If not Vel

[Scott Bartner]

I used to spend my lunch breaks in the National Gallery in Washington. Since we were given 30 minutes for lunch and the walk to the National from the Bureau of Public Debt was about 5 minutes at a steady jog, I had to be rather choosy regarding which pictures I'd spend my time studying. The one I kept coming back to was this small head study of Pope Innocent X. Back then it was considered a Vel

[Scott Bartner]

Not my choice for a physical therapist:

[Michele Rushworth]

If I recall correctly, the finished portrait of Pope Innocent X was the one Nelson Shanks chose as the best portrait ever painted, in his opinion. I am sure Shanks also studied it intently in preparation for his portrait of John Paul II. I'd trust his knowledge on the subject!

My guess as to what he would say is that it was painted by none other than Juan de Pareja, the model for the compelling portrait now in New York's Metropolitan Museum. Juan de Pareja was originally Velazquez' slave, but he later went on to become an accomplished artist in his own right. Velazquez painted the Juan de Pareja portrait as a warm up for the Innocent X painting. I wonder if Juan de Pareja didn't paint this one as a copy of the finished Innocent X painting that his former master had recently created.

[Scott Bartner]

Dear Michele:

As much as I would like to offer you the "grand prize," I'm afraid I must disappoint you. I too thought of Juan de Pareja, but that is not the artist Nelson suggested in his message.

What doesn't quite jibe though with Nelson's choice is this artist's date of birth, 1639. That would have made him 11 years old when the copy was supposably painted. Now I don't know how well you were painting at that age, but I find it rather difficult to believe a child created this, even if it is a copy.

I've already given you one clue. Here is another: The artist in question was a prot

[Scott Bartner]

And the final clues: A prot

[SB Wang]

I was wondering who is the artist