﻿532 
  ANNUAL 
  REPORT 
  SMITHSONIAN 
  INSTITUTION, 
  1921 
  

  

  may 
  show 
  identical 
  treatment 
  or 
  some 
  distinct 
  differences 
  due 
  to 
  

   changes 
  in 
  technique 
  or 
  point 
  of 
  view. 
  Generally 
  speaking, 
  an 
  

   artist's 
  early 
  work 
  lacks 
  the 
  emphasis 
  or 
  sharply 
  characteristic 
  traits 
  

   of 
  his 
  mature 
  style. 
  Or 
  two 
  distinctly 
  characteristic 
  styles 
  may 
  be 
  

   found 
  in 
  the 
  mature 
  work 
  of 
  the 
  same 
  career. 
  Rembrandt 
  comes 
  to 
  

   mind 
  and 
  Velasquez. 
  In 
  the 
  first 
  the 
  greater 
  freedom 
  of 
  his 
  later 
  

   years 
  shows 
  in 
  the 
  greater 
  liberties 
  he 
  has 
  taken 
  with 
  his 
  brushes, 
  

   making 
  one 
  complex 
  stroke 
  perform 
  rapidly 
  that 
  which 
  he 
  accom- 
  

   plished 
  before 
  with 
  several 
  more 
  deliberate 
  strokes. 
  Velasquez, 
  on 
  

   the 
  other 
  hand, 
  seems 
  to 
  have 
  changed 
  his 
  whole 
  method, 
  leaving 
  a 
  

   rather 
  dense, 
  woll-prepared 
  underpainting 
  for 
  a 
  niptliod 
  composed 
  

   chiefly 
  of 
  very 
  thin 
  glazes. 
  An 
  experimental 
  artist 
  like 
  Rembrandt 
  

   must 
  ahva3"s 
  be 
  considered 
  dangerous 
  to 
  pigeonhole, 
  since 
  he 
  may 
  

   paint 
  oiie 
  portrait 
  entirely 
  in 
  glazes 
  and 
  then 
  another 
  with 
  heavy 
  

   coats 
  of 
  pigment, 
  depending 
  on 
  his 
  interest 
  at 
  the 
  moment 
  and 
  his 
  

   particular 
  punpose. 
  

  

  Another 
  danger 
  in 
  this 
  study 
  with 
  X-ray 
  films 
  is 
  the 
  assumption 
  

   tliat 
  techniques 
  which 
  seem 
  similar 
  are 
  necessarily 
  the 
  product 
  of 
  

   the 
  same 
  artist. 
  The 
  early 
  works 
  of 
  Raphael 
  and 
  of 
  Perugino, 
  

   whom 
  Raphael 
  influenced, 
  show 
  in 
  the 
  cases 
  of 
  documented 
  examples 
  

   that 
  the 
  two 
  painted 
  by 
  the 
  same 
  method 
  and 
  that 
  they 
  differed 
  

   chiefly 
  in 
  their 
  spiritual 
  and 
  less 
  tangible 
  characteristics, 
  revealed 
  

   by 
  the 
  X 
  ray 
  vaguely 
  and 
  circumstantially. 
  Many 
  early 
  Flemish 
  

   works 
  are 
  so 
  similar 
  in 
  method 
  that 
  they 
  m.ght 
  seem 
  identical 
  in 
  the 
  

   X-ray 
  film 
  had 
  not 
  the 
  experimenter 
  grown 
  accustomed 
  to 
  minute 
  

   differences. 
  One 
  looks 
  for 
  general 
  similarities 
  to 
  establish 
  the 
  origins 
  

   and 
  background 
  of 
  an 
  artist 
  and 
  for 
  precise 
  differences, 
  consistently 
  

   found, 
  to 
  establish 
  individualities. 
  

  

  Just 
  what 
  these 
  differences 
  are 
  can 
  best 
  be 
  described 
  by 
  reference 
  

   to 
  a 
  common 
  ground 
  of 
  experience. 
  They 
  are, 
  like 
  the 
  character- 
  

   istics 
  of 
  handwriting, 
  developed 
  by 
  habit. 
  It 
  becomes 
  natural 
  for 
  

   some 
  one 
  to 
  make 
  capital 
  L's 
  with 
  a 
  flowing 
  line 
  and 
  to 
  join 
  some 
  

   letters 
  with 
  a 
  loop 
  ; 
  he 
  may 
  also 
  cross 
  t's 
  with 
  a 
  curving 
  line. 
  An- 
  

   other 
  individual 
  may 
  possibl}'^ 
  make 
  the 
  same 
  L's 
  and 
  cross 
  t's 
  the 
  

   same 
  way. 
  But 
  the 
  chances 
  are 
  he 
  will 
  not 
  loop 
  the 
  same 
  connections 
  

   or 
  do 
  other 
  things 
  to 
  exactly 
  the 
  same 
  degree 
  as 
  the 
  first. 
  No 
  one 
  

   difference 
  makes 
  us 
  sure 
  the 
  two 
  are 
  different 
  individuals, 
  but 
  a 
  covi- 
  

   hination 
  of 
  differences 
  and 
  perhaps 
  a 
  few 
  resemblances 
  does. 
  In 
  

   painting, 
  the 
  methods 
  of 
  handling 
  high 
  lights, 
  outlines, 
  backgrounds, 
  

   areas 
  of 
  flat 
  colors, 
  corrections, 
  folds, 
  depths, 
  or 
  any 
  particular 
  detail 
  

   often 
  repeated, 
  such 
  as 
  finger 
  nails, 
  nostrils, 
  eyelids, 
  all 
  combine 
  to 
  

   indicate 
  individuality 
  of 
  workmanship. 
  

  

  Thus 
  confronted 
  by 
  various 
  possibilities 
  and 
  probabilities, 
  the 
  ex- 
  

   perimenter 
  concludes 
  that 
  the 
  X 
  ray 
  is 
  not 
  necessarily 
  a 
  court 
  of 
  final 
  

  

  