Letteratura scientifica selezionata sul tema "Gerrit (Dutch painter)"

AbstractJan van Gool's Nieuwe Schouburg, published in two volumes in 1750 and 1751 (Note 1), was meant as a sequel to Arnold Houbraken's Groote Schouburgh and it does, indeed, dovetail with that unfinished work. It brought its author much more renown than his work as an animal painter. Alongside the mainly factual information it contains there are also opinions, sometimes personal ones, which reveal him as a spokesman of his time. To extract the latter type of information it is necessary to read between the lines and be well aware of the purpose behind the book. The book and its objectives Volume 1, dedicated to Johan van der Marck, opens with a title-print by P. Tanjé after L. F. Dubourg and an explanation in verse by A. Kuipers, eulogies of the book by two of Van Grool's friends, J. Wandelaar and F. Greenwood, and a portrait of the author engraved by J. Houbraken after a drawing by Aert Schouman. Then follows an introduction setting out the intentions of the book and its relationship to Houbraken and Weyerman. Volume 11, dedicated to Gerrit Braamcamp with a eulogy of him by D. Smits, opens with a discussion of the choice of style and subject-matter to be made by artists on the basis of examples from the recent past. The main bulk of both volumes is taken up by biographies of artists, arranged, as in Houbraken, in chronological order of their date of birth, although, also like Houbraken, Van Gool puts members of the same family together and pupils sometimes come immediately after their masters. In these biographies the facts are presented as accurately as possible and much attention is paid to the success or failure of artists and their corresponding standing in society. Van Gool includes fewer anecdotes than Houbraken, using them only to bring out the artists' personalities better (Note 6) . He characterizes the oeuvre of each of them and often mentions or describes individual works, but he says little about iconography and what he does say is often inaccurate. Conversely, he has a great interest in prices, collections, buying and selling and he endeavours to survey the holdings of art in the Netherlands as far as possible. He makes the link with Houbraken very clear by giving additional information about four important painters who were still alive when Houbraken's book was published and by including artists he felt had been wrongly omitted by Houbraken, whom he often criticizes for his less systematic approach. Again on the model of Houbraken's book, the biographies are interspersed with discussions of a general nature and a number of poems, mostly by Van Gool himself, in which he draws conclusions about the life of the artist in question and moralizes on virtues, vices and the vicissitudes of fortune. There are also more than twenty eulogies and epitaphs (Note 4), while poems by other authors and quotations are often used to honour painters and their work (Note 5). There is a clear difference from Houbraken, however, in that only one of the poems, Ansloo's epithalemium for A. van den Tempel, is quoted for its factual information. Vol. 11 ends with an appendix containing biographies of twenty more artists and all the known facts about a number of others, based on information received too late for earlier inclusion, and short pieces about the engravers J. Houbraken and P. Tanjé as a mark of gratitude. Then come a refutation of the criticism levelled at Vol. 1 by an unnamed person, who must be Gerard Hoet II (Note 3), amplifications and corrections to Vol. 1, a historical account of the Hague confraternity of artists and academy and, finally, a catalogue of the Elector's collection at Dusseldorf. The portraits illustrating the Nieuwe Schouburg constitute part of the factual information and it is clear from Van Gool's comments that they are no unimportant part of it. He expresses great annoyance about the refusal to lend or the late arrival of portraits and gratitude to those who helped him to find them, notably Johan van der Marck. The prints were also sold separately for the benefit of collectors of portraits of artists. More important than the collecting of factual information in Van Gool's eyes was the honouring of artists worthy of it and the perpetuation of their renown, which would otherwise be lost. Thus the book is a monument, but it is also more than a mark of honour from a middling painter to his great colleagues, since the second objective was to provide stimulating examples for coming generations. To do this it had to furnish models that any potential artist could follow and the survey of the art of the recent past that opens Vol. 11 is meant to show that such a great variety really did exist. The 17th century must be taken as a model and equalled and to show that this was possible the first biography in Vol. 11 is that of Jan van Huysum, to whom, along with Rachel Ruysch, Van Gool gives fulsome praise. Since Van Gool saw the course of an artist's life, his artistic success and his social success as inextricably bound up together, the biographies seem to be meant mainly as exempla in the moral sense. Failure is invariably interpreted as the result of irresponsible behaviour and success as the fruit of virtue and the opening sentences of successive biographies often contrast two artists' lives in a moralizing manner. If the artists of Van Gool's own day follow the models given in the right way, this will be as good for them personally as for Dutch art in general. Art will flourish again and the present decline become a thing of the past. The significance of Van Gool's work in combatting that decline is actually better put by Wandelaar in his eulogy in Vol. 1, while Van Gool's thoughts on the role of patrons in the struggle against decline are also better expressed in D. Smils' poem in which Braamcamp is extolled as the rescuer of painting. The dedications to the two notable patrons, Van der Marck and Braamcamp, thus prove to be more than a token of friendship or esteem: they indicate a programme. Patrons too can be divided into moral categories, while the abuses in the Hague Academy are an expression as well as a cause of artistic decline. Thus Van Gool's conception of his task as an educator and fighter against artistic decline unites apparently disparate parts of his book. The catalogue of the Dusseldorf collection too must have been meant as a shining example to potential Dutch patrons.

AbstractUntil now, the Rotterdam portraitist Jan Daemen Cool was known in the literature only as the maker of a group portrait painted in 1653 of the governors and administrator of the Holy Ghost Hospital at Rotterdam, and of a portrait of Piet Hein, which is dated 1629. Closer scrutiny of his activities reveals that the artist, who never signed his work, was Rotterdam's leading portrait painter in the second quarter of the 17th century. Jan Daemen Cool was born in Rotterdam in 1589 or thereabouts. He may have studied with Michiel Jansz. van Mierevelt in Delft, where he married Agniesje Jaspersdr. in 1613 and was admitted to the guild in 1614. He probably returned to Rotterdam in 1614 and spent the rest of his life there. After his first wife's death in 1622 he married again in 1623, this time to Lijsbeth Cornelisdr., the widow of Lowijs Porcellis. Many archive records indicate that Cool was a very prosperous man. After the death of his second wife in 1652. he bought himself a place in the Rotterdam almshouse; he also pledged to paint a group portrait of the governors. He died in 1660. An important starting point in reconstructing the artist's oeuvre is the portrait of the governors of 1653 (cat.no. 28), the authorship of which is substantiated by archive records. However, the portrait of Piet Hein, painted in 1629 (cat.no. I, 1st version), attributed on the basis of the inscription on Willem Hondius' print, is not an authentic Cool but probably an old copy after a portrait which he had painted a few years earlier. A systematic investigation of Rotterdam portraits from the period between 1620 and 1660 has yielded a closely related group of portraits which may be regarded as the work of one man and which include the 1653 governors piece. Combining this information with additional data and further indications has facilitated the reconstruction of Jan Daemen Cool's oeuvre. Pride of place in that oeuvre is occupied by a group of four family portraits painted between 1631 and 1637 and now in the museums at Lille (cat.no. 4), Edinburgh (cat.no. 6), Rotterdam (cat.no. 16) and Brussels (cat.no. 19). Hitherto these portraits have usually been assigned to Jacob Gerritsz. Cuyp. They are all situated in a landscape and represent an important step in the development of this type of family group in Dutch portraiture. A series of portraits of individual sitters painted be-for 1640, including companion pieces, some them identifiable a people who lived in Rotterdam, arc entirely consistent in style and execution with the aforementioned g group portraits. Elements in the portrait of Johan van Yck with his wife and son, painted in 1632 (cat.no. 5), correspond very closely with these works, but there are also discrepancies which suggest cooperation with another painter or later overpaints. A series of individual portraits dating to 1640 - 1654 link the first group of paintings and the late governors piece, the composition of which is quite exceptional in the entire production of such paintings in 17th-century Holland. Here, as in his early family groups, the artist shows himself to be quite an adroit arranger of f gures. Although this painting and two others of 1654 clearly show that he continued to paint after enterning the almshouse, ture is no extant work from the last years of his life. Along the Rotterdam portraits of the rest ched period are a few - likewise unsigned - family groups which are strongly influenced by Cool but are obviously the work of a less proficient hand (figs. 5 and 6). Comparison with a signed portrait of 1649 (fig. 7) enables them to be assigned to the painter Isaack Adamsz. de Colonia (ca. 1611-1663), presumably a pupil of Cool's. Although the work of Jan Daemen Cool bears a resemblance to that of such artists as Michiel van Mierevelt and Jan Anthonisz. van Ravesteyn, his oeuvre has a distinctive character that is most in evidence in his group portraits. There are obvious correspondences with painters such as Jacob Gerritz. Cuyp of Dordrecht, to whom various works by Cool were hitherto attributed, and Willem Willemsz. van Vliet of Delft - artists who likewise developed their own characteristic styles.

The article is devoted to Dutch art — the Leiden School in Holland in the 17th century. The author analyzes the defi nition, particularities and the theoretic foundations of the characteristics and the artistic legacy of the painters — the representatives of the Leiden school and also demonstrates the close connection between naturalism and the particularities of the paintings of the school’s adherents and the uniqueness of the works by such masters as Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn, Gerrit Dou and Frans van Mieris the Elder.

AbstractUp to now Herman Becker, one of the people who lent Rembrandt money in the straitened circumstances of the last years of his life, has had a bad press as an art-dealer who owed his wealth and influence to the exploitation of artists (Notes 1, 2). It is now possible to correct this image on the basis of recent research in the Amsterdam archives. Becker was born around 1617 and the supposition that he came from Riga in Latvia is borne out by the facts that he had contacts there, that his father Willem certainly lived there between 1640 and 1650 and that the words 'of or 'to' Riga appear in some documents after his name. His commercial activities certainly go back to 1635 (note 6) and from the earliest records of him in Amsterdam in the 1640s, it is clear that he was a merchant and that he also chartered ships. At this period he further invested money in shares and engaged in a certain amount of moneylending, while he is also mentioned as his father's agent. That financially he was almost certainly in a sound osition by the end of the 1640s is clear from the fact that in 1648 he gave a surety for the merchant Gerard Pelgrom, who was in debt to the Dutch East India Company. That same year he concluded an agreement with the merchant Abraham de Visscher to sell sailcloth for him in Riga. In the 1650s Becker strengthened his financial position and again engaged in moneylending. In 1653 he made a large loan to Johannes de Renialme, an art lover and dealer, and at the time of the latter's death in 1657 his debt to Becker was even larger, while the inventory of his estate mentions nine paintings, including three by Jan Lievens and one by Philips de Koninck, which were mortgaged to Becker along with some jewelry. From the autumn of 1653 Becker spent a considerable time in Riga, but he was certainly back in Amsterdam in 1658. In 1659 he married Anna Maria Vertangen, the widow of his former business contact Gerard Pelgrom, who had died in 1657. This marriage brought Becker two large houses on Keizersgracht, where he moved in June 1659. That he was a Lutheran emerges from records of the baptisms of two of his three children at the Lutheran church in Amsterdam. His wife died shortly after the birth of theyoungest child and was buried in the Oude Kerk on 9 November 1661. By her will Becker was granted usufruct of all her property until his death, on condition that he did not remarry. This increase in his means led to a change of direction in his activities in the 1660s and a growth in the scale and scope of his moneylending. Becker's library (see Appendix I) The list of books in Becker's inventory amounts to 285 titles, a not inconsiderable library by 17th-century standards (Note 26). Their diversity indicates that, though clearly an educated man, he was not a scholar, while they were not arranged under subjects, like a scholar's library, but according to sizes. The presence of works in Latin indicates that Becker must have been educated at a Latin or grammar school, but the large number of German titles point to his coming from the influential German elite, which had long dominated the city government, trade and the guilds in Riga and part of which, like Becker, was Evangelical Lutheran by religion. Books on religion and theology formed a third of the 145 books of which the titles are given, followed by histories and chronicles, classical literature, law, poetry, medicine, physics and astronomy. Contacts with artists In the 1660s Becker continued his shipping interest, but now also invested in property, building a house next to the two others on Keizersgracht in 1665. He also continued to lend money, now for the first time to artists. Rembrandt is known to have owed three sums of money to Becker: 537 guilders borrowed in December 1662 at 5% interest, 450 guilders borrowed in March 1663 against a pledge, and an obligation to Lodewijck van Ludick which was sold to Becker early in 1664 (Notes 31,32). Difficulties over repayment probably arose in the first two instances over disagreement as to the conditions of the loans. On 29 August 1665 the apothecary Abraham Francken declared in a sworn statement that he had ofered the amount due, plus the interest, to Becker at Rembrandt's request, but that Becker had refused to accept it, because Rembrandt first had to finish a Juno and also had to do something else for him. Rembrandt appears to have threatened legal action, but in any case the matter was settled on 6 October 1665 when Becker accepted the payment and returned the pledge, in the form of nine paintings and two (constprint boecken'. What happened to the Juno is not clear. A Juno by Rembrandt is listed in Becker's inventory and it is generally assumed that the Juno in the Armand Hammer Foundation in Los Angeles is the one mentiorted in the statemertt and the inventory. That it is certainly the one in the statement would seem to be justified by the fact that it appears to be unfinished (Notes 37,38). The sale of the obligation to Lodewijck van Ludick to Becker is attested in statements of 31 December 1664 by Abraham Francken and the poet-cum-dyer Thomas Asselyn, the latter declaring that it was bought for textiles to the value of 500 guilders. Three years later Rembrandt had still not paid the debt and the case was brought before an arbitration commission. In the commission's findings of 24 July 1668 the extent of the debt was settled at 1082 guilders, two-thirds of which had to be paid in cash, while the rest was to be paid off in six months in the form of drawings, prints or paintings. Rembrandt also agreed to pay the cash amount within six months while Becker agreed to pay Rembrandt's share of the costs. Rembrandt offered his person and possessions as surety and his son Titus also came forward as guarantor. Whether the debt was ever paid is unclear: Titus died shortly afterwards and Rembrandt about a year later (Note 42). The conditions were actually quite lenient, while Becker's admiration for Rembrandt's art is clear from the fact that he did not mind whether the debt was paid in paintings, prints or drawings. The fourteen works by Rembrandt in Becker's inventory are the largest group by a single master. Obviously Becker had a predilectionfor his work and bought it, but he did not sell it on, as has been suggested (Note 44). Two other artists who borrowed money from Becker were Frederick de Moucheron, who was given an apparently interest-free loan of a hundred guilders in August 1662 and Jan Lievens the Elder, who borrowed four hundred guilders in all between May 1667 and October 1668. By far the greatest number of loans made by Becker date from the period 1674-8, his debtors including Willem Six, Gerrit Uylenburg, Willem Blauw and Abraham van Halmael, as well as the artists Philips de Koninck, Domenicus van Tol and Antony van der Laen. The pledges for the loans are extremely varied, but paintinas often figured among them in the case of both artists and non-artists. In addition Becker also continued to invest in shipping and property. At the end of the summer of 1678 he fell seriously ill and on 16 September he was buried in the Oude Kerk. His estate at his death amounted to 200,000 guilders and it seems fairly clear that in the 1660s and 1670s his activities as a merchant had declined and he had lived mainly off the interest on loarts. Becker's collection of paintings (see Appendix II) Becker appears to have begun collecting pictures around 1660, when the increase in his means allowed it. By comparison with other collections of the day, such as those of Jan van de Cappelle (197 paintings) and Gerrit Uylenburg (95 paintings), his 231 works represent a very sizable holding (Note 63). In the case of 137 of them the name of the painter is known, the best represented artists being Rembrandt (14 works), Jan Lievens the Elder (6), Jan Lievens the Younger (10), Philips de Koninck (7), Frederick de Moucheron (5) and Rubens (3). The collection also included worksfrom Rembrandt's circle (Last-man and Bol) and from Haarlem (Brouwer, Jan de Bray, Goltzius and Cornelis van Haarlem), and in addition work by much earlier artists such as Dürer, Holbein, Lucas van Leyden and Herri met de Bles, as well as ten pictures of Italian origin. Becker certainly acquired paintings through his moneylending and he may further have had agreements like the one with Rembrandt with other artists, these actually being advantageous to both parties. However, his loans to artists were not very numerous, so he must certainly have bought a great many pictures as well. An advertisement discovered in the Oprechte Haerlems Dinsdacgse Courant of 21 March 1679 shows that Becker's art collection was sold separately from the rest of his estate. It also clearly describes him as a collector of many year's standing.No indication whatever has been found that Becker acted as an art-dealer, while his known financial transactions with artists show him to have acted fairly and in no sense can he be said to have exploited them.

John Henry Lance, a British barrister, spent a ten-year term in Surinam as Judge appointed to the ‘Mixed Court’ in Paramaribo, a post created to supervise the compliance of the Dutch authorities with a treaty signed between the Netherlands and England in 1818 prohibiting the slave trade in the Dutch colonies. During his term in Paramaribo, Lance, a friend of Bateman and Lindley, collected several new orchid species. However, his collection of watercolors depicting plants from Surinam, many of them orchids, would appear to be more important. Some of these were painted by himself, others by the Surinamese artist Gerrit Schouten. The orchids of this collection, never published, were supplied by the Lindley Library of the R.H.S. and are reproduced here with its kind permission. Key Words: botanical illustration, history of botany, Orchidaceae, Surinam