Bulletin du Musée National de Varsovie (23.1982)

„Look what life itself has created..." A. van de Venne advised his confreres. What did he mean
by that? Ccrtainly not that sensual perccption was the only foundation of visual art. He wrote
in his Zeeusche Mey-clacht: „Using paint, everything that man knows about, can be depicted,
seasons of the year, days and planets, virtue and also vice, everything that is left or is being
done, cverything that the artist-poet takes out, everything that a great imagination sees
unsensually..."45. There was more imagination than perception in this outlook, more literaturę
than naturę, more acquired knowledge and duty than simple curiosity. The same view of the
world was imposed not only by painting manuals, written by experienced painters engaged
in art theory such as van Mander, or by van Hoogstraeten and Lairesse who promoted the
model of pictor doctus. It was also characteristic of poets of the same rank, not to mention
minor emblem makers and moralizers such as Anna Roemers Visscher, the muse of Dutch
intellectuals ofthe so-callcd Muiderkring, or the outstanding playwright Pieter C. Hooit46. Even
the well-known formuła of ancient realist painting by Vitruvius, acquired rational elements in
the Netherlandish translation of De Pictura Yeterum by Franciscus Junius. Its goal was first and
foremost to instruct painters about the creative freedom to which they were entitled and by no
means encouraged them to create portraits of their surrounding reality. This same Junius
quoted yet another ancient opinion that was particularly stressed in Netherlandish literaturę
on art ofthe second half ofthe 17th century and that had an essential effect on the image of
painting of that period: ,,A11 that is made of presentiments (imagination) is beautiful; on the
contrary, that which is made of (things) taken from naturę is not beautiful"47.

Ancient masters — as their Italian continuators believed — practised the visual arts mainly
for fame and out of love for art. According to a view prevailing in 17th century Dutch literaturę,
painting was practised mainly for money and profit. It was indicated by C. van Mander himself
who considered it the particular asset of painting, just as Ph, Angel who referred this view back
to the ,,never-praised-enough" J. Cats48. AngeFs pride that „the art of painting is much more
profitable and useful to the body than all other arts" obviously was not shared by priests and
moralists, and probably neither by many of their listeners and readers. The prosaic aspect
of painting seemed disturbing even to Huygens, the great admirer of and expert in painting,
or the poet Bredero49. This was related not only to the admiration of the larger part of Holland's
intellectual elitę for the soulful disinterested art of the Word, practised out of love for itself,
unlike the remunerated art of painters. The hierarchy of value, placing the lasting word ahead
of the vain, transient and materiał painting, popular particularly among the Protestants, also
played a considerable role. This can be illustratcd with a poem by Jacob van Heemskerk, in
which the autłior blames his beloved for having commisssioned a portrait, a passing thing, when
he could immortalize her in a sonnet of lasting value free of charge50.

In 17th century Netherlandish literaturę one comes across numerous adaptations of ancient
aneedotes about artists and their works. Quite often, however, their interpretations had nothing

45. A van de Venne, Zeeusche Mey-clacht, op. cii., p 66:

Men beelt uf met de verw van al wat menschen weten,
De tijden van het jaer, de dagen en planeten
De deucht en ooc ondeucht, al wat men laet of doet,
Al wat een C mst-Poet te voorschyn weet te halen,
Al wat een groot verstant onsienelicken siet...

46. Cf. G. Brom, op. cii., p. 207.

47. F. Junius, De schilder-konst der Oude, Middelburgh, 1641, pp. 15, 33.

48. Cf. J. A. Emmens, op. cit.,p. 135 ff.

49. Cf. G. Brom, op. cit., p. 259.

30. Cf. J.A. Emmens, op. cit.,p. 138.

10