Artists typically sketched out key components of their compositions onto their canvases in graphite or white chalk as guides before they began to apply oil paint. Self-portraits often depict artists at this moment while their canvas sits ready, propped up on the easel in a clever comment on the creation of the finished self-portrait itself. In 1804 a leading figure of French painting, Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres, completed a self-portrait, of which this is a faithful copy. Copying was a typical means for painters to hone their skills. In this case, it was executed by an amateur painter, Laurence-Augustine Jubé Héquet, the wife of a composer and collector who owned Ingres’s original for much of the nineteenth century.
This image cannot be enlarged, viewed at full screen, or downloaded.
Open Access
As part of the Met's Open Access policy, you can freely copy, modify and distribute this image, even for commercial purposes.
API
Public domain data for this object can also be accessed using the Met's Open Access API.
the artist's husband, Gustave Héquet, Paris (until d. 1865; his estate sale, Hôtel Drouot, Paris, February 21, 1866, no lot no., as "Portrait de M. Ingres. Belle copie faite sous la direction du maître par Mme Gustave Héquet, son élève. L'original appartient à S. A. I. prince Napoléon," sold to Ingres); ?Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres, Paris (1866–d. 1867); Mme Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres (Delphine Ramel), Paris (1867–d. 1887); her brother, Albert Ramel, Paris (1887–until 1911); Mme Albert Ramel, Paris (by 1911–at least 1921); her daughter, Mme Emmanuel Riant (née Ramel), Paris; [Wildenstein, Paris and New York, by 1936–37; sold to Rogers]; Grace Rainey Rogers, New York (1937–d. 1943)
Paris. Ecole des Beaux-Arts. "Portraits du Siècle," April 20–?, 1885, no. 156 (as "Ingres à vingt-deux ans, 1802," probably this picture).
Paris. Hôtel de la Chambre Syndicale de la Curiosité et des Beaux-Arts. "Exposition Ingres," May 8–June 5, 1921, no. 6 (as by Ingres, lent by Mme Albert Ramel).
Atlanta Art Association Galleries. "Painting: School of France," September 20–October 4, 1955, no. 4 (as "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man," by Ingres).
Birmingham, Ala. Birmingham Museum of Art. "Painting: School of France," October 16–November 5, 1955, no. 4.
Duluth. Tweed Gallery, University of Minnesota. January 1–31, 1956, no catalogue?
New York. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. "Ingres at the Metropolitan," December 13, 1988–March 19, 1989, no catalogue (as "Copy after Ingres's Self-portrait at the Age of Twenty-four").
Washington. National Gallery of Art. "Portraits by Ingres: Image of an Epoch," May 23–August 22, 1999, no. 147 (as "Copy after Ingres's 1804 Self-Portrait").
New York. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. "Portraits by Ingres: Image of an Epoch," October 5, 1999–January 2, 2000, no. 147.
Paris. Galeries nationales du Grand Palais. "Picasso et les Maîtres," October 8, 2008–February 2, 2009, unnumbered cat. (p. 114; as "Copie d'après l'Autoportrait de 1804 de Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres").
Madrid. Museo Nacional del Prado. "Ingres," November 24, 2015–March 27, 2016, no. 1 (as "Retrato de Ingres joven," by Señora de Gustave Héquet).
Emile Galichon. "Description des dessins de M. Ingres au salon des arts-unis." Gazette des beaux-arts 9 (March 15, 1861), pp. 359–60, calls it a copy of an original in the collection of Prince Napoleon; identifies this painting as a copy more closely related to the 1804 self-portrait than to the 1850 revised version (W17, Musée Condé, Chantilly).
Henri Delaborde. Ingres: Sa vie, ses travaux, sa doctrine. Paris, 1870, p. 251, under no. 129, mentions two reproductions, one of which is this one, of the portrait "Ingres (Jean-Auguste-Dominique), à l'âge de vingt-quatre ans"; claims that they were executed by two of Ingres's students and probably retouched by Ingres in the last years of his life; states that both of the reproductions were owned by Mme Ingres.
Henry Lapauze. Ingres: Sa vie & son oeuvre (1780–1867), d'après des documents inédits. Paris, 1911, p. 48, mentions this reproduction of the 1804 self-portrait as having been retouched by Ingres and owned by Mme Ramel.
Walter Pach. Ingres. New York, 1939, p. 13, ill. (frontispiece).
Josephine L. Allen and Elizabeth E. Gardner. A Concise Catalogue of the European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1954, p. 50.
Georges Wildenstein. The Paintings of J. A. D. Ingres. 1st ed. 1954, pp. 162–63, no. 18, fig. 9, as "Self-Portrait at the Age of Twenty-Four"; notes that it is signed "Ingres Rom"; claims that this portrait remained in Ingres's studio and was retouched by him several times, especially toward the end of his life; believes that this is probably the painting that was exhibited at the École des Beaux-Arts in 1885, under the title "Ingres à vingt-deux ans," no. 156; gives the complete provenance of the work.
Painting: School of France. Exh. cat., Atlanta Art Association Galleries. Atlanta, 1955, unpaginated, no. 4, ill., as by Ingres.
Georges Wildenstein. The Paintings of J. A. D. Ingres. 2nd revised ed. London, 1956, pp. 162–63, no. 18, fig. 9.
Louise Burroughs. "A Portrait of Ingres as a Young Man." Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin (Summer 1960), pp. 1–7, ill., dates it between 1841 and 1851, and revised by a less accomplished hand before 1877; discusses various versions of the Chantilly portrait: the Forestier copy, the Marville photograph, and the Armand Cambon copy of the MMA painting (Musée Ingres, Montauban); publishes the drawings for the cape; comments that the execution indicates that the MMA portrait was made by an artist familiar with Ingres's method, probably a pupil; notes the differences and similarities to the self-portrait at Chantilly, painted in 1804 and reworked in 1850; proposes that the MMA portrait is a blend of Ingres's self-portrait of 1804 and the reworked version of 1850, arguing that the artist was copying Ingres's portrait while it was in transition from its early to its ultimate state; dismisses the possibility that Ingres reworked this portrait; demonstrates that two hands are at work, noting the discrepancies in workmanship, the difference in the texture of the paint, and the brushwork; mentions that x-ray shadowgraphs clearly show that the artist's left hand against his breast is in the same position that it assumes in the Chantilly portrait, and reveals no trace of the present left arm, hand, handkerchief, or canvas; concludes that the original composition of the MMA painting was closer to the Chantilly portrait than to the 1804 version, and that the conspicuous features of the early version must have been added later.
Louise Burroughs. "Un portrait d'Ingres jeune." Bulletin du Musée Ingres no. 8 (January 1961), pp. 3–8, no. 1, ill. on cover [translation of Ref. Burroughs 1960], erroneously reproduces a photograph of an unknown work (fig. 4) as the Forestier copy.
Daniel Ternois. "L'Ingrisme dans le Monde Chronique du Musée: A propos du portrait D'Ingres jeune." Bulletin du Musée Ingres no. 8 (January 1961), note opp. p. 20, comments on two drawings for the Chantilly portrait in the Musée Ingres, which are probably by a pupil of Ingres, confirming the possibility of student participation in some versions of this portrait.
Charles Sterling and Margaretta M. Salinger. French Paintings: A Catalogue of the Collection of The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Vol. 2, XIX Century. New York, 1966, pp. 13–15, ill., note that it bears a fraudulent signature and date (?) at lower left, with illegible letters or numbers; remark that the sketch on the canvas is a portrait of Ingres's friend Gilibert, whose early portrait of him (W15; Musée Ingres, Montauban) was returned to Ingres's studio for cleaning and restoration when Gilibert died in 1850; propose that Ingres had the idea of including the sketch of the Gilibert portrait in the empty canvas in his own portrait, a change recorded in the Marville photograph and included here but deleted in the final state of the Chantilly painting.
Ettore Camesasca inL'opera completa di Ingres. Milan, 1968, p. 88, no. 17b, ill., calls it a replica of the 1804 self-portrait by a student of Ingres; notes that it was in Ingres's studio, where he retouched it numerous times.
Daniel Ternois. Ingres. Milan, 1980, p. 174, no. 20, ill., calls it a studio copy; states that it was retouched by Ingres in the last years of his life.
Gaëtan Picon. Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres. 2nd ed. [1st ed. 1967]. New York, 1980, p. 8, ill. [1st edition has different page numbers], states that it comes closer to the first state as seen in the Forestier copy and the Marville photograph, except that the cloak is absent.
John L. Connolly Jr. "Napoleon and the Age of Gold: A Bicentennial Celebration of the Birth of J. A. D. Ingres." The Consortium of Revolutionary Europe, 1750–1850: Proceedings, vol. 2. Ed. John L. Connolly Jr., Donald D. Horward, and Harold T. Parker. Vol. 2, Athens, Ga., 1980, pp. 52–53, 62 n. 2, fig. I [see Ref. Tinterow 1999].
Uwe Fleckner. "Die Kunst des Porträts im Werk von Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres." Abbild und Abstraktion. Mainz, 1995, p. 25.
Katharine Baetjer. European Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art by Artists Born Before 1865: A Summary Catalogue. New York, 1995, p. 402, ill.
Gary Tinterow inPortraits by Ingres: Image of an Epoch. Ed. Gary Tinterow and Philip Conisbee. Exh. cat., The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1999, pp. 12, 36, 74, 454–59, 462, 499, 516 n. 18, no. 147, ill. (color), dates it about 1850–60; believes that it was executed under the supervision of Ingres by one of his pupils, perhaps Madame Gustave Héquet; states that Ingres probably did not acquire this painting until 1866; proposes that before Ingres's death in 1867, this work was enlarged at the bottom and the canvas with Gilibert was painted in, but that these changes were made by a different hand, as they are inferior in technique; remarks that the second artist was working from the Forestier copy or the Marville photograph, since only those two works contain the Gilibert sketch and the extended left arm; comments on Bertin's hypothesis [see Ref. Bertin 1999] concluding that if the MMA portrait is the one sold at the Hôtel Drouot, February 21, 1866, then it was neither ordered by Ingres nor given to him as a gift, but that it was bought by Ingres or his wife sometime before 1870 when Delaborde [see Ref. Delaborde 1870] records it as in the collection of Mme Ingres; expands on Delaborde's comment that Mme Ingres had two copies of the original portrait, stating that the second copy was probably made by Atala Varcollier (née Stamaty) and was modelled on the Chantilly painting rather than on the earlier portrait.
Éric Bertin inPortraits by Ingres: Image of an Epoch. Ed. Gary Tinterow and Philip Conisbee. Exh. cat., The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 1999, p. 457 n. 2 [see Ref. Hôtel Drouot 1866], suggests that it may be the work described in the Hôtel Drouot sale catalogue of February 21, 1866.
Gary Tinterow, Charlotte Hale, and Eric Bertin. "'Portraits by Ingres: Image of an Epoch': Reflections, Technical Observations, Addenda, and Corrigenda." Metropolitan Museum Journal 35 (2000), p. 217, no. 147, as "Copy after Ingres's 1804 Self-Portrait"; provide biographical information on the artist.
Vincent Pomarède inIngres. Ed. Vincent Pomarède and Carlos G. Navarro. Exh. cat., Museo Nacional del Prado. Madrid, 2015, p. 120, no. 1, ill. p. 121 (color).
Andrew Carrington Shelton. "Exhibition Review of 'Ingres: L'Artiste et ses princes (Ingres: The Artists and His Princes)'." Nineteenth-Century Art Worldwide 22 (Autumn 2023), pp. 310, 318 n. 9, fig. 11 (color)
[https://www.19thc-artworldwide.org/autumn23/shelton-reviews-ingres-l-artiste-et-ses-princes], as attributed to Madame Gustave Héquet; calls it "Self-Portrait at the Age of Twenty-four by Ingres".
This painting is a version, with several significant changes, of Ingres's self-portrait of 1804, exhibited at the Salon of 1806. The 1804 portrait is known from a copy by Julie Forestier (private collection, Europe) of 1807 and a photograph known as the Marville print (private collection) of about 1850. Most scholars agree that the 1804 portrait was reworked in 1850 and is the painting now in the Musée Condé, Chantilly (W17). The Met's painting, which combines elements from both the 1804 and the Chantilly portrait, was made between 1850 and 1860 under Ingres's supervision by one of his pupils, probably Madame Gustave Héquet. Early sources note that Ingres retouched the portrait himself; however, it appears that he could not have acquired the portrait until 1866, when it was sold at the Hôtel Drouot in the estate sale of M. Héquet. For an extensive discussion of the history and various versions of this composition, see Burroughs 1960 and Tinterow 1999.
A copy of The Met's portrait by Armand Cambon of 1874–77 is in the Musée Ingres, Montauban. However, this work is oval and does not have the sketch on the canvas, an indication that it was copied before the changes were made to The Met's painting.
A copy by Atala Varcollier of the self-portrait at Chantilly was probably sold at the Hôtel Drouot, Paris, March 4, 1935, no. 62 (see Tinterow 1999); it was later sold at the Hôtel Drouot, Paris, November 15, 1975, no. 110, ill.
A further, unidentified copy of the composition is reproduced as fig. 4 in Burroughs 1961 (Bulletin du Musée Ingres), incorrectly identified as the Forestier copy.
Camille Pissarro (French, Charlotte Amalie, Saint Thomas 1830–1903 Paris)
1874
Resources for Research
The Met's Libraries and Research Centers provide unparalleled resources for research and welcome an international community of students and scholars.
The Met Collection API is where all makers, creators, researchers, and dreamers can connect to the most up-to-date data and public domain images for The Met collection. Open Access data and public domain images are available for unrestricted commercial and noncommercial use without permission or fee.
Feedback
We continue to research and examine historical and cultural context for objects in The Met collection. If you have comments or questions about this object record, please complete and submit this form. The Museum looks forward to receiving your comments.
