The year 1914 appears to be one of increased technical experimentation for Schiele. Attempting to expand upon methods mastered in 1913, he tried out thicker grounds, sometimes even sculpting them to suit the shape of the anticipated composition (see Leopold, 1972, p. 350), and exploited the porosity of the chalk base in a hitherto unseen variety of ways. At times, the surface almost resembles that of a fresco, and the pigment was allowed to merge with the absorbent ground in a relatively continuous layer (P284). More often, however, Schiele prefered to play off a variety of textures and paint densities against one another. Thus within a single canvas, one may find heavily impastoed areas that entirely obliterate the chalk ground, and thin washes that scarcely cover it (P283). Disparate paint layers are interwoven with great dexterity: thin washes over a denser base, wash over wash, or thick pigments over thin. While these effects are impressive in range, their inherent stability is questionable and may be the reason that 1914 paintings appear among the most fragile in Schiele’s oeuvre.

The year 1914 appears to be one of increased technical experimentation for Schiele. Attempting to expand upon methods mastered in 1913, he tried out thicker grounds, sometimes even sculpting them to suit the shape of the anticipated composition (see Leopold, 1972, p. 350), and exploited the porosity of the chalk base in a hitherto unseen variety of ways. At times, the surface almost resembles that of a fresco, and the pigment was allowed to merge with the absorbent ground in a relatively continuous layer (P284). More often, however, Schiele prefered to play off a variety of textures and paint densities against one another. Thus within a single canvas, one may find heavily impastoed areas that entirely obliterate the chalk ground, and thin washes that scarcely cover it (P283). Disparate paint layers are interwoven with great dexterity: thin washes over a denser base, wash over wash, or thick pigments over thin. While these effects are impressive in range, their inherent stability is questionable and may be the reason that 1914 paintings appear among the most fragile in Schiele’s oeuvre.

The year 1914 appears to be one of increased technical experimentation for Schiele. Attempting to expand upon methods mastered in 1913, he tried out thicker grounds, sometimes even sculpting them to suit the shape of the anticipated composition (see Leopold, 1972, p. 350), and exploited the porosity of the chalk base in a hitherto unseen variety of ways. At times, the surface almost resembles that of a fresco, and the pigment was allowed to merge with the absorbent ground in a relatively continuous layer (P284). More often, however, Schiele prefered to play off a variety of textures and paint densities against one another. Thus within a single canvas, one may find heavily impastoed areas that entirely obliterate the chalk ground, and thin washes that scarcely cover it (P283). Disparate paint layers are interwoven with great dexterity: thin washes over a denser base, wash over wash, or thick pigments over thin. While these effects are impressive in range, their inherent stability is questionable and may be the reason that 1914 paintings appear among the most fragile in Schiele’s oeuvre.

The year 1914 appears to be one of increased technical experimentation for Schiele. Attempting to expand upon methods mastered in 1913, he tried out thicker grounds, sometimes even sculpting them to suit the shape of the anticipated composition (see Leopold, 1972, p. 350), and exploited the porosity of the chalk base in a hitherto unseen variety of ways. At times, the surface almost resembles that of a fresco, and the pigment was allowed to merge with the absorbent ground in a relatively continuous layer (P284). More often, however, Schiele prefered to play off a variety of textures and paint densities against one another. Thus within a single canvas, one may find heavily impastoed areas that entirely obliterate the chalk ground, and thin washes that scarcely cover it (P283). Disparate paint layers are interwoven with great dexterity: thin washes over a denser base, wash over wash, or thick pigments over thin. While these effects are impressive in range, their inherent stability is questionable and may be the reason that 1914 paintings appear among the most fragile in Schiele’s oeuvre.

The year 1914 appears to be one of increased technical experimentation for Schiele. Attempting to expand upon methods mastered in 1913, he tried out thicker grounds, sometimes even sculpting them to suit the shape of the anticipated composition (see Leopold, 1972, p. 350), and exploited the porosity of the chalk base in a hitherto unseen variety of ways. At times, the surface almost resembles that of a fresco, and the pigment was allowed to merge with the absorbent ground in a relatively continuous layer (P284). More often, however, Schiele prefered to play off a variety of textures and paint densities against one another. Thus within a single canvas, one may find heavily impastoed areas that entirely obliterate the chalk ground, and thin washes that scarcely cover it (P283). Disparate paint layers are interwoven with great dexterity: thin washes over a denser base, wash over wash, or thick pigments over thin. While these effects are impressive in range, their inherent stability is questionable and may be the reason that 1914 paintings appear among the most fragile in Schiele’s oeuvre.

The year 1914 appears to be one of increased technical experimentation for Schiele. Attempting to expand upon methods mastered in 1913, he tried out thicker grounds, sometimes even sculpting them to suit the shape of the anticipated composition (see Leopold, 1972, p. 350), and exploited the porosity of the chalk base in a hitherto unseen variety of ways. At times, the surface almost resembles that of a fresco, and the pigment was allowed to merge with the absorbent ground in a relatively continuous layer (P284). More often, however, Schiele prefered to play off a variety of textures and paint densities against one another. Thus within a single canvas, one may find heavily impastoed areas that entirely obliterate the chalk ground, and thin washes that scarcely cover it (P283). Disparate paint layers are interwoven with great dexterity: thin washes over a denser base, wash over wash, or thick pigments over thin. While these effects are impressive in range, their inherent stability is questionable and may be the reason that 1914 paintings appear among the most fragile in Schiele’s oeuvre.

The year 1914 appears to be one of increased technical experimentation for Schiele. Attempting to expand upon methods mastered in 1913, he tried out thicker grounds, sometimes even sculpting them to suit the shape of the anticipated composition (see Leopold, 1972, p. 350), and exploited the porosity of the chalk base in a hitherto unseen variety of ways. At times, the surface almost resembles that of a fresco, and the pigment was allowed to merge with the absorbent ground in a relatively continuous layer (P284). More often, however, Schiele prefered to play off a variety of textures and paint densities against one another. Thus within a single canvas, one may find heavily impastoed areas that entirely obliterate the chalk ground, and thin washes that scarcely cover it (P283). Disparate paint layers are interwoven with great dexterity: thin washes over a denser base, wash over wash, or thick pigments over thin. While these effects are impressive in range, their inherent stability is questionable and may be the reason that 1914 paintings appear among the most fragile in Schiele’s oeuvre.

The year 1914 appears to be one of increased technical experimentation for Schiele. Attempting to expand upon methods mastered in 1913, he tried out thicker grounds, sometimes even sculpting them to suit the shape of the anticipated composition (see Leopold, 1972, p. 350), and exploited the porosity of the chalk base in a hitherto unseen variety of ways. At times, the surface almost resembles that of a fresco, and the pigment was allowed to merge with the absorbent ground in a relatively continuous layer (P284). More often, however, Schiele prefered to play off a variety of textures and paint densities against one another. Thus within a single canvas, one may find heavily impastoed areas that entirely obliterate the chalk ground, and thin washes that scarcely cover it (P283). Disparate paint layers are interwoven with great dexterity: thin washes over a denser base, wash over wash, or thick pigments over thin. While these effects are impressive in range, their inherent stability is questionable and may be the reason that 1914 paintings appear among the most fragile in Schiele’s oeuvre.

The year 1914 appears to be one of increased technical experimentation for Schiele. Attempting to expand upon methods mastered in 1913, he tried out thicker grounds, sometimes even sculpting them to suit the shape of the anticipated composition (see Leopold, 1972, p. 350), and exploited the porosity of the chalk base in a hitherto unseen variety of ways. At times, the surface almost resembles that of a fresco, and the pigment was allowed to merge with the absorbent ground in a relatively continuous layer (P284). More often, however, Schiele prefered to play off a variety of textures and paint densities against one another. Thus within a single canvas, one may find heavily impastoed areas that entirely obliterate the chalk ground, and thin washes that scarcely cover it (P283). Disparate paint layers are interwoven with great dexterity: thin washes over a denser base, wash over wash, or thick pigments over thin. While these effects are impressive in range, their inherent stability is questionable and may be the reason that 1914 paintings appear among the most fragile in Schiele’s oeuvre.

The year 1914 appears to be one of increased technical experimentation for Schiele. Attempting to expand upon methods mastered in 1913, he tried out thicker grounds, sometimes even sculpting them to suit the shape of the anticipated composition (see Leopold, 1972, p. 350), and exploited the porosity of the chalk base in a hitherto unseen variety of ways. At times, the surface almost resembles that of a fresco, and the pigment was allowed to merge with the absorbent ground in a relatively continuous layer (P284). More often, however, Schiele prefered to play off a variety of textures and paint densities against one another. Thus within a single canvas, one may find heavily impastoed areas that entirely obliterate the chalk ground, and thin washes that scarcely cover it (P283). Disparate paint layers are interwoven with great dexterity: thin washes over a denser base, wash over wash, or thick pigments over thin. While these effects are impressive in range, their inherent stability is questionable and may be the reason that 1914 paintings appear among the most fragile in Schiele’s oeuvre.

The year 1914 appears to be one of increased technical experimentation for Schiele. Attempting to expand upon methods mastered in 1913, he tried out thicker grounds, sometimes even sculpting them to suit the shape of the anticipated composition (see Leopold, 1972, p. 350), and exploited the porosity of the chalk base in a hitherto unseen variety of ways. At times, the surface almost resembles that of a fresco, and the pigment was allowed to merge with the absorbent ground in a relatively continuous layer (P284). More often, however, Schiele prefered to play off a variety of textures and paint densities against one another. Thus within a single canvas, one may find heavily impastoed areas that entirely obliterate the chalk ground, and thin washes that scarcely cover it (P283). Disparate paint layers are interwoven with great dexterity: thin washes over a denser base, wash over wash, or thick pigments over thin. While these effects are impressive in range, their inherent stability is questionable and may be the reason that 1914 paintings appear among the most fragile in Schiele’s oeuvre.

The year 1914 appears to be one of increased technical experimentation for Schiele. Attempting to expand upon methods mastered in 1913, he tried out thicker grounds, sometimes even sculpting them to suit the shape of the anticipated composition (see Leopold, 1972, p. 350), and exploited the porosity of the chalk base in a hitherto unseen variety of ways. At times, the surface almost resembles that of a fresco, and the pigment was allowed to merge with the absorbent ground in a relatively continuous layer (P284). More often, however, Schiele prefered to play off a variety of textures and paint densities against one another. Thus within a single canvas, one may find heavily impastoed areas that entirely obliterate the chalk ground, and thin washes that scarcely cover it (P283). Disparate paint layers are interwoven with great dexterity: thin washes over a denser base, wash over wash, or thick pigments over thin. While these effects are impressive in range, their inherent stability is questionable and may be the reason that 1914 paintings appear among the most fragile in Schiele’s oeuvre.