Art Throb #24: Smiling Girl, a Courtesan, Holding an Obscene Image (1625), by Gerrit van Honthorst (1592-1656)

Gerrit (Gerard) van Honthorst (1590–1656), Smiling Girl, a Courtesan, Holding an Obscene Image (1625) 
Oil on canvas,  32 x 25 1/4 in. (81.3 x 64.1 cm)
Current location: Saint Louis Art Museum, Saint Louis, Missouri, United States

They say prostitution is the oldest profession but Adam was a gardener, wasn't he? In any case, this young lady is not a prostitute but a courtesan, the difference being, according to the definition here, that courtesans were 'basically mistresses... supported by wealthy men who provided them with anything they could ever want. Many such women lived in a more comfortable way then some of the bourgoisie.'

While one would presume a streetwalker to be a woman of the world who has perhaps seen it all, this courtesan's smile, possibly caught mid-giggle, suggests she finds the miniature she's holding amusing and embarrassing – testament, perhaps, to her youth. Although obviously physically developed she still looks quite young and is described as a 'girl' in the title, after all.

The title, too, says the image she is holding is 'obscene'. To our 21st Century eyes it appears tame – tasteful, even: a fleshy nude seated with her back to the viewer in an outdoor environment, looks over her shoulder at us as if she's been called away from reading her book. While attitudes change over the years - what's more shocking to modern audiences is the apparently young age of the courtesan – any obscenity in its time is by definition shocking. But perhaps what's really embarrassing the young girl is not so much the nude but where her finger is pointing – at the inscription underneath it, which is the clue to the function of the image. Not being able to view the painting in the flesh - it's in Missouri – I'm unable to make out what it says, although according to the Saint Louis Art Museum it says (presumably in Dutch) 'Who can tell my backside from behind.' What this 'obscene' miniature is therefore, is a sort of 'advertisement' for a prostitute who is in between clients and therefore available. A business card.

It's possible the young girl will not have seen such an image before – and certainly, young girls will laugh at anything even slightly risqué (I know I always did). Yet she's a courtesan – in a red dress, no less – which suggests knowledge of the ways of the world. Even without us being told in the title, the parallel being drawn between the smiling girl and the tiny nude is a strong clue as to her own profession, which was also a recurring subject for Caravaggio (1571-1610), by whom the painter of this portrait, Gerrit van Honthorst (1592-1656), was strongly influenced. And it's not hard to perceive that influence: a vivid, precise depiction of a subject in an informal pose, the strong contrast between light and dark (chiaroscuro) resulting in a luminescent skin tone. Like Caravaggio, this artist too painted ordinary people (i.e. not just aristocrats or Biblical figures). The result is a portrait that is no ordinary 'portrait' in the standard sense. This naturalistic painting is not posed but a fleeting everyday moment that has been captured. As such, it anticipates not just impressionism, but photography.

Even without the 'painting within the painting' device, there is much to engage the viewer here – the young girl herself is captivating. But I'm left with a lot of questions that I guess can't be answered. Like, who is this girl, what is her name? How old was she? Was she a common prostitute before she became a courtesan? How did the artist know her? Had he slept with her? Was she his courtesan?

When it came to the sitting, what decisions did the artist make? How did he arrive at that moment? Was she originally supposed to have sat for the portrait another way? What made him decide to give her the miniature? Was it to help her relax, or to see what her reaction would be? And why did he decide to paint this in the first place? Presumably, once he found the expression he wanted she had to hold it for a long time. Maybe that is why she's laughing – perhaps she was an inexperienced artist's model and laughed just because of the absurdity of the moment.

Then there's the tiny miniature itself. Is the woman in that a real model too, or a copy of an existing portrait? And I can't help wondering: is she the young girl too? Is the young courtesan laughing in self-recognition? (Lacan would have had a field day). 'Who can tell my backside from behind': the bottom cleavage of the woman in the miniature is as prominent as the courtesan's own very obvious décolletage. Do they belong to the same person?

This would be a great theory were it not for the ring on the third finger of the courtesan's left hand. Is it a wedding ring? Is she married or betrothed? Is she not a courtesan at all, merely modelling one? Honthorst's paintings depict people with similar face-types. Perhaps she is the relative of one of his other models, and featured in other works too.

It's unclear to me too who would have bought a painting like this and where they would have hung it (one would need to study its provenance). I imagine it's not the sort of thing that would have been hung in a house or a church. Questions, questions... This painting elicits so many it's worthy of having a Girl with a Pearl Earring narrative constructed around it. Now in a museum, it's available for many to see in the flesh. I've seen Vermeer's Girl with a Pearl Earring. Maybe one day I'll be lucky enough to see this wonderful portrait too.

Comments

Popular Posts