Translation by Francesco Mazzaferro
CLICK HERE FOR ITALIAN VERSION
Tijana Žahula
Reforming Dutch Art:
Gerard de Lairesse on Beauty, Morals and Class
Published in
Simiolus
Netherland quarterly for the history of art
Volume 37 Special edition 2013-2014
Review by Giovanni Mazzaferro. Part Two
 |
| Gerard de Lairesse and Johannes Glauber, Arcadic landscape with two women and a gentleman, about 1658, Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum Source: https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/search/objects?q=gerard+de+lairesse&s=objecttype&p=1&ps=12&st=OBJECTS&ii=2#/SK-A-4216,2 |
Landscape
When, in
the sixth book of the first volume, de Lairesse turned to discuss landscape, he
first of all used concepts known since ancient times, and clearly belonging to
his cultural background as a classicist: the purpose of depicting landscapes was
to 'open' the rooms of the houses and make us travel in space without the discomforts
and dangers of real displacements. The tradition of landscape painting in the
modern age traditionally belonged to the Flemish world and then to the
Netherlands. During the seventeenth century, however, Dutch writers on art considered
it with some annoyance: it would be a minor phenomenon, which should not
deflect from the artist's final tasks, i.e. history painting. While de Lairesse took
these positions too, he also did not renounce to dictate a programmatic approach,
designed to 'dignify' the exercise of this particular kind of art.
According
to de Lairesse, landscape must be first of all the result of a conscious
decision. The artist did not hesitate to condemn, without any hesitation,
landscapes in which the composition was 'disorderly' or displayed any vile or
frightening aspects, like broken trees, ruins, swamps, or snakes. The reference
to those objects was not random, as it referred to the international taste for
landscape, spread with Salvator Rosa’s paintings and adopted in the
Netherlands, for example, by Jacob de Heusch (1656 to 1701). Starting from the
selection of the subject, then it all became a matter of colour and composition;
once the right items had been 'chosen', all what was needed was to respect the
image of nature. Perfection could be achieved through the addition of several
types of adornments. In the case of an 'ancient' landscape, of course, these
'adornments' could be temples, tombs, the inclusion of shepherds, bacchanalia
and so on, depending on the subject; if the landscape was modern, they might be
homes, fishing, horse-drawn carts and so on. Crucially, as seen in genre
painting, the two things should not be mixed, i.e. one should not include the
old in the modern, because this would affect negatively the decorum. In this
sense – as Žakula wrote - "the first
artists to have thus broken the sacred rules of decorum were Jan Breughel, Paul
Bril and Hans Bol, and the lack of “distinction between the lowest Life and
what is better” in their paintings was comparable to the style of the notorious
Bamboccio and his followers" (p.
71).
The best landscape
painting, according to de Lairesse, had obviously an Arcadian taste. This was a
type of representation which belonged to the so-called 'third Italianist
generation of landscape painters', which were affirmed in the Netherlands in mid'
600. An Italianist landscape was meant to be "not a Dutch invention, but the importation of notions of an idealized
classical lanscape popularized in Rome by the French artist and brother-in-law
of Poussin, Gaspard Dughet" (p. 72).
Normally, it is believed that the
leading Dutch exponents of this historical moment (Johannes Glauber, Albert
Meyeringh (1645-1714) and Isaac de Moucheron (1667? -1744) were influenced by
the French art inspired by Poussin while they were in Italy; it must however indeed
said that all of them were able to work with, and to make the acquaintance of,
de Lairesse, or at least to read his treaty. Johannes Glauber, for example,
painted exactly with de Lairesse a four-hand set of five large Arcadian
landscapes intended for exhibition in a unique room for Jacob de Flines. The
latter was the author of the classical figures in the foreground, and Glauber
of the rest of the canvas. Comparing the contents of the four paintings (out of
five) which reached us, it is obvious that they adhered to the Dutch
theoretical program. For instance, dividing the work among different authors
was in line with the provisions: while the landscape painter felt ready to
paint only from life, it was useful to employ also those who were able to
produce figures which were ‘more beautiful than nature'. The paintings contained
classical architecture whose pinnacles - as indicated by de Lairesse - broke
the surface of the sky to make it less uniform and therefore less boring; all
works intended to be placed on the same wall had the light coming from the same
side and even appeared as segments of a single sequence, in which the foliage
of one painting was linked to that of the other; the description of the
vegetation was analytical, to characterise the exact species of the displayed plants;
the landscape was arranged on five different floors. All information was contained
in the Schilderboeck and then resumed
also by Meyeringh and Moucheron.
 |
| Gerard de Lairesse and Johannes Glauber, Arcadic landscape with two Roman soldiers, about 1685, Amsterdam, Rijkmuseum Source: https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/search/objects?q=gerard+de+lairesse&s=objecttype&p=1&ps=12&st=OBJECTS&ii=0#/SK-A-4215,0 |
Portraiture
 |
| Anthony van Dyck, William II, Prince of Orange, and his Bride Mary Stuard, 1641, Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum Source: https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/rijksstudio/artists/anthony-van-dyck/objects#/SK-A-102,0 |
When de Lairesse
wrote his treatise, Dutch portraiture was at the peak of its fame. Yet, in the hierarchy
of genres elaborated not only by our theorist, but also by all those of the
European classicism, portraits enjoyed only a relative fame. For Gerard, portraiture
came only above still life, because it aimed at reproducing the features of the
models with photographic fidelity. According to a tradition also dating back to
classical antiquity, those to be portrayed were gods, kings, emperors, great
leaders, or those who deserved to be remembered by future generations. But the
explosion of the rich middle class meant that portraiture was spreading,
bringing with it a plebeian and craft image of the painting profession: "Such great Masters as van Dyck, Lely, Van
Loo, the old and the young Bakker, who, tho’ possessed great Talents in the
Art, postponed what is noble and beautiful, for what is ordinary and common" (p. 88). The position of the portraitist, then, was particularly delicate, because
his reputation depended directly on the satisfaction of the modelled people. Those
who were the subject of the portrait had the power to govern the future
fortunes of the artist, talking in positive or negative terms to their friends
or peers and then influencing his economic success. Hence, portrayed models had
also power on the painter about the way in which they were due to be retracted.
De Lairesse rejected this way of working; first of all, he said that, as far as
possible, the artist should not replicate the flaws of the model, especially
when they could be disturbing. The typical example was a man missing an eye.
The representation from the true should be attenuated by the shrewdness of the
painter, who could, for example, portray a profile picture of his model, in
such a way as to ensure that nobody would notice his disability. If the eye was
an extreme situation, the case of ladies or girls, who should be portrayed
prettier than they actually are, was different but more dangerous. The painter
in this case would have to play with light effects, in such a way as to
highlight the strengths and hide the general deficiencies of the models.
 |
| Bartholomeus van der Helst, Portrait of Gerard Andriesz Bicker, about 1642, Amsterdam, Riijksmuseum Source: https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/rijksstudio/artists/bartholomeus-van-der-helst/objects#/SK-A-147,1 |
In general,
the portrait was not a type of painting that could be produced on the spot. The
artist would have to invite the model in his studio and talk to him or her about
pleasant and reassuring things, that would let emerge naturally the
personality. For this reason (especially in the case of women) the workshop should
be free of any upsetting objects or of paintings that might conduce to less than
chaste thoughts. The real picture should be performed after three or four
sessions only, which should be previously spent to make the acquaintance of the
portrayed. The technical execution should shun the use of stereotypes. De Lairesse
referred to it concerning the execution of the hands, which (after the face) were
the fundamental element characterizing the subject of the portrait. In reality,
it was not rare that the artist limited himself to paint the face of the model
using the same pre-established base for all: obviously, the results were
figures whose faces seemed cut and applied later than the rest of the work. All
this, of course, was not compatible with the program which the Walloon artist proposed
for the portrait.
Moreover, one
of the key elements for the picture was clothing. How to dress their models? Of
course, the tendency was to display particularly elegant and expensive clothes,
showing off an unusual wealth. This kind of attitude was completely
stigmatized, either because it was not moral or because it was too modern: a
fashionable dress at the time of the portrait could in fact be considered
ridiculous the year after. An absurd. It was necessary to aim at a golden mean.
In practice, in fact, a particular preference was given to Japanese clothes and
their kimonos. They were evoking in some way the coats of the ancient Greeks
and Romans and still gave an idea of moderation, which the author also
appreciated, using it in a self-portrait executed around 1670. One should not
believe that portraying a kimono was an oddity in those years. The commercial
relations between the Netherlands and Japan were intense and kimonos had
invaded Dutch houses. It was a 'trendy', but intelligent solution, and as such
eligible in the code of conduct, which de Lairesse proposed.
 |
| Frans Hals, Portrait of a man, about 1665, Boston, Museum of Fine Arts Source: http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/portrait-of-a-man-33984 |
Still life
 |
| Jan Davidsz de Heem, Still Life with Lobster and Nautilus Shell, 1634, Stuttgart, Staatsgalerie Source: Web Gallery of Art tramite Wikimedia Commons |
In all art
treaties providing a breakdown by gender, still life occupied the lowest position.
The reason was obvious: in theoretical terms, it was considered a pure
imitation of nature, without any story telling and then without any moral
value. De Lairesse again made no exception. However, well aware of the
importance of this genre for Dutch painting, he provided a program which would
ennoble it. This would permit also those who had specialized in still life to
see their own paintings on display in the prestigious areas of the local
aristocracy. This intention only could explain the two chapters (XI and XII)
and the hundred pages that the author devoted to the subject; a space of course
not comparable with the much smaller one reserved to it by previous treatises.
The enhancement of still life began, of course, from the selection of the
objects that were to be represented there; they should of course be different,
but above all beautiful and refined. For instance, carrots, vegetables, and the
foods of the peasants in general should be excluded. The painter should prefer
the depiction of precious pottery (preferably with ornamental motifs that
recall the classical world), of rare shells, musical instruments, globes and so
on. But once the choice of objects was made - or, rather, when it became clear
which ones to exclude without hesitation - the real challenge was to give a
sense, an ethical value to the representation. Since to have an ethical value
was a must. The length of the section devoted to still life can be indeed explained
in this way, through the meticulous review of objects, plants, flowers, and
their innermost meanings. For example, "De Lairesse informed his readers that the white rose, as the capital
flower, carried the emblematic meaning of purity, and ought to be surrounded
with “Rose-colour, Violet, Purple and beautiful Red”" (p. 121). In
proposing a reform program for that kind of painting, the author demonstrated himself fully familiar with the evolution of the same and with those who were the main players:
"it can be deduced from the names
and works list in the Groot Scholderboeck that his point of departure
lay with the tradition initiated in the 1630s by Jan Davidsz de Heem, furthered
by Kalf, and perfected by Willem van Aelst, whose inventions conveyed an
atmosphere of luxury and refinement that no other painter had achieved before.
None of these painters attained the utmost perfection, however, since their
works either lacked “the most choice objects” and therefore fell short of
decorum, or were deficient in terms of content and therefore lacking in sense.
It was only in the oeuvre of the painter who is likely to have read de
Lairesse’s advice that the ideas presented in the Groot schilderboeck came into full bloom"(p. 128).
According to Žakula, although there is no proof that he had actually read de Lairesse's treatise, the
still lives by Jan van Huysum showed a full correspondence with the prescripts dictated
by the Wallon artist.
 |
| Jan van Huysum, Still Life with Flowers and a Statue of Flora, 1723, Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum Source: https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/search/objects?q=jan+van+huysum&p=1&ps=12&st=OBJECTS&ii=4#/SK-A-188,4 |
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento