A seguinte dissertação de mestrado está livremente acessível aqui:
Hugh Hudson, Re-examining Van Eyck: a New Analysis of the Ince Hall Virgin and Child, Melbourne, The University of Melbourne, 2001.
The Ince Hall Virgin and child is a painting of the Virgin and Child in an interior that was attributed to Jan van Eyck by the leading historians of early Netherlandish art from 1854 to 1956. Between 1956 and 1959 the work was subject to a technical and art historical analysis in Europe, in the re-classification of the work as a copy by a follower of Van Eyck, and possibly a forgery. Subsequently, a number of art historians have suggested that not even the composition of the work is Eyckian, and that the work is a pastiche based on Van Eyck’s paintings. Nevertheless, some authors have doubted the arguments for these reattributions. Some authors maintain the attributions to Van Eyck, and others suggest that the work may be a copy. This thesis is the first comprehensive critical reappraisal of the scientific and art historical analysis to be conducted.
In the first chapter it examines the provenance and bibliography of the work.
In the second chapter it examines published and unpublished documents relating to the technical analysis found in Melbourne, Brussels, London and Amsterdam, which have been brought together for the first time. It also contains an interpretation of the work’s infrared reflectography that was produced, for the first time, for this thesis. It is argued that, contrary to the 1950's analysis, there is no technical impediment to an attribution of the work to Van Eyck. Furthermore, technical analysis reveals numerous correspondences to Van Eyck’s works, in the pigments, paint layer structures, underdrawing style and pentimenti.
In the third chapter the relationship of the execution, composition and iconography to Van Eyck’s paintings is discussed. It is argued that the execution, composition and iconography are closely related to Van Eyck’s works.
In the fourth chapter the attribution of the work as an original painting of Van Eyck, a copy, a pastiche or a forgery is discussed. It is concluded that the balance of the available evidence suggests the attribution of the work to Van Eyck, or his studio, is justifiable. The possibility that the work is a free copy is not excluded, but is undermined by the numerous correspondences to Van Eyck’s materials and technique and its relationship to the versions of the composition by other artists.