Carvings, Casts & Collectors: The Art of Renaissance Sculpture Edited by Peta Motture, Emma Jones and Dimitrios Zikos
Van der Schardt in Nuremberg Frits Scholten (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam) n 1570 Johan Gregor van der Schardt, a sculptor from Nijmegen, settled in Nuremberg as court sculptor to Emperor Maximilian II.1 A little over a year earlier he had been approached in Venice by the emperor’s agent, Veit von Dornberg, who lured him north with the prospect of entering the service of the Habsburgs. In his knapsack he carried the fruit of his studies after the Antique and after Michelangelo, a large collection of terracotta models, of which a small number has survived.2 They are rare examples of a 16th-century sculptor’s artistic repertory of ideas and motifs. Van der Schardt had been in Italy for quite some time, moving from place to place and ending up Venice. He certainly visited Florence, as his models after Michelangelo’s Night and Dawn of the Medici chapel in San Lorenzo (now in the Victoria & Albert Museum, London) prove. Other models demonstrate that Van der Schardt also worked in Rome, where he studied Michelangelo’s Mozes and his Risen Christ in Santa Maria sopra Minerva among other things.3 According to one source – Gabriel Kaltemarckt’s treatise on the ideal Kunstkammer of 1587 – the sculptor also stayed in Mantua, where he was said to have made a lifesized écorché of a horse.4 From Von Dornberg’s first letter to the emperor, dated 22 January 1569, we learn that Van der Schardt was highly regarded in Italy; he was recommended to him by the Venetian theologian and translator of Vitruvius, Daniele Barbaro (15141570) as an excellent sculptor and caster in bronze, with a thorough knowledge of classical sculpture.5 The envoy’s third letter to the emperor is even more specific and was based on the latest news from Bologna, where the sculptor was working in the first
half of 1569.6 Von Dornberg’s informants praised Van der Schardt’s stucco work for an unnamed palazzo in the city, as well as a very beautiful marble statuette. Given this background and Barbaro’s recommendation, Van der Schardt had evidently stayed in the right artistic circles of Venice. There are some indications that he worked in the immediate ambiente of the leading Venetian sculptor Alessandro Vittoria (1524/1525-1608). Apart from clear similarities in style, medium and subject matter, both artists share a remarkably similar way of signing their works.7 Van der Schardt’s move to Nuremberg in 1570 ushered in a new stage in his artistic development. His work for the imperial court led to a close collaboration with the renowned goldsmith Wenzel Jamnitzer, who owed his great fame in part to his Naturabgüsse, life casts of reptiles, plants and other natural objects. A silver life-cast of a bunch of plants can be seen in the background of his portrait by Nicholas Neufchatel.8 Van der Schardt made an important contribution to Jamnitzer’s magnum opus, a table-fountain of more than three meters high in the shape of the imperial
crown which was commissioned by Maximilian. Although the fountain was melted down in the eighteenth century, at least part of Van der Schardtâ€™s share in this ambitious project survived: the wellknown gilt bronze Four Seasons, which originally supported the lowest level of the fountain. They are now in the Kunsthistorisches Museum (fig. 1).9 However, we should not rule out that two other bronzes by him, personifications of Sol and Luna (now in Amsterdam and Vienna respectively), were also made in connection with the imperial fountain project
Fig.1 Johan Gregor van der Schardt, Summer and Winter, two of the four seasons from a large table-fountain for Emperor Maximilian II, c. 1570-75, gilt bronze, h. 71 cm. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum.
(fig. 2).10 Although no traces of a pipe system have been found in these statuettes their shapes strongly suggest an intended use as fountain figures. Apart from strong stylistic similarities with the Four Seasons, the fact that Lunaâ€™s provenance can be traced to the collection of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm (1614-1662), supports a possible connection with the imperial fountain. In
Van der Schardt in Nuremberg
Fig. 2 Johan Gregor van der Schardt, Sol and Luna, shown together, c. 1570-1575, bronze, h. 45.7 and 51 cms respectively. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum and Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum.
addition, Sol and Luna would have fitted well in the cosmological iconography of the fountain, which included statues of Cybele, Neptune, Mercury and Jupiter, as well as the symbols of Sun and Moon.11 It is not documented that Van der Schardt was responsible for modelling that set of figures, but it cannot be ruled out either. Viewed in this light, it is conceivable that Sol and Luna belonged to an earlier phase in the fountain’s design, which was aborted for some reason. In Nuremberg Van der Schardt had good contacts among the city’s goldsmiths. He seemed to have supplied the models of the Prudentia and Triton adorning this goblet by Hans petzolt (Budapest).12 Moreover, during his second period in Nuremberg, around 1580, he stayed with the goldsmith Heinrich Han, for whom he might have worked as well.13 He also kept company with two Netherlandish painters working in the city, Hans Hofmann (c. 1545-1591/92) and Nicolas Neufchatel (before 1539-c. 1600). Both of them painted his portrait, although Hofmann’s
of 1581 has not survived. Neufchatel’s small portrait medallion of 1573 (now in Triëst, Castello di Miramare) is still tangible evidence of the contact between the two artists.14 Its circular shape and small size – only nine cms in diameter – suggest that it was a gift from the painter to the sculptor. It is likely that Jamnitzer, given his important position in the cultural world of Nuremberg was instrumental in establishing these artistic contacts for Van der Schardt. Jamnitzer may also have brought the sculptor in touch with the influential art collector and merchant Willibald Imhoff (1519-80), who within months after Van der Schardts arrival in Nuremberg ordered a life-size portrait bust from the sculptor (fig. 3). The form of the portrait, half-length with a free arm, is illustrative of Imhoff ’s social ambitions, for it is a type that was traditionally reserved for princes. Van der Schardt captured his subject in an unusual and intimate activity, not unlike the painted portraits of Neufchatel. Imhoff is completely immersed in his own world as
he studies a ring in his left hand. This exceptional anecdotal motif seems to be a direct borrowing from an illustration in Hartmann Schedel’s Weltchronik, which was published in Nuremberg in 1493. The woodcut shows prometheus in the role given him by pliny as the one who had taught mankind to wear rings as collectors’ items. It looks as if the collector Imhoff wanted to have himself portrayed as an alter prometheus who associated his passion for art with
Fig.3 Johan Gregor van der Schardt, Half-length portrait bust of Willibald Imhoff, c. 1570, painted terracotta, h. 81.5 cm. Berlin, Bodemuseum. © photo: bpk/Skulpturensammlung und Museum für Byzantinische Kunst, SMB/Jörg p. Anders
the creative vigour of the archetypal artist.15 This commission marks the start of an entirely new aspect of Van der Schardt’s work, that of the veristic portrayal of members of the local elite in
Van der Schardt in Nuremberg
terracotta painted in natural colours. At least ten of these polychrome portraits have survived, medallions as well as a few freestanding busts. In or soon after 1580, probably after the death of Willibald Imhoff, his widow Anna ordered a life-size portrait of herself (fig. 4). As she is portrayed at a slightly smaller scale than her husband, it seems unlikely that it was intended as counterpart to her husbandâ€™s bust. One
Fig. 4 Johan Gregor van der Schardt, Summer and Winter, two of the four seasons from a large table-fountain for Emperor Maximilian II, c. 1570-75, gilt bronze, h. 71 cm. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum.
more freestanding, almost life-size portrait by Van der Schardt survived; it is a longterm loan from the Mauritshuis to the Rijksmuseum since 1994 and is currently being restored to complete the missing
part of his collar (fig. 5).16 until recently the subject of this bust was not known, but comparison with a gilt silver portrait medal revealed the likely identity of the sitter.17 He appears to be Johann Neudörfer the Younger (1543-81). His father and namesake was a master of mathematics and writing, and is today primarily known as Nuremberg’s Vasari, being the author of Germany’s first biography of artists, the Nachrichten von Künstler und Werkleuten (published in 1547). Neudörfer junior was 36 years old in 1579, when he had his portrait medal made - by Valentin Maler (c. 1540-1603), the son in law of Wenzel Jamnitzer. He had followed in the footsteps of his father as Nuremberg’s official mathematician and calligrapher, and must have been a respected member of the cultural circles of the city. Apart from the more general facial characteristics, both portraits share the shape of the nose, the high cheekbones, the large drooping moustache and the pointed beard.
Of much more importance for Van der Schardt was his connection with another member of Nurmberg’s cultural elite, the erudite merchant and art collector, paul praun (1548-1616).18 until the death of his father in 1578 praun lived in Bologna, where he was a silk merchant representing the interests of the family trading business. Although it cannot be ruled out that praun and Van der Schardt first met in Bologna in 1569, it is more likely that they got to know each other in Nuremberg, with Willibald Imhoff as the possible link between them. Their shared Italian background could certainly have strengthened the ties between praun and the Dutch sculptor. That their relationship was far more than a business arrangement is demonstrated by the inventory of the Praunsche Kabinett, drawn up in 1616 after paul praun’s death.19 It shows that praun must have been Van der Schardt’s most important patron. With circa 180 works the sculptor was the
Fig. 5 Johan Gregor van der Schardt, Portrait bust of Johann Neudörfer the Younger (1543-1581), c. 1575-80, painted terracotta, h. 40.5 cm. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum (on loan from the Mauritshuis, The Hague; during restoration).photo Isabelle Garachon.
Van der Schardt in Nuremberg
Fig. 6 Johan Gregor van der Schardt, Portrait medallion of Paul Praun, 1580, painted terracotta, diam. 23 cm. Stuttgart, Landesmuseum Württemberg. Foto: P. Frankenstein, H. Zwietasch; Landesmuseum Württemberg, Stuttgart
best represented artist in the collection. That is mainly because the collector seems to have acquired Van der Schardt’s studio estate after the sculptor’s death, including all the terracotta models he had made in Italy. Among the works in the Praunsche Kabinett were two polychrome portrait medallions which the sculptor had made of his patron, of which one is today in Stuttgart, the other in Nuremberg (fig. 6).20 Van der Schardt’s special position within Praun’s collection is also illustrated by the fact that there were three portraits of him: the two painted by Hoffmann and Neufchatel mentioned and mentioned earlier, and his terracotta self-portrait which is now in the Rijksmuseum (fig. 7).21 In the 1616 inventory of Praun’s cabinet it is listed as ‘Ein kopf, Johann Gregori conterfect, eines schuchs hoch’ (‘A head, the likeness of Johan Gregor, one foot high’).22 That height roughly matches that of the actual portrait (23 cms). Although lifesize would have been a more logical choice for such a penetrating, naturalistic depiction, the sculptor decided to portray himself roughly half-scale. By choosing a modest size for his self-portrait Van der Schardt was referring to a tradition of miniature portrait sculpture for the Kunstkammer, like those of Conrat Meit for Margareth of Austria or his recently discovered small painted bust of the Augsburg banker Jakob Fugger the Rich (1459-1525).23 This fact suggests that it was destined for Praun’s cabinet from the start, and that Praun acquired it while Van der Schardt was still alive, and not as part of his estate. At the same time the self-portrait should be seen as a demonstration of self-awareness, self-confidence and pride, reflecting artistic ideas current in Nuremberg at the time. Within the rich and flowering portrait culture of the city self-portraits played an important
role, painted but also sculptured. They contributed to civic pride and to the city’s collective memory, a situation which was comparable to that in Florence in some respects. The publicly displayed self-portraits of the sculptor’s Adam Kraft and Peter Visscher were for instance explicitly mentioned in Johann Neudörfer’s Nachrichten of 1547: ‘...darunter er zuvörderst, als wäre er im Leben, sich selbst conterfeit hat...’ (...he [=Adam Kraft] had himself portrayed, as he had been in life, on the lower front [of the sacrament house]) and ‘Wie er aber gesehen und wie er täglich in seiner Giesshütten umgangen und gearbeitet, das findet man unten am Ende St. Sebalds Grab, welches er und seine 5 Söhne gegossen haben und gemacht, eigentlich conterfeiet’ (‘How he [=Peter Vischer] looked like as he worked in his foundry daily, can be seen at a low level on the tomb of St. Sebald which he and his five sons had made and cast, portrayed by himself ’).24 However, between the time when these two sculpted, fully three-dimensional self-portraits were made, Nuremberg saw the creation of several of the most important and programmatic painted self-portraits in Western art: Albrecht Dürer’s three portraits of himself of 1493 (Louvre), 1498 (Prado) and 1500 (Munich), which led Joseph Koerner to describe this period around 1500 as ‘the moment of self-portraiture in German Renaissance art’, although oddly enough he confined himself to painting and drawing.25 In his three autonomous self-portraits Dürer introduced himself as a humanistically educated patrician in sumptuous dress and without any of his professional attributes. More than fifty years later Johan Gregor van der Schardt joined this artistic community by creating a freestanding and autonomous portrait of himself painted true to life. It can and should be seen as an
Van der Schardt in Nuremberg
Fig. 7 Johan Gregor van der Schardt, Self-portrait, c. 1573, painted terracotta, h. 23 cm. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum. Purchased with the support of the Mondriaan Stichting, the Nederlandse Sponsorloterij and the Vereniging Rembrandt, with additional funding from the Prins Bernhard Cultuurfonds
artistic reply to the works of Kraft, Vischer and Dürer. Van der Schardt’s own bust for Paul Praun stands out as one of the earliest, most radical and self-assured expressions within the genre of the autonomous self-portrait.26 Deliberately made half life-size, Van der Schardt’s self-portrait demonstrated par excellence his skills as a modeller.27 He did not make an impression of his head in plaster or clay, a technique well known in Nuremberg, given the local tradition of making life casts of animals and plants. Wenzel Jamnitzer was a master of that technique, as we have seen, and Peter Vischer, too, had incorporated animal casts in the tomb of St. Sebald. The fact that he did not follow this obvious mechanical technique was a deliberate artistic choice, a demonstration of authenticity and virtuosity. His self-portrait is most definitely not a Naturabguss, but the result of modeling by hand using one or more mirrors. In fact, the use of a mirror meant that Van der Schardt was adopting a position in the paragone debate, which had clearly reached Nuremberg in the first half of the sixteenth century, as shown by Georg Pencz’s 1544 portrait of the goldsmith Jakob Hofmann (1512-1564).28 However, Van der Schardt encroached even more emphatically on the painter’s domain by applying colour to his portraits. Interestingly, that is the strongest element in the self-portrait, because it is almost entirely executed in flesh tones. This use of ‘living’ flesh tones was regarded as a powerful argument for painters in the paragone debate.29 Van der Schardt was undoubtedly familiar with the pan-European tradition of polychrome portrait sculpture, but there are no indications that he had developed an interest in this verism before his arrival
in Nuremberg. His polychrome portraits may have been inspired by the local production of small portrait medallions in coloured wax, for which Nuremberg became a center in this period.30 In 1587 Gabriel Kaltemarckt listed three living artists working in wax, namely the imperial court artist Antonio Abondio, Valentin Maler and his brother Wenzel: ‘Wax mit Farben zu Contrafeiten und runde Bilder zu possiren seint iczo im leben und berümbt Anthonius Abundus. Key. Meyt: Contrafetor /Valentin Maler zu Nürnberg/ Wenzel Maler sein Bruder Iczo zu Augspurg/ und andere mer’ (The following living artists are famous in the arts of copying in coloured wax and making round sculptures: Antonius Abundus, portrait maker to His Imperial Majesty/Valentin Maler in Nuremberg/ Wenzel Maler, his brother, presently in Augsburg/ and many more’).31 An example of the latter’s work is a wax modello for a portrait medal of Andreas Imhoff from 1569.32 It is the kind of coloured wax portraits that could have prompted Van der Schardt to make his veristic medallions. In his turn Van der Schardt’s lifelike terracotta’s may have influenced later Nuremberg wax modellers. The curious, life-size wax portrait of the Nuremberg patrician Johann Wilhelm Loeffelholz (1558-1600) could hardly have been made without knowledge of Van der Schardt’s busts of circa twenty years earlier.33 While small wax portraits can provide a context for the sculptor’s veristic relief portraits, they do not explain the radical nature of his selfportrait. His benchmark here was on another level, a painting by Albrecht Dürer. In 1572 Willibald Imhoff acquired Dürer’s portrait of his stepfather, the merchant Johann Kleberger by buying it back from a descendant in Lyon.34 The timing was not
Van der Schardt in Nuremberg
Fig. 8 Albrecht Dürer, Portrait of Johann Kleberger, 1526, olieverf op paneel, 37 x 36,5 cm. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum
entirely without significance; in that same year Van der Schardt delivered a statue of Fortuna to Imhoff, two years after having made his large, half-length portrait bust. In other words, the sculptor could not have been unaware of the return of Dürer’s Kleberger portrait to Nuremberg. That exceptional painting, now in Vienna, shows a nude bust partially emerging from a round niche (fig. 8). The illusionism of the scene, balancing on the cusp of the pictorial and the sculptural, demonstrates that Dürer wanted to make a clear statement about the preeminence of painting in the framework of the paragone debate. The affinity with Van der Schardt’s self-portrait is immediately apparent in the classical nudity common to both works.35 Dürer gave his portrait a sculptural quality with the termination of the bust and its placement on the edge of a niche, Van der Schardt’s self-portrait edges in the direction of the pictorial, with its lifelike modeling and paint. However, it goes beyond the illusionism of Dürer’s work because it is a truly three-dimensional portrait, which is accentuated by a playful detail: the balding back of the sculptor’s head. Moreover, by depicting himself with his head turned sharply away Van der Schardt forced the viewer to wonder how it is possible to make a self-portrait in three dimensions without looking straight into the mirror. After all, in most autonomous self-portraits, including those of Dürer, the artist looks at his public just as he looked at the mirror while painting or modeling.36 Seen in this light, Van der Schardt’s self-portrait is above all a display of artistic superiority and self-assurance, just a few years after his appointment as imperial sculptor. He accentuated this proud and ambitious selfpresentation by giving himself a staring, melancholy
gaze, the supreme characteristic of artistic genius. As we have seen, in Praun’s cabinet the selfportrait was surrounded by circa 180 other works by his favorite sculptor, some 170 study models, five portrait medallions, including those of Praun himself and of Willibald Imhoff, two bronze portrait busts of the Danish king and queen, a terracotta portrait of the same king, a gilt bronze crucifix, bronzes of Mercury and Minerva, two large terracottas of them, as well as a large bronze of Mercury. The statues of Mercury and Minerva, the latter collected by Robert Smith and now in Washington, were conceived as a pair. As allegory of eloquence, artistry and wisdom, they must have played a programmatic role within Praun’s Kunstkammer, just as they had done for Cicero, who owned a statue of Hermathena, the classical amalgam of Mercury and Minerva, or Hermes and Athena, in his villa in Tusculum.37 The erudite Praun certainly knew this emblematic pair from his time in Bologna, where Achille Bocchi (1488- 1562) had founded the learned Accademia Hermatena in 1546. A relief of Hermathena, now lost but recorded in an engraving, adorned the exterior of Palazzo Bocchi and refered to the richly decorated sala hermatena inside.38 Incidentally, the decoration of Palazzo Bocchi reached its peak during the period that Van der Schardt worked in Bologna, immediately before his departure for Nuremberg. Given this central role of the statues of Mercury and Minerva in the context of a Kunstkammer, could a more programmatic significance be attached to the entire group of works by Van der Schardt in Praun’s cabinet? We have no information about the arrangement of this ensemble within Praun’s overall collection, but it seems that the variety of the works by Van der Schardt was representative of the sculptor’s
Van der Schardt in Nuremberg
Fig. 9 Antonio Salamanca (publisher) naar Niccolò della Casa, Portrait of the sculptor Baccio Bandinelli surrounded by his models, engraving,1548, 422 x 308 mm, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam (inv. No. Rp-pH-H-264)
oeuvre and could easily have evoked the image of an artist and his studio. Together they could have formed a kind of image of the artist, portrayed in the midst of a selection of his works, not unlike artist portraits like the etching of Baccio Bandinelli from c. 1545, in which the sculptor is surrounded by complete and incomplete scale models of his sculptures (fig. 9).39 praun’s collection of Van der Schardt’s works may have intentionally conveyed the well-known notion that the artist and his work were a single entity, an idea summed up in the aphorism ‘ogni dipintore dipinge
se’ (‘every painter paints himself ’), which was coined in Florence in the fifteenth century.40 Could it be that praun’s collection of works by Van der Schardt was seen as a whole, as one large portrait of the sculptor?41 A deliberate construction of the artist’s identity by his patron, united under the aegis of Mercury and Minerva? The question seems uncomfortably modern for the sixteenth century, but should the answer be in the affirmative it would underline the radical position of Van der Schardt’s Nuremberg oeuvre in the early modern history of sculpture.
Notes 1. For Van der Schardt see Peltzer 1916-1918, pp. 198-216; Leeuwenberg 1957, pp. 14-19; Honnens de Lichtenberg 1991, pp. 15-29; and Scholten 2007-2008, pp.195-220 on which the present article is based. 2. Le Brooy 1972, and Berger 1994, pp. 43-60. Boucher 2001, no. 31. I thank Margaret H. Schwartz (Sotheby’s New York) for allowing me to study the ‘Vancouver’ models by Van der Schardt. 3. Le Brooy 1972, passim. 4. Gutfleisch & Menzhausen 1989, p. 18. 5. Honnens de Lichtenberg 1991, pp. 15-16. 6. Honnens de Lichtenberg 1991, pp. 17-18. 7. Cf. Van der Schardt’s signature in capitals I.G.V.S.F. on the circular foot of his bronze Mercury in Stockholm (see Larsson 1992, no. 22), with Vittoria’s name (ALEXANDER. VICTOR.F) in similar capitals on the circular foot of his bronze Minerva in the Robert H. Smith collection (see Radcliffe & Penny, 2004, no. 15), or of his St Sebastian (see Trento 1999, pp. 342-345, no. 75. It is also striking that Vittoria’s Minerva has a Mercury as its companion piece, just as Van der Schardt’s Mercury in Stuttgart (Württembergisches Landesmuseum) formed a pair with his Minerva in the Robert H. Smith collection. Van der Schardt’s name is not found, however, among Vittoria’s known assistants, see Trento 1999, p. 136. 8. Nuremberg 1985, no. 772 (and cover illustration). 9. Nuremberg 1985, nos. 27-30. 10. Honnens de Lichtenberg 1991, pp. 104-111; Scholten & Verber 2005, no. 35. 11. Nuremberg 1985, no. 26. 12. A. Szilágyi 2006, p. 70, no. 13. 13. Honnens de Lichtenberg 1991, p. 23. 14. Honnens de Lichtenberg 1991, fig. 1. 15. Bredekamp 2002, p. 26; Raggio 1958, pp. 50-53. 16. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. BK-C-1994-1. 17. The identification is based on comparison with the 1579 portrait medal of Neudörfer by Valentin Maler, in which he is shown at the age of 36; see Nuremberg 1985, no. 663. The terracotta portrait would have been made around the same time. Neudörfer and his father were portrayed by Nicolas Neufchatel in 1561 (Lille, Musée des Beaux-Arts, a replica from Neudörfer’s estate). 18. For Praun and his collection see Achilles-Syndram 1994; Nuremberg 1994; Schoch 1994, pp. 25-34, and AchillesSyndram, ‘”... und sonderlich von grossen stuckhen nichts bey mihr vorhanden ist”: die Sammlung Praun als kunstund kulturgeschichtliches Dokument’, in: Nuremberg 1994, pp. 35-55. 19. Berger 1994, pp. 43-60, esp. pp. 48-60. 20. Honnens de Lichtenberg 1991, pp. 161-162; Nuremberg 1994, nos. 186, 188 (a wax portrait medal of 1584 by Matthäus Carl after Van der Schardt, from the estate of Jeremias Imhoff ). There are two medallion portraits of Praun by Van der Schardt. Both are in the Germanisches Nationalmuseum and are identical in modeling but differ in coloring. Praun may have had pieces like this made as gifts for friends. 21. Achilles-Syndram 1994, pp. 116 (no. 79), 124 (no. 142), 147
(no. 362), 183 (no. 36) and 190 (no. 67). For the self-portrait see Honnens de Lichtenberg 1991 pp. 136-38; Wallert 2002, pp. 32-45; Scholten 2007-2008. Praun probably acquired the self-portrait directly from the artist, while the two painted portraits may have entered the collection with Van der Schardt’s studio estate. 22. Achilles-Syndram 1994, p. 147 (no. 362). A Schuch is the Nuremberg foot of 28 cm. The difference in dimensions can be explained by the presence of a pedestal on which the bust stood, which no longer exists,or by rounding up on the part of the part of the person who made the inventory. 23. Dülberg 1990, pp. 31-45; Munich 2007, nos. 9, 10, 11, 12; Gallo 2010. 24. Lochner 1875, p. 21. On Kraft’s self-portrait see Schleif 1993; Klamt 1999; Schmid 2002. 25. Koerner 1993. 26. On self-portraiture see Arnold, Schmolinsky & Zahnd 1999; Schweikhart 1993, pp. 11-30; Schweikhart 1999. 27. Gombrich 1960, p. 6 for the effects of using a mirror. 28. Darmstadt, Hessisches Landesmuseum, see Nuremberg 1985, p. 172, fig. 141, and p. 487, no. 771. Mirrors were a speciality of Nuremberg. The city was one of the three European centers producing glass mirrors in the sixteenth century, see J. Woodall, ‘Every painter paints himself: self-portraiture and creativity’, in: exhib. cat. Self portrait: Renaissance to contemporary (A. Bond & J. Woodall, eds.), London (National Portrait Gallery) & Sydney (Art Gallery of New South Wales) 2005, pp. 17-29, esp. p. 18. 29. Among others by Paolo Pino in his treatise Dialogo di pittura, Venice 1548; see Falabella 2000, pp. 110, 123; Bohde 2007, pp. 41-63; Krieger 2006, pp. 91-112; Lehmann 20072008, pp. 96-100. It is also noteworthy that Adam Kraft’s self-portrait beneath the sacrament house (St. Lawrence Church, Nuremberg) is subtly polychromed in the face while the rest of the figure was left unpainted. 30. Kammel & Lorenz 2008, pp. 84-85. 31. Gutfleisch & Menzhausen 1989, p. 18. For Abondio see Jolly 2011. 32. Nuremberg 1985, no. 656 (dated 1569). 33. Kammel & Lorenz 2008. 34. Budde 1986-1987, p. 216, and Rebel 1990. 35. For nudity as an all’antica stylistic device see Rebel 1990, pp. 101-05, and De Chapeaurouge 1969. 36. The inscription states that Dürer’s small self-portrait drawing of 1484 showing him at the age of 13 was made with the aid of a mirror, see Koerner 2006, p. 31. For Parmigianino’s small self-portrait in a convex mirror as a work in the paragone see Warnke 1987, and WoodsMarsden 1998, pp. 133-137. Early Italian records of self-portraits accordingly speak of fatto al specchio, see Woodall 2005, p. 19. 37. On Hermathena see DaCosta Kaufmann 1982, pp. 123-130. 38. Scannavini 1991. 39. Hegener 2008. 40. Chastel 1961, pp. 102-103; Kemp 1976, p. 312; Hartlaub 1955, pp. 97-124; Zöllner, 1992, pp. 137-151. See also Hall 1999, pp. 34, 35.;Woodall 2005, pp. 17, 18 and note 6. 41. Cellini’s Vita was also recently interpreted as a form of self-portrait; see Gardner 1997, pp. 447-465. Montaigne described his Essais (1580) as a single large self-portrait; see De Montaigne 1962, p. 1.
Van der Schardt in Nuremberg
This volume brings together new research by some of the world’s leading experts, exploring the artistic production and cultural context of R...