Colin Bailey on Getty's Contested Watteau

Head of Pierrot in The Italian Comedians

In 2012 the Getty Museum bought The Italian Comedians, a painting that curator Scott Schaefer attributed to Watteau. Scholars have been split on the attribution, and the Louvre's 2024-25 Watteau exhibition showed the Getty painting as the joint work of Watteau and his follower Jean-Baptiste Pater. Now Morgan Library and Museum director Colin B. Bailey weighs in, in his review of the Louvre catalog for the New York Review of Books. Bailey contends that the Getty's Italian Comedians is entirely by Watteau. He writes:

"A second painting that Watteau made in London, also entitled The Italian Comedians—acquired by the J. Paul Getty Museum in 2012—remains controversial. A large canvas with five figures, it shows an engaging, boyish Pierrot, with blond hair and ruddy cheeks, holding out his hat in his right hand as if seeking a donation. To his left, a guitar-playing Mezzetin takes a bow. Harlequin, mustachioed and masked in black, can be seen hiding behind them. There is no question that the beautifully executed central figure of Pierrot is by Watteau. A preparatory drawing for this figure with his outstretched arm in the Teylers Museum, Haarlem, shows the actor, but with a pinched and mean-spirited expression quite unlike the sympathetic clown in the finished work. Infrared reflectography has confirmed that Watteau initially followed his drawing and painted Pierrot with precisely the same face but altered the canvas as he completed it. The surrounding figures are not handled as suavely. The faces of the two actors at right are painted more broadly—they might have stepped out of a canvas by Frans Hals. [Guillaume] Faroult, in his discussion of the Getty picture, which he catalogs as “attributed to Watteau, Jean-Baptiste Pater and an anonymous collaborator,” expresses the hope that the “confrontation” with the Louvre’s Pierrot in the exhibition would help resolve the issue once and for all. In fact, as Alan Wintermute first proposed in 2012, seeing the paintings from the National Gallery of Art and the Getty in fairly close proximity made it possible to confirm that they are both by the same hand, undeniably Watteau’s alone."

For background, see Watteau Show Snubs "Italian Comedians" and Paris Ponders a Watteau Puzzle

Antoine Watteau (?), The Italian Comedians, about 1720. Getty Museum
Watteau's other Italian Comedians, about 1720. National Gallery of Art, Washington

Comments

Anonymous said…
I prefer the Getty's Watteau to the National Gallery's. The head of Pierrot in the 4-person composition seems more in scale than in the 14-person composition. The brushwork and colors in the 4-person canvas are also more pleasing to me than in the busier one.

If I didn't know the authenticity of one of the 2 works had been questioned, I'd have guessed it was the National Gallery's.
In the 19th century the NGA painting was likewise assigned to Pater (or to Watteau, completed by Pater or someone else). The NGA picture can be traced to the estate sale of Dr. Richard Mead, Watteau's London physician. That's strong circumstantial evidence for it being by Watteau. The Getty painting's early/mid 18th-century history is murky. But given the similarities of the two pictures, it seems possible that Watteau's style changed somewhat in England, and this has made people question these works.
I find the Getty picture outstandingly beautiful. Frankly, to me, the authorship is incidental.
Anonymous said…
The scale of the Getty Watteau makes comparison with the smaller works I’ve seen very difficult. It’s true that the handling of the sky, for example, isn’t the same as in those more intimate paintings. But when you look at other works of this size, especially in England, you rarely see that kind of detailed, sensitive touch, not to a sky.

I sometimes think that the English taste for extremely large portraits may have pushed Watteau toward creating these unusually big pictures. I don’t generally like Watteau all that much, but after seeing the Getty painting so many times, I’ve developed a real sympathy for Pierrot. I almost wish I could hand him a coin. And I honestly can’t see how Pater, or any of the contemporaries, could have pulled something like that off. Yes it does not have the same sense as the little paintings, but the Getty painting is very special.
Davide Gasparotto said…
The "Italian Comedians" is indeed a beautiful and interesting picture. Since its resurfaced on the art market and following its purchase by the Getty Museum its autograph status has been widely debated. Actually, its attribution has been questioned since 1774, when a noted connoisseur, Gabriel de Saint-Aubin, included a small sketch of the painting in the sale catalogue of the collection of Comte Jean Du Barry with the annotation "faux" (fake). Today, as it is well known, scholars have expressed a wide range of opinions: the painting is by Watteau for Alan Wintermute, Colin Bailey, Martin Eidelberg, and the curator of painting of the time at the Getty, Scott Schaefer. For Mary Taverner Holmes (a noted Lancret scholar) the figure of Pierrot is by Watteau and the the subsidiary figures completed by another "very talented artist"; for Guillaume Glorieux (author of a monograph on Watteau in 2011) the central figure is by Watteau with other hands completing the other four figures. One of the major connoisseurs of Watteau and French painting of the 18th century, Pierre Rosenberg (former President of the Louvre), rejects the attribution and think to a French artist active 1725-30. Christoph Vogtherr, who wrote the catalogue of 18th century French paintings in Potsdam and has been the director of the Wallace Collection, sees several hands in the painting's execution. Most recently, Louvre curator Guillaume Faroult has seen there different hands at work on the picture. As you can see, a wide range of opinions and the debate is still open, as the recent exhibition at the Louvre demonstrates. After the painting came back from Paris, our conservators and scientists undertook a thorough technical study of the picture (the reason why the picture is not currently on view), which we hope could help to better understand and shed more light on the painting's technique and execution. Davide Gasparotto (Senior Curator of Paintings, Getty Museum)
Anonymous said…
Debate about the authenticity of a work made me dig this up from 3 years ago. I again forgot the particular name, but I've always remembered "belly button." LOL:

William Poundstone:
You're thinking of Andromeda Chained to the Rock, bought as a van Dyck. LACMA curator J. Patrice Marandel faulted it for having "the biggest belly button in the history of belly buttons."

See L.A. Times piece: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-may-04-et-vandyck4-story.html

The Ahmanson Foundation bought Andromeda in 1985 for over $1 million. By 1998 a couple of van Dyck scholars had rejected it, and LACMA took it off view. It's now listed as "(Imitator of) Sir Anthony van Dyck." [End quote]

Goes to show my observational skills. For some reason I liked the pseudo-van-Dyck more than the National Gallery's authentic Watteau.
Thanks for the informative survey of opinion!
Outstanding. We have a living, breathing expert from Getty willing to engage, and on the record.
Pigs really do fly.
Great thanks.
Part of the Getty picture's provenance includes the renowned French painter Hubert Robert.
Incidentally, my favorite Hubert Robert is held by LACMA:
https://collections.lacma.org/node/178489