DOI Heft:
Nr. 1-4
DOI Artikel:Brusewicz, Lech: On the perception of paintings in 17th century Holland
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.18898#0012
historians. A polemic with them, still alive20, scems necessary because they are not based on
facts and historical sources and are, to use E. Gombrich's language, mercly „physiognomic
fallacies".
I. THE FALLACY OF GENRE ART DEVOID OF SYMBOLIC CONTENTS
Contemporary literaturę offers no indication that anyone in 17th century Holland thought
of naturalistically painted works in terms of genre representations, as ones re-creating objects,
naturę or scenes of everydey life for their own sake. Neither did C. van Mander nor any other
theorist of 17th century art know the concept of genre in the understanding in which it functions
in contemporary art history21. Although terms similar in meaning were used to distinguish
different thematic aspects of painting, namely, the so-called kunsldelen, during the greater part
of the 17th century paintings were not strictly divided accoding to themes. Nor did any special
hierarchy exist in the framework of those kunstdelen until the times of Dutch classicism, which
did not prevent artists who had mastered the largest number of kunstdelen and who were able
to use them in a single work (history painters) from enjoying particular recognition as univer-
seel22. This does not mean, however, that paintings on antiek subjects were not distinguished
from modernę beeldekens, paintings that contained literary and historical representations, prom-
pted by the creative imagination (nyt den Gheest), and from depictions of events from everyday
life (naer het leven)-s. The concept of a historie painting (historie) was understood differently
than it is today, and than it was understood in Italy in the 17th century. In principle, every
depiction that contained a tuman figurę and showed an event typical of mankind was considered
historie. Thus, at that time this class, traditionally based on literaturę, included historical,
biblical, legendary and mythological scenes, as well as illustrations of events from everyday
life24. Van Mander even called landscapes with smali human silhouettes storyken. The term
poeterij was also used to distinguished paintings based on literary texts, notably when they
originated in mythology or were evidently allegorieal25. Even portraits, which were not too highly
esteemed by art theorists and experts, could be included among them if they showed the persons
portrayed in the roles of or with the attributes of ancient, mythological or legendary heroes.
Despite the opinions prevailing until this day, portraits like those enjoyed particular popularity
in Holland and were commissioned on a mass scalę from a number of portrait painters26.
In the 17th century, only still lifes made up an autonomous group among paintings on non-
-narrative themes. Initially linked with the Neo-Stoic concepts of virtus and studium, and later
with tha biblical concept of vanitas, in the second half of the century they were usually devoid
of a deeper symblic meaning27. At that time the term still life (stilleven) first emerged, the poetic
20. Cf. the polemic articles: II. Miedema, „Realism and comie mode...", Simiolus, 9,1977, p. 205 ff. and S. Alpers's reply,
,,Taking pictures seriously.,.", Simiolus, 10, 1978/9, p. 46 ff.
21. For tlie history of the concept, cf.: W. Stechow, ,,The history of the term genre", Bulletin of the Allen Memoriał Art Mu-
seum, XXXIII, 1975/76, p. 89 ff.; K. Renger, Lockere Gesellschaft. Zur Ikonographie des Verlorenen Sohnes und von Wirts-
hausszenen in der niederliindischen Malerei, Berlin, 1970, p. 9 ff.; J. A. Emmens, op. cit., p. 122.
22. Cf. J. A. Emmens, op. cit., p. 122.
23. Cf. Catalogue of the exhibition, Hollaiidse genre-tekeningen uit de zerentiende eeuw, Rijksmusemn, Amsterdam, 1973, p. 6;
E. K. J. Reznicek,,,Realism as a ,Side Road or Byway' in Dutch Art," The Renaissance and Mannerism Studies in Western
Art, II, Princeton, 1963, p. 251 ff.
24. Cf. L. de Pauw-de Veen, De begrippen ,,schilder", „schilderij" en „schilderen" in de zeventiende eeuw, Brussels, 1969, p. 179;
also see S. van Hoogstraeten, Inleyding tot dc Hooge Schoole der Schilderkonst, Rotterdam, 1678, p. 108 ff.
25. Cf. L. de Pauw-de Veen, op. cii., p. 187.
26. Morę in R. Wishnevsky, Studien zum „portrait historii" in den Niederlanden, Mimchen, 1967; W". Martin, ,,De portret-
kunst in de hollandsche samenleving der 17e eeuw", Oudheidkundig Jaarboek, III, 1923, p. 75 ff.
27. Cf. B. A. Heezen-Stoll, ,,Een vanitasstilleven vau Jacques de Gheyn II uit 1621: afspiegeling van neostoische denkbeel-
den", Oud Holland, 1979, p. 217ff.;I. Bergstrom, „De Gheyn as a ,Vanitas'Paintcr", Oud Holland, XCIII, 1970, p. 143 ff.;
J. Pilz von Stein, Intentionen der hollandischen Stillebenmalerci zwischen 1640—1680, Mimchen; 1965.
6
facts and historical sources and are, to use E. Gombrich's language, mercly „physiognomic
fallacies".
I. THE FALLACY OF GENRE ART DEVOID OF SYMBOLIC CONTENTS
Contemporary literaturę offers no indication that anyone in 17th century Holland thought
of naturalistically painted works in terms of genre representations, as ones re-creating objects,
naturę or scenes of everydey life for their own sake. Neither did C. van Mander nor any other
theorist of 17th century art know the concept of genre in the understanding in which it functions
in contemporary art history21. Although terms similar in meaning were used to distinguish
different thematic aspects of painting, namely, the so-called kunsldelen, during the greater part
of the 17th century paintings were not strictly divided accoding to themes. Nor did any special
hierarchy exist in the framework of those kunstdelen until the times of Dutch classicism, which
did not prevent artists who had mastered the largest number of kunstdelen and who were able
to use them in a single work (history painters) from enjoying particular recognition as univer-
seel22. This does not mean, however, that paintings on antiek subjects were not distinguished
from modernę beeldekens, paintings that contained literary and historical representations, prom-
pted by the creative imagination (nyt den Gheest), and from depictions of events from everyday
life (naer het leven)-s. The concept of a historie painting (historie) was understood differently
than it is today, and than it was understood in Italy in the 17th century. In principle, every
depiction that contained a tuman figurę and showed an event typical of mankind was considered
historie. Thus, at that time this class, traditionally based on literaturę, included historical,
biblical, legendary and mythological scenes, as well as illustrations of events from everyday
life24. Van Mander even called landscapes with smali human silhouettes storyken. The term
poeterij was also used to distinguished paintings based on literary texts, notably when they
originated in mythology or were evidently allegorieal25. Even portraits, which were not too highly
esteemed by art theorists and experts, could be included among them if they showed the persons
portrayed in the roles of or with the attributes of ancient, mythological or legendary heroes.
Despite the opinions prevailing until this day, portraits like those enjoyed particular popularity
in Holland and were commissioned on a mass scalę from a number of portrait painters26.
In the 17th century, only still lifes made up an autonomous group among paintings on non-
-narrative themes. Initially linked with the Neo-Stoic concepts of virtus and studium, and later
with tha biblical concept of vanitas, in the second half of the century they were usually devoid
of a deeper symblic meaning27. At that time the term still life (stilleven) first emerged, the poetic
20. Cf. the polemic articles: II. Miedema, „Realism and comie mode...", Simiolus, 9,1977, p. 205 ff. and S. Alpers's reply,
,,Taking pictures seriously.,.", Simiolus, 10, 1978/9, p. 46 ff.
21. For tlie history of the concept, cf.: W. Stechow, ,,The history of the term genre", Bulletin of the Allen Memoriał Art Mu-
seum, XXXIII, 1975/76, p. 89 ff.; K. Renger, Lockere Gesellschaft. Zur Ikonographie des Verlorenen Sohnes und von Wirts-
hausszenen in der niederliindischen Malerei, Berlin, 1970, p. 9 ff.; J. A. Emmens, op. cit., p. 122.
22. Cf. J. A. Emmens, op. cit., p. 122.
23. Cf. Catalogue of the exhibition, Hollaiidse genre-tekeningen uit de zerentiende eeuw, Rijksmusemn, Amsterdam, 1973, p. 6;
E. K. J. Reznicek,,,Realism as a ,Side Road or Byway' in Dutch Art," The Renaissance and Mannerism Studies in Western
Art, II, Princeton, 1963, p. 251 ff.
24. Cf. L. de Pauw-de Veen, De begrippen ,,schilder", „schilderij" en „schilderen" in de zeventiende eeuw, Brussels, 1969, p. 179;
also see S. van Hoogstraeten, Inleyding tot dc Hooge Schoole der Schilderkonst, Rotterdam, 1678, p. 108 ff.
25. Cf. L. de Pauw-de Veen, op. cii., p. 187.
26. Morę in R. Wishnevsky, Studien zum „portrait historii" in den Niederlanden, Mimchen, 1967; W". Martin, ,,De portret-
kunst in de hollandsche samenleving der 17e eeuw", Oudheidkundig Jaarboek, III, 1923, p. 75 ff.
27. Cf. B. A. Heezen-Stoll, ,,Een vanitasstilleven vau Jacques de Gheyn II uit 1621: afspiegeling van neostoische denkbeel-
den", Oud Holland, 1979, p. 217ff.;I. Bergstrom, „De Gheyn as a ,Vanitas'Paintcr", Oud Holland, XCIII, 1970, p. 143 ff.;
J. Pilz von Stein, Intentionen der hollandischen Stillebenmalerci zwischen 1640—1680, Mimchen; 1965.
6