Biography | Art
The Life and Work of Leo Jordaens
Short biography of a very talented but highly underrated artist
To most people Leo Jordaens is unknown. The name may sound familiar, but that’s only the Jordaens part — some sources claim that he was a distant relative of the renowned Jacob Jordaens, but I cannot confirm nor deny this. I first heard about Leo back in the early nineties, when I worked as a framer in Antwerp, Belgium — I must have framed a few dozen of Jordaens’ paintings.
Around 1996 I was able to buy one of his paintings for a mere 200 Belgian francs (that’s less than $6) at a public auction — this was the start of my collection. Intrigued by the magnificent work, I wanted to learn more about its creator, but apart from a few lines in reference books, there was little known about him. That’s when I decided to gather as much information about him as I could in order to write down his life story, giving him the attention and place in art history he deserved.
The first piece of my collection cost less than $6.
I soon realized that it was hard to get reliable information as he appeared to be quite an interesting character and most stories about him were probably exaggerated, most likely to increase the value of his work. Nevertheless I managed to create a more or less realistic image of Leo Jordaens, based on newspaper articles and testimonies from relatives, friends, acquaintances and customers — most stories contain many similarities, so I can only assume these come close to the truth.
The life of Leo Jordaens
Leo Jordaens (Leonard Jordaens in full) was born in Merksem (near Antwerp, Belgium) in 1944. He was the son of Leon Jordaens (°1915 in Merksem — † 1970 in Antwerp) and Elisabeth van Tichel (°16 September 1916 in Merksem — † 14 October 2007 in Antwerp). Leo grew up in an artistic family: his grandfather Florent, father Leon and sister Amandine were painters as well. Little is known about his grandfather and sister and their work. Father Leon — usually referred to as Jordaens senior — was a student of Flemish artist Isidore Opsomer and was specialized in portraits and animals. However, there is a popular theory that senior also painted landscapes and in a very similar style as junior — I have my doubts, but I’ll come back to that.
Another story that was going around, was that Leo Jordaens had been a lawyer at some point, but got disbarred due to a drinking problem and it all went downhill from there. This turned out to be a rumor based on a mix-up with a namesake who is currently still active as an attorney. Whether or not he was related to Leo is unknown.
The reality is that Leo Jordaens was the embodiment of the artist stereotype: fickle, temperamental, socially maladapted and disobedient. He had very productive periods in which he exhibited twice a year — this was in the late seventies, when he lived near Bosuil in Deurne, Antwerp. Unfortunately, he could not handle being self-employed and the pressure that came with it. There is no real evidence to support this, but the fact that he had his art gallery for only two years — until around 1978, the highlight of his career — suggests that he was mentally and socially incapable of being a functioning member of society, especially as an artist. From that moment on, Jordaens went to bars and offices to peddle his paintings — he reportedly went far outside the Antwerp area. He would sell his work for 500 up to 1500 Belgian francs, depending on how much people were willing to give and how much he was in need of cash. Sometimes he’d give friends or good customers a free painting in exchange for a few bottles of booze and some company.
Leo Jordaens was the embodiment of the artist stereotype.
This certainly is not the romantic image we would like of a talented painter like Leo Jordaens, but him having his gallery for only a short time and the fact that his mother had not seen him during the last decade of his life, were probably caused by alcohol abuse.
Eventually, Leo Jordaens died, inglorious, of throat cancer in 2000 in Antwerp. He was buried in Schoonselhof cemetery in Hoboken, near Antwerp.
Junior vs Senior
In a newspaper article from December 1978, Leo Jordaens is described as a self-taught artist whose work hardly showed similarities to that of his father. However, a very popular theory states they not only both painted landscapes, but even in pretty much the same style, often very hard to keep them apart. The same theory says that they can easily be told apart from the location of the signature: senior supposedly signed in the top left corner, while junior did so in the top right corner, aware of a possible confusion.
A popular theory says that Leo and his father painted together on the left bank of the river Scheldt.
There is some difference in technique between the left and right signed paintings, but the style is very similar and so are the subjects. The theory suggests that both father and son preferred the same subjects or that they even went to the left bank of the river Scheldt to paint views of Antwerp together. This obviously is a very romantic thought, but if that were the case there would be some record of it somewhere in a news article, for which I suppose junior provided the information himself. There is no hard evidence for nor against this theory, but based on several characteristics it is more likely that left and right signed pieces were made by junior.
Signatures
Further investigation of the signatures does not support the father-son theory. Of the signatures above, number 1 is undoubtedly senior’s (junior was only one year old at the time). According to the theory, numbers 2, 3, 4 and 5 should also be senior’s (signed left), but those do not have a first name initial, which is the case for number 1. That initial returns with the signatures on the right. Also striking is the underlining, which can be found on both left and right signed pieces. The same goes for the little “tail” on the S at the end.
Material
Both surface and size of left and right signed pieces point to one and the same painter. Numbers 4, 5, 6 and 7 (two left and two right signed pieces respectively) all have roughly the same size: about 38 by 42 centimeters, very typical for Jordaens junior and were painted on the same kind of hardboard.
Dates
There are a few pieces that may be cause for confusion. Number 1 shows that senior added the year to his signature. Number 3 is a left signed piece with similar dating, which could support the theory, and is also the most divergent piece in terms of size — with 101 by 116 centimeters by far the largest I have ever seen and at the same time a subject very different of what junior normally used (two horses in a field). Then again, the surface of cheap hardboard points in the direction of junior — I highly doubt that a seasoned apprentice of Opsomer would use that material.
It’s very unlikely that Leo didn’t paint before 1970.
The back of originally framed pieces sometimes provided valuable information as well. Some of the pieces in my collection not only had writing on them, but also a date. Considering all dated paintings, all left signed pieces were made before 1970 and all right signed pieces after. This does not rule out the theory, but it would mean that junior painted nothing before 1970 and only started after his father died, which is very unlikely.
The missing link
Although previous findings are very plausible and most likely correct as well, they do not provide conclusive evidence for nor against the theory. Hard evidence — the missing link, so to speak — was nowhere to be found and it was doubtful that it even existed. In January 2014, however, a painting was put on eBay (photos below), which proves that junior also signed left. The work itself carries the typical left side signature, but glued to the back is Leo’s business card with his residential address in Antwerp. Since forging details like this adds little value to the piece (except maybe for a collector), it is safe to assume it was put there by junior himself and we can classify this theory as a myth.
Conclusion
The theory of senior signing on the left and junior on the right was not impossible, but given the evidence it is probably untrue. If you ask me, it most likely grew from a rumor, probably out of necessity to attribute some pieces to senior and make the identification of father and son easier. I believe signatures 2 through 7 to be of Leo Jordaens junior, in chronological order, identifying the age of the painter.
Leo Jordaens probably started signing on the right hand side after his father died.
The only question that remains is: why did Leo Jordaens start signing on the right? Coincidence or not, he started using his first name initial when signing on the right hand side (not taking into account the odd exception). Such a sudden change often indicates a major event. My personal interpretation is that Leo made the change after his father had died; especially the use of the first name initial “L” points in that direction, as a tribute.
The paintings above clearly show the difference in technique between left and right signed pieces: I believe the painting on the left was made by a young Leo Jordaens junior who had not yet found his personal touch, while the one on the right is the result of years of practice and the refinement of a technique, bordering to routine. A difference not visible on photo, which may also point to the same painter at different ages, is that the paint on the left piece is rather matte and also applied quite sparingly, while on the right it’s shiny and applied heavily. This probably has to do with either the quality of the paint or an excessive thinning for the painting on the left, which would point to a young, inexperienced painter with limited financial means, rather than a classically trained student of Opsomer.
Technique & Features
Leo Jordaens was undoubtedly incredibly talented and there is more to be said about his work than it just being beautiful. With a minimum of resources — a palette knife, oil paint and a piece of hardboard — he managed to create beautiful compositions that were based on existing scenes, but only vaguely recognizable in the end result.
His work also has a few other specific characteristics. For example, he invariably painted on a surface of thin pressed wood, commonly known as Masonite, which was somewhat unfortunate — had he painted on canvas, his work probably would have been worth more, with an increased interest as a result.
Furthermore, Leo always worked on a small format — 38 by 43 centimeters seems to be most common. Various sources said that when he went “door to door” to peddle his paintings, he transported them in a suitcase, which could not fit larger work than 38 by 43 centimeters.
Valuation
Back in my collecting days I was quite known as “the expert on Jordaens” and I was often asked about the value of his paintings. When Leo was still alive, his works fetched a maximum of 2000 Belgian francs (about $60), but shortly after his death prices skyrocketed, with peaks exceeding 500 euro ($500–600). Dying brings an artist back into the spotlight and often leads to speculation, which is what happened with Jordaens at the beginning of this millennium. However, the spectacular price increase disappeared just as quickly and prices fell back to the level from before his death and remained the same for years. Slowly interest has grown again and this has had an impact on the value: nowadays an average Jordaens with the typical size of 38 by 43 centimeters sells between 100 and 200 euro.
Dying brings an artist back into the spotlight.
Even though the prices have gone up, they are still low considering his popularity and quality of the work. The main reason for this is the enormous amount of paintings that Leo has produced; rarity certainly is not an issue — yet. Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule. In Jordaens’ case, larger pieces or unusual sizes or subjects will often fetch higher prices, but these largely depend on demand and are hard to value. But even the most expensive paintings by Jordaens are within reach of common people, which is why his work is very accessible to collectors. It also means that forgery is hardly profitable, although every now and then a work shows up on the market of which the seller claims it was made by Jordaens, but it is very doubtful that he had anything to do with it.
Sources
- As stated in the article, many of the details are hearsay and could not be verified, though in case of similarities in testimonies it is safe to assume that they hold some truth.
- Much information about the artwork itself was gathered by studying the paintings up close. I started collecting the work of Leo Jordaens in the early 90’s. When I sold my collection in 2016 I had accumulated 99 paintings, most of which in their original frames, containing valuable information on the back, put there by the painter himself.
- Most of the family details were obtained first hand by talking to friends and relatives over the phone, including his mother in the late 90's.
- Gazet van Antwerpen (the regional Antwerp newspaper) published two articles about Leo Jordaens. One was a short piece about his exhibition, the other was a piece about him and his art, for which he (most likely) provided the information himself.
Note that the currency conversion from Belgian francs to dollars is a rough estimate. 40 francs being 1 euro and that equals between US$ 1 and 1,20.
Disclaimer & fair use statement
This publication contains copyrighted images of which the use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner — these images were used as documentation. This article is accessible to anyone without profit, intended for research and educational purposes. This should constitute a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material. If your copyrighted material has been used in this publication and you disagree with the assessment that it constitutes “fair use”, please contact me.
