Evidence matrix
Argument Map
A structured map of attribution arguments, caution points and contextual evidence, with source references and links into the image viewer and comparison lab.
- Claims
- 14
- Groups
- 3
- Mode
- Evidence map
Supports workshop attribution
The technical and conservation study records the painting as Rubens, workshop, c. 1622-1625.
This gives the portal a conservative institutional baseline: the argument does not need to leap directly to autograph Rubens.
Source: KIK-IRPA Technical and art historical study and conservation reportReference: pp. 1-3
The KIK-IRPA report states that the work was reconsidered through new technical imagery and material/stylistic study.
This supports a research-based reassessment rather than a purely documentary reclassification.
Source: KIK-IRPA reportReference: p. 6
The original canvas structure and cusping observations point to an old support history, with preserved original format evidence on several sides.
This does not prove authorship, but it weakens the idea of a straightforward modern or late imitation.
Source: KIK-IRPA reportReference: pp. 13-14, figs. 7-10
The double ground and primer-knife traces are described as compatible with seventeenth-century practice and with examples in Rubens and contemporary artists.
The material layer is therefore aligned with the historical workshop context under discussion.
Source: KIK-IRPA reportReference: pp. 19-21, figs. 17-18
The summary states that no technical findings contradicted authenticity within the Rubens/workshop context.
This is one of the central defensive arguments: absence of contradiction is not proof, but it matters.
Source: Chrościcki / Krzyżagórska-Pisarek, SummaryReference: p. 21
Pentimenti are reported in the hand, jewellery, pearl earring, necklace and head size.
Such changes support a creative variant model more strongly than a mechanical copy model.
Source: Chrościcki / Krzyżagórska-Pisarek, SummaryReference: p. 21; KIK-IRPA figs. 23-26
The Prado exhibition presented the Vienna painting beside the Prado version as Peter Paul Rubens and workshop, c. 1622-25.
This public museum context is a major modern reassessment compared with a simple-copy classification.
Source: CRLB addendum request; Prado exhibition contextReference: 2024-2025
The painting has a long high-level provenance narrative: Marlborough/Blenheim, J. P. Morgan, Metropolitan Museum context, Christie’s, Sotheby’s and Vienna private collection.
Provenance cannot decide authorship, but it explains why the object deserves independent catalogue attention.
Source: Artwork Dossier; Summary; extracted project documentsReference: Dossier pp. 2-4; Summary pp. 8-10
Questions and caution points
The KIK-IRPA report notes that attribution to Rubens and/or his workshop is debated.
The argument map should therefore preserve uncertainty rather than flatten the case into advocacy.
Source: KIK-IRPA reportReference: p. 6
The current stretcher is not original and is later than the seventeenth century.
This is not an attributional objection by itself, but it is important for separating original evidence from later conservation history.
Source: KIK-IRPA reportReference: p. 7, figs. 1-3
Some labels and inscriptions on the stretcher do not fully match known provenance records.
This should be treated as a provenance-control task rather than hidden from the dossier.
Source: KIK-IRPA reportReference: pp. 10-11, fig. 4
Context and neutral evidence
Multiple expert opinions exist across time, ranging from Rubens and workshop to more direct Rubens participation.
The divergence is part of the scholarly history and should be shown transparently.
Source: Artwork Dossier; Project image inventoryReference: Dossier p. 4; image inventory
The KIK-IRPA report itself contains publication-rights restrictions for report images and graphs.
The portal should keep publication status visible for technical figures and report-derived evidence.
Source: KIK-IRPA reportReference: p. 3
The conference record includes conservation, attribution, architectural setting and discussion segments.
This provides a public scholarly frame beyond isolated expert statements.
Source: Warsaw scientific conference recordingReference: timeline: 27:53, 56:47, 2:06:50, 3:37:57