James Ensor's Christ's Entry into Brussels in 1889: Technical Analysis, Restoration, and

Reinterpretation
Author(s): Mark Leonard and Louise Lippincott
Source: Art Journal , Summer, 1995, Vol. 54, No. 2, Conservation and Art History
(Summer, 1995), pp. 18-27
Published by: CAA

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/777458

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

CAA is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Art Journal

This content downloaded from

134.184.119.81 on Mon, 23 Oct 2023 22:52:57 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 James Ensor's Christ's Entry
into Brussels in 1889
Technical Analysis, Restoration, and Reinterpretation

!larA Leouurd (1d Loriise Lippincou

"- 1 didn't know the Getty bought modern art," is fairly

into Brussels as an exceptional work prefiguring or anticipat-
typical of the response to the museum's purchase in
ing twentieth-century Expressionism.
1987 of the monumental Christ's Entry into Brussels in This view has been canonized despite scholarly recog-
1889 by James Ensor (fig. 1). Many art historians found nition
the of the painting's ties to earlier art, from the works of
painting's physical displacement from its traditional Euro-
Hieronymus Bosch and Peter Paul Rubens through William
18
pean modernist context disturbing and inappropriate.
Hogarth, Francisco Goya, and J. M. W. Turner to Georges
Clearly, Christ's Entry into Brussels enjoyed a special status
Seurat. For the purposes of this essay, the interpretation of
in the modernist canon that the Getty purchase was seenEnsor's
to painting is typified by a passage from one of the
violate. This perception had caused some controversy within
leading expositions of that canon, 19th-CenturyArt by Robert
Rosenblum and H. W. Janson:
the museum even before purchase, and it significantly influ-
enced our subsequent project of understanding (or, more
The coarse incrustations of pigment that crush the Lilliputian
modestly speaking, attempting to understand) the collection's
crowds of the extreme background into the close-up masks of
newest and most challenging addition. However, soon after its
the foreground are almost a grotesque parody of the thickly
arrival in Malibu, we realized that this famous painting had
painted, flattened spaces ofthe Impressionist paintings Les XX
few intimate friends, many secrets, and was subject to mis-
exhibited throughout the 1880s . . . Indeed, even for the most
understanding. Moreover, we found that its filthy, darkened
tolerant artists ofthe day, the painting must have appeared, as
surface and deteriorating wax lining significantly distorted
it still does, an astonishing assault on any conventions of
its appearance, and art historical discussions of its impor-
beauty, in which the harsh ugliness of the subject is matched
tance had degenerated into cliche. It seemed that our tasks,
by bilious color, compositional confusion, and the violent col-
as the painting's conservator and curator, respectively, were
lapse of a one point perspective scheme.
to restore the painting to a state closer to its original appear-
There may be some clues in some of Turner's late works
ance and to revitalize scholarly debate. As it turned out,
for Ensor's efforts to represent a world of demons and passions,
these two goals were and are closely interrelated.
but few explanations can accomodate the full daring and
Christ's Entry into Brussels is poorly adapted to modern
frenzy of such a painting, whose muscular scribbles seem a
art historical method. Its large size and extraordinary detail
strange anachronism by even the most adventurous standards
ensure its misrepresentation in slides, photographs, and pub-
of 1889, and look far beyond the early twentieth century to the
lished illustrations. Color relationships and brushwork-the
brutal deformations found after 1945 in the works of DeKoon-
stylistic aspects of the painting key to its mythic position in
ing, Dubuffet, and the Cobra group.'
the history of modernism-are brutally simplified in scaled-
During
down reproduction. Moreover, those who saw the painting in the twelve-month period that Christ's Entry into
Brussels was undergoing treatment in the studio of the Paint-
its former homes in the Musde Royal des Beaux-Arts, Ant-
werp (1947-83), and the Kunsthaus, Zurich (1983-87), orings
at Conservation Department at the Getty, we gradually
came to reconsider this conventional (and perhaps natural)
the critically important Ensor restrospective staged at the
Chicago Art Institute and the Solomon R. Guggenheim Mu-
inclination to define the picture in terms of later twentieth-
seum, New York, in 1976-77 uncritically accepted its de-
century art.2 As the conservation treatment progressed, and
as a variety of technical discoveries were made, it became
ceptive physical appearance as true to Ensor's original vi-
sion. The nature of that vision was further clouded by the
increasingly evident that the picture has, in fact, firm foun-
dations within decidedly traditional painting methods. If the
strength of the modernist myth that Ensor himself had pro-
technical features of the painting could be demystified and
moted vigorously as his artistic powers declined. All of these
factors contributed to the conventional view of Christ's Entry
placed within the context of late-nineteenth-century painting

SUMMER 1995

This content downloaded from

134.184.119.81 on Mon, 23 Oct 2023 22:52:57 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ;ro

FIG. 1 James Ensor, Christ's Entry

This content downloaded from

134.184.119.81 on Mon, 23 Oct 2023 22:52:57 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 the figure that recently has been identified as the Marquis de
Sade, both a red and a blue crayon underdrawing are visible
through the thin washes of paint.6 Some black underdrawing
was also found in the distant crowd scene at the top of the
picture. Converging black lines were used as a means of
setting up the perspectival scheme used in this area of the
background.
It is essential to recall that Ensor was a consummate

draftsman, and Christ's Entry into Brussels must be seen i

comparison with his own graphic works, particularly The
Entry of Christ into Jerusalem (fig. 2). It is revealing to
observe the way in which the calligraphic notations of the
crowd from the drawing have been translated into simila
shorthand notations in paint in Christ's Entry into Brussels. I
is clear that Ensor considered himself the heir to a Northern

tradition of draftsmanship that looked back to Rembrandt

(the similarities between Ensor's prints and Rembrandt's
etchings are notable),7 and the importance of underdrawing
to the creation of a work of art has even deeper roots within the
20
earliest traditions of Flemish painting and manuscript
illumination.

Ensor used his underdrawing as a strong guide for the

painting. In a sense Christ's Entry into Brussels could be
considered to be an enormous colored drawing. Ensor care-

FIG. 2 James Ensor, The Entry of Christ into Jerusalem, 1885, graphite and
ContW crayon on paper, 87/8 x 61/2 inches. J. Paul Getty Museum, Malibu.

techniques, perhaps future attempts at unraveling the many

threads of meaning that run through this great image can be
redirected.

Art historical folklore had suggested that Christ's En-

try into Brussels was going to present a number of overwhelm-
ing condition problems: there were alarming tales of wax and
house paints having been used in its creation, and ominous
descriptions of large areas having been destroyed or re-
painted (these latter speculations were based on the fact that
Ensor retained possession of this picture from the time that
he painted it, in 1888, until his death in 1949). 3Most of
these stories proved to have been unfounded. Christ's Entry
into Brussels remains in remarkably good condition, primar-
ily as a result of the fact that, from a technical standpoint, it
was firmly rooted within a straightforward, academic tradi-
tion of painting. This is not surprising; Ensor spent three
years at the Brussels Art Academy during his early training
as a painter.4
Ensor painted his monumental work on a classic
support-a single, seamless piece of fine Belgian linen.5
The canvas was prepared with a traditional lead-white prim-
ing. The composition was then laid out in great detail by
means of an extensive underdrawing that provided a solid
underlying structure for the painting.
In the lower right corner of the painting, in the head of FIG. 3 James Ensor, Christ's Entry into Brussels in 1889 (detail, lower right)

SUMMER 1995

This content downloaded from

134.184.119.81 on Mon, 23 Oct 2023 22:52:57 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 FIG. 4 James Ensor,
Christ's Entry into Brussels
in 1889 (detail, upper
center).
fully filled in the lines of his extensive drawing and was
certainly not prone to bursts of spontaneity or change. In fact,
aside from the changes within the inscriptions of the banners,
there are virtually no major pentimenti to be found within
Christ's Entry into Brussels. In a detail from the lower right of
the painting (fig. 3), it is possible to see that bordering colors
of paint do not overlap, or as in the profile of the head, even
touch. Ensor simply left the bare ground visible between the
outlines of the underdrawing. The silhouetted effects of the
forms are heightened by this careful and controlled handling
of the paint.
In the upper center of the picture, in the very heart of
the boisterous distant crowd scene, is a small detail (fig. 4)
that illustrates the importance of the underdrawing to the
underlying conception of the picture. A head of a figure
peeks out of the crowd, and a banner waving in the breeze
bisects the tiny face. It would not have been unusual if Ensor
had blocked in the entire head and then painted the flag on
top of the background figure. However, Ensor chose to paint
the head of this figure in two pieces; in the early stages of
underdrawing, the face was sharply divided by the planned
presence of the flag. In light of the fact that this is a
thumbnail-sized detail within a fourteen-foot canvas, Ensor's
unwavering faithfulness to his own underdrawing is remark-
able. It is apparent that the composition of Christ's Entry into
Brussels was developed fully before any paint was applied to
the surface.
The implications of this discovery for future interpreta-
tions of the painting present a research nightmare. The
foreground multitude no longer can be dismissed as a hallu-
cinatory collection of grotesques. Instead, it probably con-
This content downloaded from
134.184.119.81 on Mon, 23 Oct 2023 22:52:57 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
21
sists of deliberately chosen and juxtaposed caricature por-
traits whose proper identification will be essential for
unraveling Ensor's meaning. That the "grandmotherly" pro-
file in the lower right represents Sade indicates how rich the
possibilities may be. Furthermore, it seems likely that in this
essential area of the canvas, Ensor's hodgepodge of painting
techniques-from thin washes (as in the depiction of Sade) to
elaborately decorative impastos to loose, broad strokes-
may also have been carefully considered and should be
treated as meaningful. Are they, in fact, parodies of contem-
porary avant-garde styles? At the same time, it remains to be
determined whether those areas of enormous, sloppy brush-
work, such as the banner and the green platform, belong to
Ensor's program or simply resulted from his last-minute rush
to cover blank canvas in time for the exhibition at Les Vingt.
A notable discovery occurred during the course of
cleaning the center of the picture. The central figure of
Christ appears to be a self-portrait of Ensor, and it would be
reasonable to expect that this area of the picture was painted
with exceptional care.8 In fact, after completing the under-
drawing Ensor applied a thin layer of yellow pigment to this
area in a triangular shape (fig. 5). The bright yellow color
(which was most likely chrome yellow, a pigment that has
been identified in several other locations within the picture)
heightened the entire area with an intense vibration. This
technique is consistent with Ensor's obsessive fascination
with the religious and spiritual powers of light; in this case,
the concept of Christ's halo (or aureole) as both a physical and
spiritual source of light and power has been underscored by
the preparatory layer of yellow paint.9 Today it is important to
take into account the fact that the chrome yellows used in this
ART JOURNAL
layer, as well as in many other areas of the picture, have faded
substantially; originally, these yellows must have had a bril-
liant presence. O
Ensor's palette in Christ's Entry into Brussels was actu-
ally quite straightforward; he favored the use of pure colors
and only rarely resorted to mixtures of any type. For example,
a cross section taken from the red feather just below the
signature showed that it was painted on top of the green
background. Three simple layers were found: the lead white
of the ground, the pure emerald green of the background, and
the pure vermilion of the red feather.
In the lower-right corner of the picture, underneath the
podium, where the head of the figure identified as Ensor's
aunt overlaps a blue stripe in her costume, the flesh tone is a
simple mixture of vermilion, chrome yellow, and lead white.
The blue is a pure Prussian blue.
It is important to note that all of the pigments used were
standard artist's pigments of the period.12 Media analysis
suggested that these were straightforward oil colors.13 Paul
22
Haesaerts has recounted that Ensor was suspicious of the
quality of oil tube colors and that he employed a house painter
to prepare the large quantities of paint needed for the pic-
ture.14 Even if this were the case, there is still no evidence of
unusual combinations of pigments or such strange paint
media as emulsions or encaustic mixtures having been used.
All of the materials were classic academic materials that not
only underscore the straightforward nature of Ensor's
ing technique, but also help to explain the picture's good
state of preservation.
Analysis of all of the cross-section samples taken from
Christ's Entry into Brussels supported the fact that develop-
ment of complicated or overlapping layers of paint was not
part of Ensor's working method. The paint is very thick in
many areas of the picture, but the layer structure is actually
quite simple; the colors were applied in single strokes, sim-
ply and directly.
While Ensor retained possession of Christ's Entry into
Brussels for over sixty years, he reworked a number of details
within the picture. Some of the basic analytic techniques
commonly used to sort out the later changes actually revealed
very little as a result of the nature of the materials that Ensor
used in the painting. X-ray radiography, for example, which
is often useful in uncovering changes within a composition,
was not helpful in this case, not only because Ensor primed
his canvas with a heavy lead-white ground, but because
many of the small changes within the picture were sand-
wiched between layers of heavy lead-white paint.'5 Such was
the case with most of the banners. It has been suggested that
the banners in Christ's Entry into Brussels were originally
covered with the same inscriptions that appear in Ensor's
1898 etching of the same subject (fig. 6). 16 To the naked eye,
FIG. 5 James Ensor, Christ's Entry into Brussels in 1889 (detail, center). The
superimposed black lines indicate the triangular region that Ensor heightened
paint-
with a chrome-yellow glaze prior to painting.

iiii iiiii~i~iS A W
Ilk...

)}MW

iii! iAkt

:!A,

iV

This content downloaded from

134.184.119.81 on Mon, 23 Oct 2023 22:52:57 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
F I G. 6 James Ensor, Christ's Entry
into Brussels, 1898, hand-colored
etching, 93/4 x 14 inches. Allen
Memorial Art Museum, Oberlin
College, Oberlin, Ohio; Friends of
Art Fund, 1964.
it appears as if some of the banners in the painting were
covered with writing that was subsequently painted over.
This is clearly the case with the large yellow banner at the left
center. In the etching this banner is inscribed with the words
Les Charcutiers de Jerusalem; in the painting at least four
lines and quite a number of words appear to have been
painted out (suggesting that, although the banner must have
carried some sort of inscription, it never was identical to the
etching). Unfortunately, X rays were not helpful in de-
ciphering the overpainted slogan.
A similar change occurred in the placard carried by
the large figure at the bottom center of the picture. In the
etching, the words Vive Anseele et Jesus are proudly dis-
played; in the painting there are simply blank white stripes
in the corresponding positions. There are some descriptions
of the painting from the early part of this century that suggest
that this slogan was painted out by Ensor himself.17 Once
again, X rays could not isolate the inscription from the heavy
layers of lead-white paint in this area.
Infrared reflectography proved to be equally fruitless
in deciphering the inscriptions in these two banners because
the lettering in both cases was executed in a red-colored
paint (which does not reflect light in the infrared range and
thus does not register with infrared viewing techniques). An
infrared vidicon uncovered some changes in the inscriptions
contained within the banner at the far right of the composi-
tion. To the naked eye, the inscription reads (in blue paint)
Vive Jesus Roi de Bruxlles (the misspelling of Bruxelles is
Ensor's own), although it is apparent that some reworking has
occurred. An infrared vidicon reveals the words Vive Jesus
S. . ces reformes . . . libertes doctrinaires (other words occur,
but they are illegible). These words may have echoed the
This content downloaded from
134.184.119.81 on Mon, 23 Oct 2023 22:52:57 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
23
sentiments expressed in the Fanfares Doctrinaires banner, a
key element in the composition at the left center (Ensor
originally painted the words Toujours Reussi in this banner in
red and then reworked them in blue).
Fortunately, cross-section samples were helpful in pro-
viding some important clues as to the nature and extent of
these few reworked areas. For example, a cross section taken
from the area of overpainted lettering in the large yellow
banner revealed a layer of red paint (vermilion) sandwiched
between two layers of chrome yellow and lead white. The
chrome-yellow layers are similar, suggesting that the rework-
ing is an early, original change rather than a later
intervention.
A few areas of the picture other than the banners were
found to have been overpainted, although once again this
work was most likely done by Ensor himself. Many of the
areas containing Prussian blue apparently developed flaking
problems early in the life of the picture; these appear to have
been retouched by the artist. A cross-section sample of the
blue paint from the Death figure in the lower left was taken,
and two distinctly different layers of blue were found. The
lower layer is a pure Prussian blue, and it contains a number
of drying cracks, which are the result of natural aging. The
upper layer (which is also Prussian blue, but in this case it is
mixed with lead white) covers these cracks, indicating that it
was applied after the lower layer had aged to some extent. The
repaint was applied in a broad and generous fashion; it covers
much of the original as well as the intermittent flake losses.
In 1940 the Death figure was apparently damaged by bomb
fragments; Ensor still retained possession of the picture at
this point, and it is entirely possible that the repaint was
applied by the artist himself.'8
ART JOURNAL
 An example of another type of "original" retouch by
Ensor himself can be seen in the white, fainting figure at the
lower center of the picture. When the blue hat was painted on
top of this figure's head, some of the blue paint ran down the
front of the face in two large drips. Apparently, Ensor wiped
these drips away and retouched the residual stains with a
white paint that did not identically match the original.
Cleaning became the primary task in the recent treat-
ment; the heavy layer of discolored varnish not only falsified
the brilliance of Ensor's palette, but obscured any sense of
light, space, and movement as well. Fortunately, cleaning
involved only the removal of this darkened varnish; nearly all
of the discernible re-paints had to be treated as Ensor's own
corrections and were left intact. Minor retouches of small

Christ's Entry into Brussels underwent a major series of
treatments in the early 1950s, when the canvas was wax lined
and the thick varnish layer was applied. 9 All evidence points
to the fact that the picture had remained unvarnished up until
that time. 2()
Upon its arrival at the Getty, the surface of Christ's
flake losses that may have been applied during the 1950
treatment were easily distinguished from the "original" co
rections because they were applied on top of colored fills
Cleaning presented a complicated technical problem
the original paint was found to be soluble in nearly all of th
traditional solvents that could have been used to remove the

Entry into Brussels was buried beneath a tobacco-brown-
colored layer of old varnish and grime. Fortunately the sur-
face of the picture compared favorably with the clarity and
vibrancy of the paint surfaces found in the best examples of
Ensor's work.21 The picture was free of the types of abrasions
usually associated with past attempts at cleaning. No major
24
damages were found; a few small paint losses were scattered
across the surface of the picture, and these were due to past
varnish. However, after much trial and error, a solution to th
problem was devised that made use of a solvent gel system.23
As an added bonus, this solution allowed for a saturated an
unblanched paint surface after cleaning that did not requir
revarnishing.24 Now that the picture has been restored to a
unvarnished state, as apparently Ensor had wanted it, it w
not have to be recleaned (other than routine dusting) in th
future.25

incidents of flaking, scratches, and small tears.22 Cleaning produced a number of dramatic changes in

. .. ..... .. .. ........ . ...... ? i . ..w *i

%I

i!!i!'ii41,
..... 49Li~ ~i!i

WN

A4!

171

4N,.

471..1

FIG. 7 Paul Haesaert and J

Boever, Brussels.

SUMMER 1995

This content downloaded from

134.184.119.81 on Mon, 23 Oct 2023 22:52:57 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
FIG. 8 Raking-light photograph of
James Ensor, Christ's Entry into
Brussels in 1889 (detail, signature)
the visual impact of the picture. The simple intensities of the
colors were restored, and the complicated effects of Ensor's
compositional devices were revealed. The alterations were
especially significant in the background, where high-keyed
pinks, blues, and yellows emerged to create an atmospheric
perspective and surprising effects of spatial recession. Dur-
ing the early stages of cleaning, the degree of change was
startling. However, any doubt about possible overcleaning
was laid to rest when a full-scale copy of the picture made in
1929 (fig. 7) reappeared.26 The copy was commissioned by a
Belgian firm that was considering issuing tapestry reproduc-
tions of the image. The tapestries were never executed, but
the copy still survives. It was executed by Haesaert in
gouache and oil on paper and supervised and corrected by
Ensor himself. It documents the visual state of the picture in
1929, before the surface was varnished. When details from
the copy were compared with the same details from the
original, it was readily noted that, despite the obvious differ-
ences in quality, the intensities of the colors were remarkably
similar.
Although the surface of the painting was not partic-
ularly fragile, the picture had an unpleasant, lumpy appear-
ance that resulted from pools of wax-resin adhesive trapped
between the original and lining canvases. After the cleaning,
it became evident that something would have to be done to
rectify these extreme distortions of the surface. A raking
light photograph (fig. 8) dramatizes the disturbing, wrinkled
effects produced by lumps of wax trapped behind the original
canvas. As the wax-resin adhesive aged, it had also become
increasingly brittle, resulting in delamination of the canvas
at the edges.
These structural problems were solved through relin-
This content downloaded from
134.184.119.81 on Mon, 23 Oct 2023 22:52:57 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
25
ing. The lining canvas was removed, as were many pounds of
wax-resin adhesive. During this procedure, a French cus-
toms stamp discovered on the reverse of the original fabric
indicated that the picture was unlined when it went to the
Ensor exhibition in Paris in 1939. A new lining canvas was
prepared, and the picture was relined in two stages.27 This
treatment successfully removed all of the distortions of the
surface.
Relining also brought about a significant visual
change beyond simple elimination of the irregularities of the
canvas. Ensor's brushwork literally leaped forward, with a
crisp, animated presence that had not been perceptible pre-
viously, and a surprising increase in the sense of depth and
movement resulted. After relining, Christ's Entry into
Brussels was attached to a new stretcher, and the minor paint
losses were filled and retouched.28
The final issue to be resolved was the frame. The
picture arrived at the museum in a thin, crudely gilded and
patinated molding. In a few areas the gilding had flaked away
to reveal paint, suggesting that this molding had originally
been painted off-white. Comparisons of this molding with
photographs of the framed Christ's Entry into Brussels when it
was still hanging in Ensor's house (fig. 9) supported the
belief that the frames were identical in profile. The discovery
on the back of the frame of a Paris customs stamp similar to
that on the back of the original canvas indicated that it had
been with the picture since at least 1939. Cross sections
confirmed that the frame still bore its original coat of white
paint, and that it had been gilded not once, but twice,
perhaps in a misguided effort to embellish the plain painted
molding. It was possible to remove the gilding and to restore
the damaged surface of the frame to a close approximation of
ART JOURNAL
26

FIG. 9 Anthony Maurice, James Ensor Playing the Harmonium in His Drawing-Room Studio, 1933, gelatin silver print, 9/4 x 1111A16 inches. J. Paul Getty Museum,
Malibu.

the original color. 29 Seurat's Sunday Afternoon on the Island

of the Grande Jatte, which Ensor had seen at the exhibition of
Les Vingt in Brussels in 1887, also had a white frame
originally.30 The visual effect with the Ensor is stunning: the
light colored frame complements but does not overwhelm the
picture.
Despite the chaotic appearance of the surface of En-
sor's masterwork, it is essential to understand that it is very
much the result of conventional late-nineteenth-century
working methods. Unlike the canvases of mid-twentieth-
century Abstract Expressionists, which are, in a sense, maps
of the gestures and changes brought about by bursts of
spontaneous creative energies, Christ's Entry into Brussels is
deliberately executed according to a preconceived plan. This
becomes especially obvious when Ensor's painting is com-
pared to such a work by Willem de Kooning as Woman VI (fig.
10).-1 Superficially, the two works have much in common,
especially in reproduction, at which level Rosenblum and
Janson's comparison makes sense. However, technically the

FIG. 10 Willem de Kooning, Woman VI, 1953, oil on canvas, 68/2 x 581/2
inches. Carnegie Museum of Art, Pittsburgh, gift of G. David Thompson.

SUMMER 1995

This content downloaded from

134.184.119.81 on Mon, 23 Oct 2023 22:52:57 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 paintings are a study in contrasts. De Kooning's brushwork
breaks boundaries instead of observing them (to make edges
of bare canvas, he scraped the ferrule, or handle, of the brush
through wet and partially dried impasto, scattering small
chunks of paint across the adjacent surfaces, and exposing
underlying canvas and underpaint). He also did not tidy up
drips and spatters; they are left to enrich and complicate his
surface, which is further enhanced with fragments of crum-
bled charcoal. While both pictures shock, they create their
effects in different ways.
Although a great deal has been written about Ensor's
masterpiece, the picture has not been exhibited in a condi-
tion similar to its current state for several generations. We
hope that the restored appearance of Christ's Entry into
Brussels will invite some new considerations of its importance
and meaning.4
Notes
16. McGough, "James Ensor's The Entry of Christ into Brurssels," 207-13.
17. Francine-Claire Legrand, Ensor cet inconnu (Brussels: La Renaissance du livre,
1971), 76; Emile Verhaeren, James Ensor (Brussels: G. van Oest, 1908), 42-45, 114.
It has been suggested that this particular slogan was removed because of its political
implications.
18. Robert L. Delevoy, Ensor (Antwerp: 1981), 434.
19. According to a few letters from the files of the Institut Royal du Patrim
artistique in Brussels, the picture was treated twice (from May 10 to May 25, 19
and from November 3 to June 8, 1951). There are no records of the materials or
techniques used during these treatments: Rogier H. Marijnissen, conversation with
authors, 1987.
20. A single varnish layer was found oni the surface of the picture; the varnish was
continuous across cracks, damages, retouches, and wax residues, indicating that it
was applied after the painting had been lined. There was no evidence of the existence
or removal of an earlier varnish layer (such as varnish residues or cleaning abrasions).
21. It is difficult to find examples in public collections in Ensor's works that remain
unrestored. One exception is The Banquet of the Starved, a work from 1915 that is in
the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York; this painting has never
been lined or varnished. Two pictures (among many) that compare more closely with
The Entry of Christ into Brussels are the Oyster Eater of 1887 and the Intrigue of 1890,
both of which are in the collection of the Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten in
Antwerp. Although both paintings appear to have been varnished and lined, they still
present surfaces that are in very good condition.
22. During the recent treatment a large map of the surface was kept, documenting the
locations of all of the minor paint losses, tears, and scratches that were discovered.
The locations of Ensor's original changes were recorded as well.
23. Small sections of the painting (the size of an area that could be cleaned in a day)
were coated with a layer of mastic varnish that contained a few drops of benzyl alcohol 27

1. Robert Rosenblum as a reforming

and H. agent;
W. this softened
Janson,the darkened varnish 19th-Centur
layer and allowed for the use
Abrams, 1984), 418-19. of a milder cleaning material. The best cleaning material proved to be a solvent gel
system, different from traditional systems because the solvent is actually trapped
2. The restoration was carried out by a team of conservators at the Getty Museum that
included Mark Leonard, Andrea Rothe, Elisabeth Mention, Yvonne Szafran, Carl
within a gel form, preventing it from soaking into the paint andi increasing the degree
Grimm, and Mark van Gelder. of control of the restorer. In this case, a xvlene gel (made from xylene, water, and Triton
3. For stories of wax and house paints, see Paul Haesaerts. "Quand James EnsorX-100, a non-ionic detergent) allowed for cleaning of even the thickest impasto
without harming the surface.
peignait 'L'Entrie du Christ ?i Bruxelles,"'" LOeil, no. 131 (November 1965): 30-31.,
For stories on destruction, see Robert L. Delevoy, Ensor iAntwerp: Fonds Mercator.24. The gel was applied to the surface with small swabs; the discolored varnish
1981), 434. became dissolved within the solution, and another swab (dipped in ShellSolv 72, a
4. Ensor was a student at the Brussels Academy from 1877 until 1880. Stephenkery low aromatic content hydrocarbon solvent) was used to rinse away the gel. In the
normal course of varnish removal, it is almost always necessary to revarnish a painting
Charles McGough, "James Ensor's The Entry l'Christ into Brussels in 1889" (Ph.D.
diss., Stanford University, 1981). 32. after (leaning. This means that the picture falls into an endless cycle of cleaning and

5. Fiber samples were identified with the optical microscope. Prior to rernmoal of the
revarnishing. With a solvent gel system, however, it is often possible to recapture a
lining canvas, there had been some speculation about a horizontal seam running saturated surface, eliminating the need for revarnishing.
down the center of the picture. However, this apparently was the result of the Cleaning involved more than removal of dirt and discolored varnish. The surface
25.

impression left by a join in the protective paper facing used during the previous of the painting must have been covered with a protective tissue paper facing when the
canvas was lined in the 1950s: fragments of this paper facing were still scattered
lining: evidence of this irregularity disappeared during relining. When Ensor origi-
across the painting. The discolored varnish was all on top of these facing paper
nally painted the picture, the canvas was not stretched but was simply pinned to the
remnants, and when the paper was removed, the paint surface was found to be
wall of his studio. The painting was frequently rolled for storage and transportation
unvarnished, once again indicating that the picture was not varnished before the early
and was not permanently stretched until 1920 (the fabric impression from the reverse
1950s.
of the canvas can be seen impressed into the impasto in a few places). See Haesaerts,
"Quand James Ensor peignait." 31. 26. The copy was made for the Manufacture Nationale de tapis, tapisseries et tissus
d'art De Saedeller. It was recently exhibited in the Ensor exhibition in Munich at the
6. This head has been tentatively identified by members of the Paintings Department
Kunsthalle der Hypo-Kulturstiftung, March-May 1989. Ldia Schoonbaert et al.,
of the Getty Museum as the Marquis de Sade, based on comparisons with known
portraits. Janes Ensor, exh. cat. (Munich: Hirmer, 1989), 196, cat. no. 73.
7. Paul Haesaerts, Janmes Ensor (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1959), 129. 27. The lining was done faceup on a vacuum hot table, using minimal pressure and
8. Gert Schiff, "Ensor the Exorcist," in Art the Ape o/ Nature: Studies in Honor o1heat. The p)icture was reline(d with a synthetic adhesive iBeva) to a new piece of
H. W. Janson (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1981), 725. Belgian linen. Relining was necessary because of the fact that the original canvas
alone could not adequately support the weight of the thick paint.
9. Gisele Ollinger-Zinque. "Les Aureoles du Christ ou les sensibilitds de la luminre
28. A light weight Starofix aluminum stretcher was used. Retouching was carried( out
de James Ensor," Bulletin des Musdes rovaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, nos. 3-4
(1968): 197. with watercolors on top of gesso fills. Some final glazing was done with Lefranc and
10. Chrome yellow (lead chromate) is a pigment that darkens or turns brown with Bourgeois restoration colors in order to match the surface of the original.
aging. This phenomenon has also occurred within Vincent van Gogh's SunI/lower29. The overpaint and gilding layers were removed with a methylene chloride and
paintings. See Rutherford Gettens and George Stout, Painting Materials: A Short
water-based
give solvent
the effect of age.gel. The surface was reworked with egg tempera, and patinatett to
Ernt'yclopedia (New York: Dover. 1966). 106-7.
11. The four figures in this group have been identified as portraits of Ensor's familh 30. Mc(ough, "James Ensor's The Entry of Christ into Brussels." 25.
(from left to right: his sister, his mother, his grandmother, and his aunt). See Schiff,31. The painting was examined by Louise Lippincott with the assistance of Will
"Ensor the Exorcist." 719-37. Real, chief conservator, Carnegie Museum of Art.

12. The pigments found in the painting were vermilion, chrome yellow, organic re(d
(most likely a synthetic alizarine), red earth, emerald green, Prussian blue, synthetic
ultramarine, carbon black, and lead white. The pigment identification was (lone by
MARK LEONARD, conservator of paintings at the J. Paul
Getty Museum, is co-author of Looking at
Michael Schilling of the Getty Conservation Institute by means of polarized light Paintings: A Guide
microscopy and energy-dipersive X-ray fluorescence analysis. to Technical Terms (J. Paul Getty Museum and the British
13. Media analysis was carried out by Michele Derrick of the Getty Conservation
Museum).
Institute through infrared spectrometry.
14. Haesaerts, "Quand James Ensor peignait," 30-31. Haesaerts does not state the
,ur(e of this inf~ormation, but it is likely that it came from Ensor himself. LO UISE LI PPI NCOTT, associate curator of paintings at the
Getty
15. The lead contained in the white paint absorbs the X rays, thus preventing changes when the Ensor was purchased and restored, is now
within the intervening layer from registering the X-ray film.
curator offine arts at the Carnegie Museum of Art, Pittsburgh.

ART JOURNAL

This content downloaded from

134.184.119.81 on Mon, 23 Oct 2023 22:52:57 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms