Academic literature on the topic 'Dutch Landscape painting'

In the history of Chinese and European painting, landscape painting in the Northern Song Dynasty and Dutch landscape painting in the 17th century have achieved important artistic achievements. Generally speaking, the meaning of comparison is to compare the commonality, difference and mutual influence of paintings produced in different contexts. The purpose of studying and comparing the differences between the two is to take the painting forms of different countries and nations as reference, so as to have a thorough understanding of the forms and styles of the two arts in different times, different regions and different cultural backgrounds.

AbstractThe relationship between poetry and painting has been one of the most debated issues in the history of criticism. The present article explores this problematic relationship in the context of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century England, taking into account theories of rhetoric, visual perception, and art. It analyzes a rare case in which a specific school of painting directly inspired poetry: in particular, the ways in which the Netherlandish landscape tradition influenced natural descriptions in the poem Poly-Olbion (1612, 1622) by Michael Drayton (1563–1631). Drayton — under the influence of the artistic principles of landscape depiction as explained in Henry Peacham’s art manuals, as well as of direct observation of Dutch and Flemish landscape prints and paintings — successfully managed to render pictorial landscapes into poetry. Through practical examples, this essay will thoroughly demonstrate that rhetoric is capable of emulating pictorial styles in a way that presupposes specialized art-historical knowledge, and that pictorialism can be the complex product as much of poetry and rhetoric as of painting and art-theoretical vocabulary.

Landscape painting can directly address concepts of the world’s origin and its organization. Dutch dune landscapes, however, were and continue to be extremely unstable environments, consisting of damp hollows and wind-borne sand, and resisting any attempt to be shaped or organized. Theresa Brauer’s essay asks its readers to closely examine two of Jan van Goyen’s landscapes that exhibit exceptional fluidity both in painting technique – Van Goyen utilizes a wet-on-wet application of oil pigments – and in the subject they depict: the transitional coastal landscape of Holland. The works are discussed in dialogue with Samuel van Hoogstraten’s description of a painting technique he calls zwadderen, and with Joost van den Vondel’s poetic yet dismissive reflection on incidental forms in landscape painting. The essay contextualizes Jan van Goyen’s landscapes within the framework of nature-theoretical discourse prevalent in the seventeenth century, which contemplates a particular world in a state of motion.

Abstract:This article traces the provenance and migration of a painting by Jan van Goyen (1595–1656), River Landscape with a Swineherd, from the Jacques Goudstikker Collection and now in Gdańsk Muzeum Narodowe. After the “red-flag sale” of the Goudstikker Collection in July 1940 to German banker Alois Miedl, and then to Hermann Göring, this painting—after its sale on Berlin’s Lange Auction in December 1940 to Hitler’s agent Almas-Dietrich—was returned to Miedl-Goudstikker in Amsterdam. Miedl then sold it (with two other Dutch paintings) to the Nazi Gauleiter of Danzig, Albert Forster, among many wartime Dutch acquisitions for the Municipal Museum (Stadtmuseum). Evacuated to Thuringia and captured by a Soviet trophy brigade, it thus avoided postwar Dutch claims. Returned to Poland from the Hermitage in 1956, it was exhibited in the Netherlands and the United States (despite its Goudstikker label). Tracing its wartime and postwar odyssey highlights the transparent provenance research needed for Nazi-era acquisitions, especially in former National Socialist (NS) Germanized museums in countries such as Poland, where viable claims procedures for Holocaust victims and heirs are still lacking. This example of many “missing” Dutch paintings sold to NS-era German museums in cities that became part of postwar Poland, raises several important issues deserving attention in provenance research for still-displaced Nazi-looted art.

Статья посвящена исследованию двух городских пейзажей, обозначенных как виды Лейдена, из собрания Саратовского государственного художественного музея имени А.Н. Радищева. Пейзаж, поступивший в 1920 г. как работа голландского художника XVII века, является имитацией старой голландской живописи, выполненной, предположительно, на рубеже XVIII–XIX веков. Имитатор, изображая в качестве типичного голландского городка XVII века фантазийный образ Лейдена, стремится указать на связь с традициями старых голландцев. Другой пейзаж, поступивший как работа неизвестного мастера, атрибутирован голландскому мастеру XIX века П.Г. Вертину (1819–1893). Художник соединяет реальность и фантазию, главная задача, которую он решает, — передать игру света на узкой улице. Сравнение двух работ из собрания Радищевского музея наглядно иллюстрирует два разных подхода к традиции голландского городского пейзажа. Имитация XVIII – начала XIX века является примером механического обращения к искусству старых мастеров, работа П.Г. Вертина показывает, как профессиональный художник XIX столетия, опираясь на наследие предшественников, решает художественные задачи, соответствующие своему времени. При всём различии решаемых художниками задач работы объединяет одно — обращение к образу Лейдена как к эмблеме, олицетворению Голландии эпохи золотого века живописи. The article is about the paintings of two town views (oil on panel) which are marked as the views of Leiden, from the collection of the Radishchev State Art Museum in Saratov. The first landscape was transferred to the museum in 1920. It was created by an unknown Dutch artist by the late 18th – early 19th century, imitating old Dutch painting tradition. The artist was deeply influenced by Dutch painting tradition of the 17th century both stylistically and technically. He created the fantasy image of Leiden as a typical Dutch river town of the 17th century to highlight a connection with the old Dutch painting tradition. Another town view was transferred to Radishchev Museum as a work of an unknown master in 1972. The painting was later attributed to the Dutch master of the 19th century P.G. Vertin (1819–1893). It is a typical artwork done by P.G. Vertin who used to play with reality and fantasy. The artist aims to solve the subtle play of the light and shadows on a narrow town street. The comparison of two Leiden views from the Radishchev State Art Museum in Saratov collection clearly illustrates two different approaches to the tradition of the Dutch town landscape. The imitation painting is an example of a mechanical approach to the old Dutch art. The artwork by P.G. Vertin shows how a professional artist of 19th century sees the art heritage of his predecessors as a solid base, but solves artistic problems in a modern way, corresponding to his time. The image of Leiden as a typical Dutch town is a reflection of the general art trend. The artists had different approaches and solved different tasks. However, they have one important thing in common: both of them see the image of Leiden as an emblem, the embodiment of Holland in the era of the Golden painting age.

Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640) is generally regarded as the painter of the Counter-Reformation and the embodiment of Flemish Baroque. Since the founding of the Belgian state in 1830, he and his art have been increasingly appropriated as a point of reference for the cultural identity of Flanders. Art was also appropriated in the formation of the national identity of the Kingdom of the Netherlands – in particular the depiction of nature and landscape that had become a speciality of many painters in the northern provinces. But Rubens too was admired by his contemporaries for his landscapes, and in the Dutch Republic they were held in high esteem. For his part, Rubens can be shown to have followed closely developments in landscape painting on the Northern side of the border. Despite the difficult political situation, there was also an ongoing exchange between North and South, even during the Eighty Years’ War. Rubens bought and owned Dutch pictures, and added human and animal figures to landscapes of his Dutch colleagues. He took a general interest in such pictures as an incentive to paint landscapes himself, which, reproduced in prints, became well-known in the Dutch Republic. In terms of landscape art, not only can a lively exchange of images and ideas be demonstrated, but it can also be shown that the existing differences were not understood as an expression of different political or religious contexts. The example of Rubens and his landscapes shows the value of a change of perspective to focus not on the differences between Flemish and Dutch art, but on cultural cross-border connections.