DOI issue:
No. 135 (May, 1908)
DOI article:Rutter, Frank: A pioneer painter of Holland: Willem Roelofs
DOI Page / Citation link: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.28254#0202
WiLlent Roelofs
give us back nature and truth. In a time of affec-
tation and artificial cleverness it was he who with
some others forced himself out of the conventional
composition and polished painting. At once he
understood that there was beauty in the Dutch
meadows, in the mills, in the skies, that no fine
subject was required to paint a fine picture : in-
terpretation alone and feeling could make a
work of art out of anything, though he still con-
sidered le choix dans le vrai as indispensable.
No ancient oaks, no picturesque well, no concave
road was needed any more; the most simple
subject could be converted into a masterpiece.
That moment was a revelation to the artist, a
renewal, an extension of his horizon.”
At the same time it would be a great mistake
to imagine from the foregoing that Roelofs, after
the fashion of certain English painters, was of the
opinion that the futile attempt slavishly to copy
nature was sufficient to produce a work of art.
Nature was to be studied indefatigably, and that
study was to be employed in the creation of a
picture. In an illuminating letter written in 1886
he draws a sharp distinction between the sketching
of a nature-study and the painting of a picture.
“The study,” writes Roelofs, “the fragment has
to be re-created into a picture. Do not forget that
these are two different things. Nature is the
material from which we have to draw ; but do not
suffer yourself to be imposed upon by the modern
theories, which say that copying nature is all.
The object, the aim of art is like that of music,
to move the soul, to excite in our minds emotions
which, though they cannot be expressed in words,
are felt none the less by those who have the real
sense for art. Those who think that the art of
Michael Angelo or Rembrandt belongs to a
different sphere, and that a modern landscape
painter has ‘ merely to be natural,’ have never
realised that they are sacrificing their time to a
vain effort.
“ I do not tell you these things because I think
you are fostering these notions, but because I want
to warn you against the narrow-minded opinions
of the present day. Why do you justly admire
the Ruysdael with its mill at the Amsterdam
Museum ? There is in that painting not one hue
which is as bright, fresh or vivid as nature. But
it is harmonious, grand, emotional, as nature is;
it affects us like nature by that melancholy poetry
“BOIS DE FONTAINEBLEAU
l8o
BY WILLEM ROELOFS
give us back nature and truth. In a time of affec-
tation and artificial cleverness it was he who with
some others forced himself out of the conventional
composition and polished painting. At once he
understood that there was beauty in the Dutch
meadows, in the mills, in the skies, that no fine
subject was required to paint a fine picture : in-
terpretation alone and feeling could make a
work of art out of anything, though he still con-
sidered le choix dans le vrai as indispensable.
No ancient oaks, no picturesque well, no concave
road was needed any more; the most simple
subject could be converted into a masterpiece.
That moment was a revelation to the artist, a
renewal, an extension of his horizon.”
At the same time it would be a great mistake
to imagine from the foregoing that Roelofs, after
the fashion of certain English painters, was of the
opinion that the futile attempt slavishly to copy
nature was sufficient to produce a work of art.
Nature was to be studied indefatigably, and that
study was to be employed in the creation of a
picture. In an illuminating letter written in 1886
he draws a sharp distinction between the sketching
of a nature-study and the painting of a picture.
“The study,” writes Roelofs, “the fragment has
to be re-created into a picture. Do not forget that
these are two different things. Nature is the
material from which we have to draw ; but do not
suffer yourself to be imposed upon by the modern
theories, which say that copying nature is all.
The object, the aim of art is like that of music,
to move the soul, to excite in our minds emotions
which, though they cannot be expressed in words,
are felt none the less by those who have the real
sense for art. Those who think that the art of
Michael Angelo or Rembrandt belongs to a
different sphere, and that a modern landscape
painter has ‘ merely to be natural,’ have never
realised that they are sacrificing their time to a
vain effort.
“ I do not tell you these things because I think
you are fostering these notions, but because I want
to warn you against the narrow-minded opinions
of the present day. Why do you justly admire
the Ruysdael with its mill at the Amsterdam
Museum ? There is in that painting not one hue
which is as bright, fresh or vivid as nature. But
it is harmonious, grand, emotional, as nature is;
it affects us like nature by that melancholy poetry
“BOIS DE FONTAINEBLEAU
l8o
BY WILLEM ROELOFS