Frans Hals @ The National Gallery, London

Overall I think the Wallace Collection did it better (in terms of display and information) when it presented Frans Hals’ male portraits in 2021–2022. However, what this exhibition does do well is show Frans Hals doing Van Gogh and Frans Hals doing Gainsborough — before they were even a thing! We also see lots of his trademark portrait turning to face us leaning on the back of a chair and his unique caught in the act of laughing, open mouthed. Like Tate Modern, this exhibition suffers from somewhat churlish information cards, quick to point out all the wrongs and less to inform — although these points, in themselves, are valid. We just don’t really learn very much about him or his technique — or even what he was trying to achieve.

But let the art and the artist speak for themselves.

There are ruffs everywhere (French Three Musketeers films take notes copiously here); wild combinations of black velvet upon black silks, and ornately patterned, banded black silks; detailed lace and fragile translucent collars — all showing the painter’s virtuosity. There are also heaps of personality as his sitter’s faces jump out from the canvas, as well as shadows (though these were hard to see due to poor lighting in the galleries).

For example, it was hard to see the shimmering taffeta of Jasper Schade, 1665. Or the shadows (and sometimes trees) behind this and other sitters purely due to glary light. The paintings generally looked quite muddy due to a mixture of glare and gloom, masking details, which was a shame — for these are brilliant works.

What this exhibition did do was cause me to completely evaluate this portrait. Could be a Gypsy Girl or Portrait of a Young Woman (c.1625). The information card speculates that because she’s showing a lot of cleavage and teeth (open mouths were very immodest) she’s potentially a sex worker, even an advert for a potential client. Portraits were displayed at brothels to be picked from by the buyers. Or if she is Roma then she’s being shown in an othered and exoticised capacity, or freedom to be who she is perhaps. Though how she’s dressed and behaving is not what society expects.

On the other hand if the sex worker explanation is true, then it’s hideous, as looking again this is very much a young girl, a teenager, a child aping womanhood. From the fullness of her cheeks, she’s really young and childish — yet is being pushed into adulthood and adult ways of being. Even her very prominent decolletage may be forced and faked. It’s grim as what we’re seeing is a child, a teenager (if that) for sale. Her shy liveliness is childish too, and it’s all incredibly sad and poignant, particularly when placed next to a ‘fisher child’ regarded as the epitome of folk innocence.

This is Hals gift — he sees people and helps us to see them too. Such as Catharina Pietersdr Hooft and her nurse (c.1619–20). Splendidly imperious and independent, whilst the focus is on the luxurious dress of the child, we also see the charm and love of her very patient nurse. Although it’s hard to tell, she’s three here and is the much longed for child of later age parents.

‘Banquet of the Officers of the St George Civic Guard’, (1616) was superb for the amount of detail, as well as the swagger. Truly it records a moment in time. The poses, the eye contact, the conversations, the ruffs, the lemon juice being squeezed onto oysters, the crab, the feasting — the strange upside-down glass!

Willem van Heythuysen posing with a sword (c.1625–30) was extraordinary, for the swooning profusion of pink roses, the full length, the elegantly positioned feet with their enormous rosettes. I don’t really associate Frans Hals with full length portraits; it was interesting to see this different style from the artist.

Family group in a landscape (c.1645–48) was extraordinary for its inclusion of a black child, as well as the framing. Husband and wife gaze absorbed at each other, lovingly, tenderly. Their daughter looks at the rest of the family, making a grand statement with her dress and fan. Their son perhaps looks at us, though he seems to be looking more into the distance, dreaming, thinking. Admire the lace, the stupendous bucket boots, the idyll, how father and son mimic each other in dress, especially footwear.

But the black child looks steadily at us, the viewers. Who is he? We’re left uncertain as the bringing in of enslaved people was legally forbidden within the Dutch Republic, so he could be still be enslaved (illegally), a servant , an apprentice — or part of the family. His youth is touching and we’re left wondering about him, as he slightly tries to step back and hide, out of view, a little hesitant and shy. Not clear in this version, but it is there is the small lion-like dog. Is the child ornamental like the dog or actual family within the landscape?

Married couple in a landscape (1622) is Frans Hals’ Gainsborough moment! The couple are at ease with each other, relaxed, playful and in an idyll, with all the couples processing in the background. It’s delightful — she has his heart we can see; and enjoy the light hand placed on his shoulder, the togetherness and respect and enjoyment. I couldn’t quite believe what I was seeing as it was so 18th century in its composition. Is this the Marriage Portrait of Isaac Massa and Beatrix van der Laen?

I loved too, this argumentative man clutching an ass’s jawbone and his wild hair and beard. Then you see a twinning moment as a real life person with the same hair admires the portrait! Ethical paintings, moral paintings were popular — often portraying foolishness or innocence. Then there was a bizarre painting (comic) of a popular actor with a fish!

Equally stunning was The Meagre Company (1637) for the poses, the shoes and the swagger. Though this was finished off by another artist after Hals left it unfinished. The individuality of each person, the matching of sash to curtain, the buff coat, the elegance and extravagance of the sashes. It’s wonderful.

There is also his Reynolds moment with a tumbling family group within a landscape (c.1645–50). Again delightful for the interactions of the generations and the naturalness of the portrayals of the children. It’s very tender, whilst making serious millage in the display of lace and ruffs.

Disappointingly ‘young man holding a skull’ (c.1626–28) is definitely not Hamlet, more a reflection on life, death, eternity, age and spirituality. But I want it to be, not not to be! The model appears in several paintings. Enjoy here Hals light and deft touch with feather work. Also how you can, literally, count every hair on his head. This is a theme which appears again and again — Hals is exceptional at creating textures — hair, moustaches, clothing.

Maybe this is meant to have a similar feel to portrait of a man holding a skull (1611). I love how Hals creates gravitas and status through bulk — his men look hearty with extended bellies, his women pregnant and overflowing. It’s a very different look to contemporary Western culture. Also the glistening material with its interplay of light and shadow slithering all the way up the sleeves.

Ofcourse there is the Laughing Cavalier (1624) (aka the wonderfully named Tieleman Roosterman), who isn’t actually laughing, but as I recalled from the superior Wallace Collection exhibition, a bachelor in search of love. This may be a commission from the eve of his marriage to Catharina Brugsmans. The pose alone tells us that he is an unmarried man. More Mr Would Like To Meet. He is also (literally) wearing his heart on his sleeve, due to the embroidered motifs. I love the hat, the flicked up debonair moustache, his slightly shy-looking expression. The lace sleeve!!!

And then he did Van Gogh! His ‘Man in a Slouch Hat’ c.1660 is a portrait of a much looser style, but very moving. If you looked in the right hand corner you could where Hals had let the paint run — the drips are still there!

In contrast, there is a portrait of a woman (possibly Marie Larp) who is offering her heart and her love to her husband. Yet look at the gold embroidery! The 3-D quality of Hals work is amazing. In a nice touch the National Gallery exhibition reunited portraits of husbands and wives, having been in separate collections for years.

This also makes more sense — the label was slightly wrong. These are the Regents of the Old Men’s Almhouse (c. 1668). Black upon black with flashes of slashed sleeves, shirts, collars and swaggering bucket boots — and a red stocking. (The exhibition led me to think that age had a different meaning in the 17th century!)

I still love the portrait of a Man in Grey from the late 1660s. It’s stunning.

I end with one of Hals later pieces — another portrait of a young woman (c.1655–60), but charmingly done. He really captures her gentleness and humility.

Enjoyed reading this article?! Support my writing at: https://ko-fi.com/susanadventuresinculture