Frans Hals, Family Group

Family Group in Landscape is on show as part of the Frans Hals exhibition at the National Gallery in London. The painting is remarkable, not least because of the inclusion of a black youth in the family group.

I will post a separate review of the exhibitions, which is worth a look if you are in London anytime until 21 January 2024. We don't see enough of the Dutch classics so this is a real treat.

The reason I selected this painting to discuss is threefold:

1. It is a good example of a Hals group study and, unlike many of his other groups, does not have a military theme
2. Because of the rare inclusion of person of color in the painting
3. To show why we should question what the art experts say.

When I look at art in exhibitions, I like to take my time to try to understand what the work is about before I read the info panel invariably provided. The reason for this is that I like to make my own mind up before my view is influenced by that of the curator and art expert. In this case I was particularly glad that I did, because several remarks in the panel are questionable.

How can I challenge views given by people who know much more about art than I do? The answer is simple. Everything we need to know about a painting is locked in the painting itself. Every thought, every feeling, every prejudice, everything the artist saw and chose to include is there in the brush strokes. Even the things that the artist didn't choose but unconsciously included are there. We can often learn something by reading curatorial comments which can add to our knowledge and enjoyment of a work but we should equally question what we read and ask ourselves if this is what we understand from our own observations. Surely half the fun in looking at art is working out what it all means?

What can we see then, if we look up at this painting? There is a group of five people, obviously a family grouping. We don’t know who the people are but can guess that they comprise a mother and father with a son and daughter. We might also guess that the fifth person is a servant, assuming they are not a member of the family. We might assume they would not be a family member as the other four are all white.

If we look again we may see another clue. The four family members are standing together in a row. The fifth person in the group is standing a little back from the other four. He is also standing in shadow in contrast with the other four. Each of the four family members have faces and clothing detail picked out in brighter light. In this instance the artist’s skill at portraying light and shadow with oil paint is used to depict status and highlight what he, or more particularly his paying customer, considers important.

Reading the information panel will inform us that slavery was illegal on Dutch soil.

If, however, the boy (and/or his parents) was abducted from his home and brought to The Netherlands against his will, then he was for all practical purposes held in slavery. We can of course only speculate.

The style of dress doesn’t help us much. The family are dressed in their best outfits as one might expect from a rare and very costly family portrait. Again, the painting suggests a subordinate position for the black boy who is dressed in a subdued brown outfit which, though smart, is not nearly as sumptuous as the other four. The undoubted quality of the clothing reflect the presumed wealth and status of the family and that would have included any servant.

The panel also mentions the direction each person is looking. It says that both boys are looking directly at the viewer. A closer inspection reveals that this is not true. The white boy is looking slightly to the left of the viewer. This means that the only person looking directly at us is the black boy. Why did Hals do this? It can hardly have been part of the commission, whereas showing the parents to be a loving couple probably was. Hence the man and the woman are gazing at each other as the info panel says.

I wonder if there is a specific reason why he is the only person looking at the viewer. Again we can only speculate. Perhaps Hals shared some level of sympathy with the boy appearing as a kind of fashion accessory to the family group. Perhaps the boy is trying to tell us something or wants to tell the artist. Perhaps the sympathetic treatment is a means of demonstrating that the family were benevolent or trend setting or otherwise virtuous. Some of the first Africans to be taken to Europe in the modern era were brought here to learn Christianity. Could this be the explanation? We may never know.

There are of course other possible explanations. Perhaps the boy is an orphan who has been adopted by the family. Could he have been a sailor boy left in a Dutch port and taken in by the father who might have seen him lost in a strange city?

What do you think? How do you think the artist (and the curator) have treated the boy? Historical artwork collections like this seldom include black people and when the do, they are generally servants, as in this case. How should art museums respond to this? Do you agree with the information panel that the artist has treated the young man with dignity and respect or is this the optimist response of a museum struggling to find positive images of black people in history?

Are there other explanations? Can you see any clues that I have missed?

I would love to know your views. Please share them by commenting below. What do you see when you look up at artworks like this?

Why Looking up at art?

There is more than one way of seeing art and appreciating artistic work. The important thing to consider is what we think and why, regardless of what the art experts tell us. Here are some other articles in the series:

• Looking up at art one: Constable
• Looking up at art two: Bacon
• Looking up at art three: Lichtenstein
• Looking up at art four: Marion Patrick

More articles about Art by Ray Taylor

Thanks for reading