DOI Artikel:
Šip, Jaromír: Savery in and around Prague
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.18821#0079
2. Roelant Savery, Landscape drawing, Prague, Narodni Galerie (Phot Narodni Galerie v Praze)
to make distinction between his field-recording and carefuly finished works meant to serve
as basis for prints done either by himself or Sadeler for instance. Here again I bave to repeat
my previous suggestion: let us be more cautious in using the term of Alpine landscape. In a
day's trip from Prague I could show you many places where only a slightest arrangement would
adjust reality to Savery's drawings and even paintings.
Up to now I know at Ieast a half a dozen of very fine painted landscapes either dated or easily
and safely to be placed before the year 1612, where I dare say, the represented landscape-reality-
is the one definitely reminiscent of the forests near Prague, I have just been telling you about.
AU of them have something in common. The artist was rather quickly growing out of landscape
formulas learnt from Gillis van Coninxloo and eagerly exploiting the peculiar taste of Central
European naturę.
This naturę of course is far from uniformity, on the contrary its character changes very ąuickly.
Savery must have certainly been aware of it when he was sent to Tyrol by the Emperor. There
was not much choice how to get there. Using more probably a horse than a coach the artist
had to go South of Prague, roughly following the river Vltava upstreams to the chain of mountains
covered even now by deep forests. I draw your attention namely to the prints by Sadeler done
after Savery's drawing (figs 3 and 4) and repeated in a rather dreamy, almost Chinese-looking
drawing by Savery's colleague in Prague Paulus van Vianen. Again, it is still being accepted
as a Tyrolian landscape. For everyone who ever followed the river Vltava it looks however
very familiar indeed. The springs of this fascinating river are to be found in the deep forests
of Sumava, which is so characteristic that it takes plenty of immagination to mix it with Alpine
73
to make distinction between his field-recording and carefuly finished works meant to serve
as basis for prints done either by himself or Sadeler for instance. Here again I bave to repeat
my previous suggestion: let us be more cautious in using the term of Alpine landscape. In a
day's trip from Prague I could show you many places where only a slightest arrangement would
adjust reality to Savery's drawings and even paintings.
Up to now I know at Ieast a half a dozen of very fine painted landscapes either dated or easily
and safely to be placed before the year 1612, where I dare say, the represented landscape-reality-
is the one definitely reminiscent of the forests near Prague, I have just been telling you about.
AU of them have something in common. The artist was rather quickly growing out of landscape
formulas learnt from Gillis van Coninxloo and eagerly exploiting the peculiar taste of Central
European naturę.
This naturę of course is far from uniformity, on the contrary its character changes very ąuickly.
Savery must have certainly been aware of it when he was sent to Tyrol by the Emperor. There
was not much choice how to get there. Using more probably a horse than a coach the artist
had to go South of Prague, roughly following the river Vltava upstreams to the chain of mountains
covered even now by deep forests. I draw your attention namely to the prints by Sadeler done
after Savery's drawing (figs 3 and 4) and repeated in a rather dreamy, almost Chinese-looking
drawing by Savery's colleague in Prague Paulus van Vianen. Again, it is still being accepted
as a Tyrolian landscape. For everyone who ever followed the river Vltava it looks however
very familiar indeed. The springs of this fascinating river are to be found in the deep forests
of Sumava, which is so characteristic that it takes plenty of immagination to mix it with Alpine
73