The Skeleton Painter

object number:

3112

measurements:

37,3 × 45,3 cm

date:

1896 - 1896

Stay connected!

Always receive the latest news.

Subscribe to the newsletter

The Skeleton Painter is painted on an oak panel, made from a single plank with the grain running horizontally. The wood was sawn tangentially. The panel is approximately 1.25 cm thick reduced to 7.5 mm at the bevelled edges. Its dimensions – 46 x 38 cm – are those of a standard 8F panel of the Paris system.¹

The front of the panel shows no direct signs of old restorations or cracks in the panel, but there are visible scratches and dents on the back from careless handling or storage. The radiography shows minor damage to the support, probably from a historic woodworm infestation that has been treated and is now stable. The white ground layer is thin and even in application and contains lead and calcium. It may also contain zinc white, or else a layer of zinc white paint was applied over the ground. The ground layer is visible in some places but it does not play a major role in the composition.

The underdrawing, which is probably pencil, is based on a photo of Ensor in his studio and is an exact copy for the most part. Nonetheless, there are differences between the photo and the underdrawing, and the photo and the painting. The underdrawing includes a self-portrait which was changed to a skull during painting, paintings were added to the background that are not present in the photo, and the room visible in the photograph was increased in size in the painting. The underdrawing is visible to the naked eye in several places on the painting, as it was not always covered by paint.

As the composition was fixed from the start, the colour fields are clearly defined and there was little overlap of paint layers during the painting process. The paint layer is built up in a fairly simple way and consists of one of two paint layers and only occasionally more. Ensor used various brushes and both pasty and diluted paint. He mostly worked wet on wet, but he also worked wet on dry in some areas when making changes to the composition.

He signed ENSOR at lower right in the still wet white paint layer. The signature was added in a reddish-brown pigment and traced over again in a black and darker brown pigment. The colour palette was investigated using pXRF and MA-XRF and contains lead white, cadmium yellow, cobalt blue, vermillion, red lake, chrome green and earth pigments.

There is a thin, grey, transparent layer covering the work which can also be found on several other of Ensor’s works. It is unclear whether this is an original layer, and whether it has always been grey or whether it has greyed over time. The grey layer has formed into droplets in some areas. There is a thick, glossy layer of varnish covering the painting. It is probably not original and was applied after the painting had been framed.

History of the painting

Acquisition history

Edgard Picard Collection, Jemeppe; heirs of Edgard Picard; Madame J. Krebs Collection, Brussels; bought by Galerie Schloss Remseck, Neckarrems, Stuttgart, 1972.

Restoration history

10/06/1999: Fixation of the paint layer with 3% gelatine to secure the paint that was lifting at bottom left. Filing lacunae with a mixture of chalk, gelatine glue and PVA at the corners of the wood panel. Watercolour retouches were made.
12/08/1999: earliest mention of black spots during condition check.
06-07/06/2000: Surface cleaning with saliva. Watercolour retouches of the edges.
18/09/2000: Installation of climate box.
04/09/2003: Climate box opened.
2014: Climate box opened. Removal of pigment stain on skeleton’s teeth.

Exhibition history

1972, Neckarrems, Galerie Schloss Remseck, no. 4;
1974, Antwerp, Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp, Kunstwerken verworven door de staat in 1972/1973, no. 510, image;
1974, Brussels, Centre for Fine Arts, Kunstwerken verworven door de staat in 1972/1973, no. 510, image;
1974, Bosque de Chapultepec, Museo de Arte Moderno, Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes y Literatura, Tres Maestros de la imaginación. Ensor. Magritte. Delvaux. El Surrealismo en Belgica y su antecedente, no. 10;
1976/ 1977, Chicago, The Art Institute of Chicago, Ensor, no. 41, image;
1977, New York, The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, Ensor, no. 41, image;
1980, New York, The Brooklyn Museum, Belgian Art. 1880-1914, no. 15, image p. 93;
1980/1981, Brussels, Caisse Générale d’Epargne et de Retraite, Europalia 80 Belgique 150. Art & Photographie, no. 14, image p. 32;
1983, Antwerp, Royal Museum of Fine Arts, James Ensor, no. 99;
1983, Zürich, Kunsthaus Zürich, James Ensor, no. 94;
1983/ 1984, Kobe, The Museum of Modern Art, James Ensor, no. 60, image p. 78;
1984, Kamakura, The Museum of Modern Art, James Ensor, no. 60, image p. 78;
1984, Saitama, The Museum of Modern Art, James Ensor, no. 60, image p. 78;
1984, Sendai, Miyagi Museum of Art, James Ensor, no. 60, image p. 78;
1985, Berlin, Haus am Waldsee, Obsessionen und Gesichte - Kunst aus Flandern. Bilder von James Ensor, Jan Cox, Fred Bervoets, Pjeroo Roobjee. Skulpturen von Vic Gentils, Paul Van Hoeydonck, no. 1, image p. 22;
1986, Hannover, Kunstverein, Obsessionen und Gesichte - Kunst aus Flandern. Bilder von James Ensor, Jan Cox, Fred Bervoets, Pjeroo Roobjee. Skulpturen von Vic Gentils, Paul Van Hoeydonck, no. 1, image p. 22;
1986/ 1987, Hamburg, Kunstverein in Hamburg, James Ensor, no. 26, image p. 79;
1986/ 1987, Newport Beach, Newport Harbor Art Museum, Flemish Expressions. Representational painting in the twentieth century, no. 32, image p. 49;
1987, Fort Lauderdale, Museum of Art, Flemish Expressions. Representational painting in the twentieth century, no. 32, image p. 49;
1988, Rotterdam, Museum Boymans Van Beuningen, Pioneers of Modernism. Ensor. Hodler. Kruyder. Munch, no. 8, image;
1989, Munich, Kunsthalle der Hypo-Kulturstiftung, James Ensor. Belgien um 1900, no. 36, image p. 129;
1990, Paris, Musée du Petit Palais, James Ensor, no. 192, image p. 223;
1992/ 1993, Bremen, Kunsthalle, James Ensor. Radierungen, no. 125;
1993, Utrecht, Centraal Museum, James Ensor. 1860-1949. Schilderijen, tekeningen en grafiek. Een selectie uit Belgisch en Nederlands bezit, no. 38, image p. 90;
1993/ 1994, Antwerp, Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp, In depot / uit depot. De modernen in het koninklijk museum;
1994, l'Isle-sur-la-Sorgue, Musée Campredon, Des bords de l'Escaut aux rives de la Sorgue. Les Modernes du réalisme à l'expressionnisme 1880-1940, no. 10, image p. 30;
1999, Grenoble, Magasin, Centre National d'Art Contemporain de Grenoble, La consolation. Oeuvres de la collection de la communauté flamande De Belgique, no. 13, image;
1999/ 2000, Brussels, Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium, Ensor, no. 134, image p. 197;
2000, Antwerp, Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp, Mo(u)vements. Mouvements d'artistes en Belgique de 1880 à 2000;
2000, Himeji, Himeji City Museum of Art, From Ensor to Delvaux, no. 10, image p. 66;
2000, Sakura, Sakura City Museum of Art, From Ensor to Delvaux, no. 10, image p. 66;
2001, Tokyo, Isetan Museum of Art, From Ensor to Delvaux, no. 10, image p. 66;
2001, Osaka, Umeda, Daimaru Museum, From Ensor to Delvaux, no. 10, image p. 66;
2001, Okazaki, Okazaki City Museum, From Ensor to Delvaux, no. 10, image p. 66;
2002, Kraków, International Cultural Centre Gallery, James Ensor. 1860-1949. Grafika i malarstwo, no. 5, image detail, p. 358, image p. 38;
2003, Saint Petersburg, Russian Ethnographic Museum, James Ensor (1860-1949). Antwerp Presents a Painter, no. 19, image;
2004/ 2005, Salamanca, Caja Duero, James Ensor. De noche cartografiaba mis sueños. Obras en las colecciones del Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten de Amberes (KMSKA) y del Museum voor Schone Kunsten de Ostende (MSKO), no. 96, image p. 125;
2005, Seville, Caja San Fernando, James Ensor. De noche cartografiaba mis sueños. Obras en las colecciones del Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten de Amberes (KMSKA) y del Museum voor Schone Kunsten de Ostende (MSKO), no. 96, image p. 125;
2005/ 2006, Frankfurt, Schirn Kunsthalle, James Ensor, image p. 75;
2008, Wuppertal, Von der Heydt Museum, James Ensor. Schrecken ohne Ende, image p. 167;
2009, Antwerp, Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp, Goya, Redon, Ensor. Grotesque paintings and drawings, image p. 127;
2009, Saitama, The Museum of Modern Art, James Ensor, no. 89, image p. 181;
2009/ 2010, Paris, Musée du Petit Palais, James Ensor, no. 120, image p. 211;
2010, Mexico, Xochimilco, Museo Dolores Olmedo Patinõ, James Ensor, image p. 61, detail p. 100-101;
2010/ 2011, Ghent, Museum of Fine Arts and S.M.A.K. – Municipal Museum of Contemporary Art, Hareng Saur. Ensor and Contemporary Art, no. 26, image p. 167;
2011, The Hague, Gemeentemuseum, James Ensor. A Visionary Universe, image p. 130;
2012, Aichi, Toyota Municipal Museum of Art, James Ensor in Context. Ensor and the History of European Art from the Collection of the Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp, no. 111, image p. 134, detail p. 135;
2012, Ehime, The Museum of Art, James Ensor in Context. Ensor and the History of European Art from the Collection of the Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp, no. 111, image p. 134, detail p. 135;
2012, Tokyo, Seiji Togo Memorial Sompo Japan Museum of Art, James Ensor in Context. Ensor and the History of European Art from the Collection of the Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp, no. 111, image p. 134, detail p. 135;
2012/ 2013, Iwate, Iwate Museum of Art, James Ensor in Context. Ensor and the History of European Art from the Collection of the Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp, no. 111, image p. 134, detail p. 135;
2013, Okayama, The Okayama Prefectural Museum of Art, James Ensor in Context. Ensor and the History of European Art from the Collection of the Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp, no. 111, image p. 134, detail p. 135;
2013/ 2014, Ordrupgaard, James Ensor Fra Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen og schweiziske samlinger, no. 122, image;
2014, Basel, Kunstmuseum, The Surprised Masks: James Ensor from the Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp and Swiss Collections, no. 122, image;
2014, Los Angeles, The J. Paul Getty Museum, The Getty Center, The Scandalous Art of James Ensor (no catalogue);
2014/ 2015, Chicago, The Art Institute of Chicago, Temptation: The Demons of James Ensor (no catalogue);
2015, New York, Gagosian Gallery, In the Studio, image p. 109;
2015/ 2016, Antwerp, Queen Fabiola Hall, De Modernen. Uitverkoren;
2016/ 2017, London, Royal Academy of Arts, Intrigue: James Ensor by Luc Tuymans, no. 10, image p. 54;
2017, Deurle, Museum Dhondt-Dhaenens, Walter Vanbeselaere. Verzamelaar voor de staat 1948-1973, image p. 37;
2018/ 2020, Ostend, Mu.ZEE, Dreams of mother-of-pearl. The ENSOR collection of the KMSKA in Ostend, image p. 11 and cover;
2020, Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, In the Picture. Artists’ Self-Portraits, image p. 149;
2021, Mannheim, Kunsthalle, James Ensor, no. 9, image pp. 78-79;
2021/ 2022, Munich, Kunsthalle München, Fantastically real. Belgian modern art from Ensor to Magritte, no. 53, image p. 115, detail p. 94;
2023/ 2024, Antwerp, MAS | Museum aan de Stroom, Rare & Indispensable. Masterpieces from Flemish Collections, image p. 259;

Ground layer

The ground layer was probably applied commercially. It is about 0.5 mm thick and fairly smooth and even. There is a smudge above the skeleton’s head to the left; it is unclear whether this comes from the preparatory drawing or an early application of paint. The latter seems more plausible.

The ground layer is in good condition apart from some minor localised paint losses at the edges of the panel. The composition of the ground layer can be partly deduced from the pXRF measurements taken by Dr. Geert van der Snickt and from the Macro X-Ray Fluorescence (MA-XRF) scan of the entire work. This shows that the predominant element is lead (Pb), with small amounts of calcium (Ca).

fig 3: The MA-XRF element distribution image of lead (Pb-L) shows that lead is present everywhere on the painting, indicating a lead-based ground. There is lead in the white paint layers too, indicating the use of a lead-white pigment.

Use of zinc white

The ground layer may also contain zinc in addition to lead, as a substantial amount of zinc was found almost everywhere in the pXRF measurements.
Another possibility is that Ensor himself applied an initial thin layer of zinc white prior to laying out his composition. In several of his works, Ensor played with the subtle differences between lead white and zinc white, such as in The Intrigue (1890, KMSKA, inv. 1856), Skeletons Fighting over the Body of a Hanged Man (1891, KMSKA, inv. 1857, KMSKA) and Still Life with Chinoiseries (1906, inv. 1959), but in these works the effect is visible in the end result, which is not the case here. On the zinc (Zn-K) image from the MA-XRF scan of The Skeleton Painter, the presence of zinc was detected throughout the entire painting. In the areas where the image shows black (which would indicate the absence of zinc), the zinc signal was suppressed by the paint layer above it, such as the paint layers containing lead white. This means that the zinc signal is present everywhere on the painting and indicates either the presence of zinc in the ground layer or that the ground layer was covered by a zinc white paint layer.

fig 4: The element distribution image for zinc (Zn-K) shows that zinc can be detected everywhere on the surface of the painting. In the places where the image shows black, the zinc signal is blocked by the paint layers above.

In the 19th and 20th centuries, paint manufacturers often used zinc white to modify the colour of certain pigments and to lower production costs.³ Therefore, this signal may partly indicate a similar addition.

Ensor left the ground layer visible in several places, but it does not play a significant role in the composition of the work. Additionally, it has become visible in some places as a consequence of the abrasion of the overlying paint layer. This is mostly the case of the brownish-yellow colour of the frames surrounding the paintings depicted hanging on the walls.

fig 5: Location of detail.

fig 6: Ground layer seen through the worn of paint layer.

Underdrawing

Technical description underdrawing in a dry medium, probably pencil. The composition of the painting’s underdrawing is based in large part on a photo of Ensor in his studio. Most of the composition was copied over faithfully, but nonetheless the artist made a few modifications. The most striking alternation was changing the self-portrait in the underdrawing into a skull during the painting phase.

The underdrawing is visible in several places through the paint layer, which may have become more transparent over the course of the years. The change to the placement of the backrest of the chair between the underdrawing and the final paint layer can just be seen by the naked eye, but becomes much clearer under infrared light.

fig 7: Detail of the chair (Norm).

fig 8: Detail of the chair (IR).

Nonetheless, many of these lines would have been visible when the painting was first completed as they were not covered with paint. This is mostly the case where two-colour areas lie adjacent to one another without completely touching, for example, between the frames of the paintings and the wall. The detail below shows a clear line at the level of the easel. When viewed under the microscope, this line appears grainy, like pencil on a rough surface.

fig 9: Location of the detail.

fig 10: Detail of the (pencil) line (x40).

Not all the elements were worked up to the same degree in the underdrawing phase. The self-portrait was worked up in the greatest detail, but remains rudimentary nonetheless. For example, Ensor depicted the hairs of the moustache, but only gave an outline of the hair and beard. For the greater part, the composition is simply sketched in or barely given a suggestion of a shape. This is true, for example, of the cockerel in the painting in the left foreground. In both these cases, the lines are precise and quite hard.

fig 11: Location of the details.

fig 12: Detail photo of signature (IR).

fig 13: Detail photo of signature (IR).

Differences between the drawing and painting

There are several notable differences between the drawing and the final painting. The most obvious was the change of the self-portrait to a skull.

fig 14: Detail of the head (IR).

fig 15: Detail of the skeleton’s skull (Norm).

Not all the paintings depicted hanging on the walls have underdrawings. This is comprehensible seeing that Ensor had both the works in his studio and the photo as model to work from. He seems initially to have had a different design in mind for the works behind the skeleton. The shape of the work on the easel was different at the outset and a different paintings were displayed above it.

fig 16: Detail of the underdrawing (IR).

fig 17: Detail of the underdrawing showing the differences (Norm).

Differences between the photograph and painting

Ensor clearly based this painting on a photograph which he followed closely. Nevertheless, he deployed several artistic tricks, with the principal goal of making the space appear larger.

fig 18: Photographic data.

To the left of the white dotted line, Ensor kept most things at the same height, except for the door. He increased the height of the door to make the room appear higher. To the right of the line, we see the opposite. He reduced the height of everything there (yellow line). This means the skeleton is less tall, whereas in the photo Ensor is sitting down. All these changes serve to make the room appear bigger. For the same reason, Ensor made the floorboards run towards the back of the room while in his studio they ran parallel to the door. The perspective of the lines does not meet at a single point, but has several vanishing points. The lines of the floor were not included in the underdrawing, but were worked out during the painting phase.

fig 19: Differences between the photo and the painting and artistic tricks to create the illusion of space.

The artist added some additional elements over and beyond these changes of a purely practical nature. For example, there is an additional skull to the left of the door (shown in red). Even more striking is the way in which Ensor incorporates two of his own paintings into The Skeleton Painter that cannot be seen in the photo. These are The Dangerous Cooks (1896, private collection) (white arrow) that is shown in full and Ecce Homo (Ensor and the Art Critics) (1891, private collection) part of which is visible behind the skeleton (yellow arrow). Another photograph shows Ensor working on The Dangerous Cooks; this photograph was probably taken at the same time as the photograph on which The Skeleton Painter is based.
By making the skeleton painter stand upright, Ensor freed up enough space to display these works in a central position.

fig 20: Ensor in his studio with The Dangerous Cooks (1896, private collection) on his easel.

fig 21: The white arrow shows where the painting of The Dangerous Cooks (1896, private collection) can be seen; this painting cannot be seen in the photograph of Ensor in his studio on which The Skeleton Painter was based, but was probably on his easel while the photograph was taken. The yellow arrow shows where part of the painting Ecce Homo can be seen.

Paint layer

Technique

From drawing to painting

At what stage of the creative process did Ensor decide to paint a skeleton instead of a self-portrait? The infrared image does not provide much clarity here, but the MA-XRF scan carried out by the AXIS research group at the University of Antwerp provides more information. Traces of thin red paint lines were already visible to the naked eye in various places at the edge of the figure under the top paint layer.

fig 22: Location of the detail.

fig 23: Detail with visible red paint strokes, indicated with black arrows.

On the mercury (Hg-L) image of the scan, these red lines are clearly visible as the outline of the figure. This lets us conclude that they have more to do with the skeleton than with the self-portrait. If we superimpose this outline over the infrared image, it shows that Ensor had already decided upon a skeleton by the start of painting.

fig 24: Detail of the mercury (Hg-L) image showing the presence of mercury in the image. Mercury corresponds to the use of the red pigment vermillion. During painting, Ensor decided not to continue with the self-portrait but painted the skull in its place from the outset.

fig 25: Overlay of the infrared image with the self-portrait in the underdrawing and the mercury MA-XRF scan image, showing that Ensor painted the skull from the start of painting.

fig 26: Overlay of the mercury MA-XRF scan image with the photograph in normal light. This shows is the distribution of mercury. The presence of mercury indicates the use of the red pigment vermillion, a pigment that Ensor used throughout his oeuvre.

Composition of the paint layers

The systematic approach that we saw in the intermediate phase is reflected throughout the work.
The greater part of the composition was determined at the start of the creative process giving rise to clearly defined areas of colour with minimal overlap between the paint layers.

For example, the white of the roll of canvas behind the right chair leg was applied around the reddish-brown paint layer of that chair leg, without the two actually touching. As a result, the ground layer and the underdrawing remain visible in many areas. However, the left chair leg was painted on top of the previously painted floor area. This chair leg was not included in the underdrawing either.

The brushstrokes beneath must have been partly dry, as the pasty parts have remained and there is no intermixing of the two superposed paint layers. This chair leg must therefore be an addition made towards the end of the painting process.

fig 27: Location of the details.

fig 28: Chair leg (L) painted on top of the paint layer of the floor.

fig 29: Chair leg (R) where the background is placed around the leg.

In this work, Ensor made minimal use of areas of colour intended as undertones or mid tones. Beneath the skeleton’s blue suit there is an even greyish-brown tone of which we can catch glimpses in some areas. The skull that Ensor added next to the door was painted on top of a paint layer that was already dry. He made full use of the background colour as a mid-tone and further worked up the skull with touches of lighter and darker paint.

fig 30: Underlying greyish-brown colour.

fig 31: Skull on top of the already dry wall and door.

Ensor improved or reprised things during painting in a few areas. An example of pentimenti of this type can be seen in the signature at lower right. Ensor initially painted a red area there which he subsequently overpainted. The white and blue paint layer above dried faster than the red beneath which contained significantly more binder; this has caused the formation of pronounced cracks.

fig 32: Underlying red paint layer.

fig 33: Detail of the network of craquelure.

Under raking light it becomes clear that the figure depicted in Ecce homo (Ensor and the Art Critics) was initially located lower down and was subsequently overpainted by the ochre yellow of the frame. In daylight, we can see that an earlier composition in bright blue beneath the frame was followed with white pasty brushstrokes. Only then did Ensor paint the ochre yellow of the frame, running his brush down the leg of the easel and the bristles of the paintbrush. The underlying blue paint is clearly visible in these areas.

fig 34: Detail in raking right of the place where part of painting of Ecce homo (Ensor and the Art Critics) is painted. The painting was initially lower, but was subsequently overpainted by the ochre yellow of the frame.

fig 35: Detail in normal light of part of painting of Ecce homo (Ensor and the Art Critics).

Brushwork

Ensor used a variety of brushes with both soft and hard bristles, depending on the effect he was after. Most of the paint layer was applied with hard-bristle brushes which left clear brush marks behind.
The extent to which the brush marks are visible depends on the amount of paint used, its consistency, and the pressure the artist put on the brush when applying paint.

This is clearly visible on the detail photos (figure 37). The blue brushstroke was applied in a fluid movement over the previously applied, yet still wet white paint. The two colours have partly intermixed at the top of the blue brushstroke. At the time of application, the paint was barely, if at all, diluted and the artist applied light pressure, creating a streaky effect with the base layer remaining visible here and there.

The outline of the skull was applied in paint that was less thick with quite a dry, stiff-bristled brush; this also created a streaky effect.

fig 36: Location of the details.

fig 37: Blue brushwork applied on top of a still wet white paint layer. Each of the colours has slightly intermixed with the other.

fig 38: The outline of the skull was applied with a dry brush in dark reddish-brown paint. The stiff bristles created a streaky effect.

Ensor played with the differences in texture too, with pasty and more dilute brushstrokes applied on top of and next to each other. Under raking light, this texture is very apparent in the clouds of his depiction of the painting of View of Mariakerke (1901, Mu.ZEE). Ensor created this texture by placing small, quick brushstrokes with lots of lead white side by side.
In the depiction of The Dead Cockerel (1894, Kunsthalle Mannheim), he played with the difference between hard brushstrokes and finer, more fluid ones. The underlying paint layer shows through, creating a very streaky look; the details added on top of it are built up with softer-bristled brushes and more diluted paint (i.e. the beak of the cockerel and the red of the pear).

fig 39: Location of the details.

fig 40: Detail in raking light showing the pasty brushstrokes of the clouds in the painting of the View of Mariakerke, to the left of The Skeleton Painter.

fig 41: Detail of The Dead Cockerel, showing a combination of pasty brushstrokes and the use of fine brushes with fluid paint.

The paint layer is mostly built up in a fairly simple way and consists of one of two brushstrokes.
This can be seen, for example, in the back of the chair where the actual backrest was composed with a soft brush in dilute reddish-brown paint. The artist used a fine brush to add a pasty brushstroke on top of this to represent the reflection of the light.

Ensor laid several quick brushstrokes on top of each other in the skull of the skeleton painter with the bristle marks showing clearly in the paint. The colours superposed on each other have partially intermixed, but can still be distinguished.
This wet-on-wet work can be seen in several places, for example, in the skeleton’s jacket where a white (or light blue) brushstroke has partly intermixed with the not-yet-dry overlying darker blue paint.

fig 42: Detail of the painting under normal light showing how the various coloured brushstrokes have been laid on top of each other in the skull.

fig 43: White brushstroke applied on top of the not-yet-dry blue paint layer. Both colours have slightly intermixed.

fig 44: Detail of the backrest of the chair in normal light showing the simple structure of the paint layer.

Signature

Lower right: ENSOR.
The signature was added to the still wet white paint layer which had been applied in turn over a red paint layer. The signature was added in a reddish-brown pigment and traced over again in a black and darker brown pigment.

fig 45: The signature ENSOR was added at lower right in the still wet white paint layer.

fig 46: Detail of the signature under raking light showing how the signature was added to the still wet, white paint layer.

Pigment use

Use of colour

Ensor’s use of colour in The Skeleton Painter was identified by Dr. Geert van der Snickt using nineteen pXRF measurements⁴

and an MA-XRF scan of the work.
The colour palette Ensor utilised here is quite light and clear and the colours were mostly applied unadulterated, or mixed with white.

White: Ensor used lead white as a white pigment. The MA-XRF scan detected Zinc (Zn-K) everywhere in the painting. This zinc signal probably arises either from the white ground layer or from an imprimatura containing zinc white.

fig 47: Painting in visual light.

fig 48: Zn-K image (MA-XRF scan).

Yellow: cadmium (Cd) was identified in nearly all the measurements, indicating the use of cadmium yellow. There are lacunae in many of the yellow areas. The yellow paint layers have deteriorated badly, above all in the frames of the paintings, where the paint has often disappeared to show the ground layer.

Blue: tin (Sn) as well as cobalt (Co) were detected in all the measurements taken in blue areas, indicating the use of a cerulean blue. Ensor often used this blue paint pure, as well as sometimes mixing it to some extent with lead white.

Red/pink: Ensor used vermillion, a red pigment that he would continue to use throughout the rest of his oeuvre. These pink areas are painted in an organic red lake that has a strong pink fluorescence under UV light. This pigment appears in several paintings from Ensor’s later oeuvre, including The Man of Sorrows (1891, KMSKA, inv. 3320), Azaleas (1920-1930, KMSKA, inv. 2346, KMSKA) and Still Life with Chinoiseries (1907, KMSKA, inv. 1959).

fig 49: Detail of the UV image showing a strong pink fluorescence arising from a red lake that Ensor began using around 1890.

fig 50: Detail under visible light.

Green: all the measurements taken in green areas revealed concentrations of chrome (Cr), indicating the use of chrome green. Small amounts of manganese (Mn) were also detected.

Brown/earth pigments: several iron containing pigments were used in this work, but to a lesser extent than in the artist’s earlier career. Ensor sometimes mixed an earth pigment with vermillion to create a more brownish-red, for example for the chair. Iron occurs both alone and in combination with manganese, indicating the use of sienna or umber.

Phenomena and uncertainties Grey layer

The white areas of the work appear grainy and many of them seem to be covered by a grey layer. A similar phenomenon has been noted on other of Ensor’s works including The Intrigue (1890, KMSKA, inv. 1856), Still Life with Oysters (1882, KMSKA, inv. 1412) and Astonishment of the Mask Wouse (1889, KMSKA, inv. 2042). The nature of this layer is unclear. In the past, it was thought to be a layer of grime that needed to be removed during restoration, but studies have shown that it often follows the forms of the composition, is not homogenously present and droplets of this layer are often found on the paint layer. This suggests that it was artistically applied. As we are currently unsure whether this layer is original, it is not being removed during restoration.

There are two areas where this grey layer appears in droplet form on top of the paint layer. There appear to be grains of black pigment in the droplets on the painted canvas rolls.

fig 51: Detail of the painting in visible light. The white picture frames in the background appear grey because they are covered with a thin, transparent, grey layer.

fig 52: Detail of the paint layer at bottom right and top left on which transparent grey droplets can be seen. These droplets form part of the grey layer found on this work (and many other works by Ensor.

The Skeleton Painter

Material technical footnotes

Art historical footnotes

Citations

Stay connected!

Material technical footnotes

Art historical footnotes

Citations