interesting. These may all be ground that has already been covered and, if so, please forgive our novice enthusiasm. If, on the other hand, we have uncovered some previously un-noticed clues we will have all been rewarded.

The perspective of the central tabletop does not match the rest of the painting – it appears to be tilted forward compared to the rest of the surfaces. This may have just been “cheating” perspective as a way to more easily show all of the objects, but it is curious. This follows through to the medallions which are almost perfectly round (ie: viewed as if seen straight down).

Of all the paintings shown in the gallery (I count 30), just a few have curtains that can be drawn to cover them – most notably the Triumph of Bacchus and Apelles Painting Campaspe. There are curtains flanking Perseus with the Head of Medusa and The Death of Lucretia but no drawstring is depicted so they may or may not close. Using curtains in a gallery may have been common practice but was it done to protect more valuable paintings or to hide them from view depending on the company? Either way it seems to indicate special importance to those particular paintings.

The clocks on each of the two side tables are set to 8:10. Could it be that the overall painting refers to an astronomical or historical event and a very specific moment in time – such as a birth or death which might have caused the “death” of the central female figure (Diane and I believe that her skin color indicates she is dead – not just resting…). Can any of the other instruments depicted be read to define a specific date – not just a time of day? For example, is the Celestial globe set to a particular and discernible day or can something more specific be read in the astrological chart?
In the dark corner by the Perpetuum mobile is a kneeling nude male figure (you will see this better in the enhanced image). This does not appear to be a statue – if it were it would be on a base or pedestal – without a base it would be too top heavy to support itself in this position. If that is the case, then this would introduce a third living (or recently deceased) person into the gallery. Could it relate to the door being ajar? Is he hiding or kneeling before and paying homage to Drebbel’s machine?

Finally, in the double portrait the patron (Linder) and the artist have in front of them a perspective sketch of the final painting but from their point of view it is upside down. It is less like they were studying it and rather more like they are presenting it to us (and Diane notes that even their gaze is outward rather than at each other or the drawing). Not only that, but the patron is pointing with his index finger to a very specific spot in the composition. If you look in that location in the finished painting it is the bookshelf with the book by Euclid. In the enhanced image I am sending you can read some of the other titles which may be telling. Do any of those titles have meaning or could there be a clue that is cryptographic (perhaps an anagram)?

I will be very interested to hear of any new insights into the painting that may result from the new image. You can also assure my fellow fans of Lost that I have seen the painting and it is real!