Art Stories - Blog
Art Stories - Blog
Konstantinos Volanakis: The Unknown Side of His Work – Technical Knowledge, the Studio, Materials, and the Need for a Meaningful Reassessment
The study of Konstantinos Volanakis' work has long faced a significant challenge: although the artist enjoys immense fame, this recognition has not always been accompanied by an equally profound understanding of his actual body of work. His status as Greece's foremost marine painter is unquestioned; however, a genuine appreciation of his artistic achievement requires far more than general historical references, exhibition catalogues, and aesthetic judgments.
A work of art is not merely the image perceived by the viewer. It is a complex object encompassing the artist's technique, the materials employed, the preparation of the support, the working process, revisions, repetitions, the studio environment, and the full range of circumstances under which it was created.
In the case of Volanakis, this need is particularly pressing, as much of the existing research has yet to adequately address the practical and technical aspects of his painting.
The later years of Volanakis' life constitute one of the most problematic chapters of his artistic career. This period has frequently been characterized as one of decline—or even referred to as his "dark period." Such descriptions, however, require considerable caution.
Art history cannot judge an entire period solely on the basis of its commercial value or by comparing it with the artist's greatest creative achievements. An artist's late production must be evaluated within the actual circumstances of his life, his financial situation, his studio practice, and the people who surrounded him.
Particularly after returning to Greece, Volanakis worked in an environment very different from that of Munich. His Athens studio, his relationship with Piraeus, his interaction with students, and the necessity of producing works created a reality that deserves careful and detailed study.
It is therefore impossible to regard all works from this period as uniformly inferior or questionable. Each painting must be examined individually.
One of the most important issues concerns distinguishing works executed entirely by Volanakis himself from those connected with his studio, students, or assistants.
Throughout nearly all major artistic traditions of the nineteenth century, studio practice was standard. Great painters rarely worked in complete isolation. Students trained alongside them by copying compositions, studying techniques, and often participating in the production of paintings.
In Volanakis' case, his pupils represent an important chapter that still requires serious and systematic research.
There are works of mediocre or modest quality that may nevertheless originate from the studio and may be entirely authentic in terms of provenance. Conversely, the high quality of a painting alone does not prove that it was executed exclusively by the master's own hand.
Authenticity is not determined solely by appearance. It must be established through the totality of the available evidence.
To understand a painter such as Volanakis, one must understand the physical nature of his work.
Stretchers, wooden panels, paper supports, preparatory sketches, and underdrawings all constitute valuable sources of information.
The construction of a stretcher, the quality of the wood, the preparation of the surface, the brushwork, and the application of paint can reveal evidence that remains invisible to the casual observer.
Volanakis' paintings must be studied through their material substance.
Pigments, earth colors, oils, linseed oil, and protective coatings all form part of the identity of each work.
Over time, linseed oil oxidizes and alters the behavior of pigments. Surfaces darken, transparencies change, and the painting's original appearance may differ significantly from what we see today.
Particular attention should also be given to the use of shellac. When employed as an isolating or protective coating, shellac naturally yellows over time. This transformation affects the appearance of the painting while simultaneously becoming part of its historical evolution.
Once shellac has oxidized and integrated into the paint surface, its removal is far from straightforward. It is not merely an "old varnish" but a material that has become intertwined with the visual character of the artwork itself.
An important aspect of studying Volanakis is understanding his practice of reworking paintings.
Many works throughout the history of painting were not created in a single stage. Artists often erased compositions, covered sections, or reused the same canvas for an entirely new work.
As a result, a single painting may contain more than one distinct creative phase.
Revisions, alterations, and corrections should not be regarded as weaknesses. On the contrary, they reveal the artist's creative process and methods of working.
Modern examination technologies can play a crucial role in uncovering these hidden layers, provided they are used by specialists who possess a genuine understanding of the practice of painting.
Volanakis produced numerous compositions centered on recurring themes: ships, harbors, seascapes, naval scenes, and moments from everyday life along the Greek coastline.
These repeated compositions present a particular challenge for research.
The simple similarity between two paintings is insufficient for attribution. A proper assessment requires knowledge of the artist's pictorial language, brushwork, compositional structure, materials, and overall technical practice.
The art market often relies on rapid judgments, whereas scholarly evaluation demands time, experience, and careful comparison among many works.
The work of an important artist cannot be approached superficially.
An art historian requires historical expertise.
A conservator requires technical expertise.
An attribution specialist requires direct experience with authentic works.
A museum curator bears responsibility toward historical truth.
The absence of practical experience can lead to serious mistakes: incorrect attributions, unjustified rejections, or the acceptance of works that have not been adequately examined.
It is unacceptable for a country with such a profound cultural heritage, outstanding museums, centuries of history, and an internationally recognized art market to continue tolerating the unchecked influence of self-proclaimed experts and self-appointed authorities.
Individuals who have no genuine relationship with an artist's work, no firsthand understanding of the painting process, and no meaningful familiarity with the artworks themselves presume to issue judgments and determine the fate of works of immeasurable cultural and economic value.
Knowledge of an artist cannot be acquired from a few books, photographs, or theoretical references alone. No one who has not studied the works firsthand—who has not examined the preparation of the canvas, the materials, the technique, the brushwork, the drawings, preparatory studies, variations, and the overall evolution of an artist's style—can legitimately present themselves as an authority.
True expertise demands years of experience, a trained eye, direct engagement with thousands of works of art, and a profound understanding of artistic practice. Everything else is merely noise, public relations, and a dangerous illusion of expertise.
It is time to move beyond this culture of mediocrity that has allowed individuals without genuine qualifications to occupy positions that should belong to knowledge, rigorous research, and true meritocracy.
The case of Konstantinos Volanakis highlights a broader issue within the Greek art world. Greece possesses an exceptional artistic heritage, yet its management and interpretation are not always accompanied by the level of specialized expertise they require.
Unfortunately, there are professionals who lack the necessary practical experience, as well as sufficient technical, historical, and biographical knowledge of the artists they are called upon to evaluate. This can result in serious errors—sometimes not through bad faith, but through insufficient knowledge, haste, inexperience, or a misunderstanding of the subject itself.
The work of a great artist demands respect, careful study, and profound knowledge. A signature, reputation, or market value alone is not enough. One must possess the ability to read the artwork itself: its surface, its material substance, its color, the painter's hand, and the history concealed within it.
Only in this way can true justice be done to an artist such as Konstantinos Volanakis
Achilleas Nikolaos Tsantilis, Art Historian
