Academic literature on the topic 'Dutch Marine painting'

Тhe meaning of visual representation includes perception of information through the visual image. This form of information delivery to the general public was known in pagan cultures and asserted itself in Christianity. Since the late 20th century the concept of visualization united in itself not only religious and artistic images, but also the vision of mass culture. The performed research places emphasis on the establishment and the development of visual representation in Russia’s art culture of the ХVIII-XIX centuries. During the reign of Peter the Great, in a succession of state reforms and due to the influence of samples of European art, a transformation of national art culture occured. In this context, maritime art is viewed as one of the visual representation forms. The seascape, as a separate genre of painting, originates in the Dutch landscape. The first marinas were brought by Peter the 1st to decorate palaces and country residences. The victory in the Battle of Chesme (1770) and the joining of Crimea to the Russian Empire prompted Catherine the 2nd to invite J. P. Hackert to perpetuate the glory of Russian weapons. The artist became the first marine painter on Russian soil and performed a series of twelve paintings. The flourishing of the national seascape in Russia took place in the 19th century. The first who took the post of artist at the Ministry of the Sea was I.K. Aivazovsky. Since then the seascape acquired special significance and perpetuates the sea victories of Russia. A subtle metaphysical meaning is present in some romantic landscapes by I.K. Aivazovsky. Sea battle paintings acquired clear realistic features in the painting of A.P. Bogolyubov. The artists are concerned not only with the image of the sea, but also with the architecture of the ship, which forms a separate painting genre: the ship portrait genre. The image of the ship in the paintings of the XIX-XX centuries combines the lines of scripture and poetry, focusing the attention of the viewer on a deep semantic reading of the landscape.

The article examines the peculiarities of the color and light atmosphere of the phenomenon of white night in the Far North in the seascapes of the Russian and Northern European art. Attention is drawn to the period from the second third of the 19th century to the first quarter of the 20th century, when scientific and artistic exploration of the Arctic begins to take place on a regular basis. The article shows that the motive of the luminous night at the turn of the century appeared in connection with the appeal of artists to the study of natural contrasts of the Far North. Owing to the comprehending of the monotonous northern landscape, the palette of paintings was enriched with cold light shades of a lightair environment, the artists caught its special glow in the reflections in the water, ice floes and on the snow cover. The article mentions works of art by K. A. Korovin, V. A. Serov, V. V. Perepletchikov, N. V. Pinegin, A. A. Rylov and A. N. Benois, created during their participation in polar expeditions in late XIX and early XX centuries. Attention is drawn to the fact that the painters are branching out from marine pictorial art towards the study of special natural phenomena, such as images of light and dark polar nights, the northern lights, floating ice, fogs and snowy shores. It is carried out an art analysis and comparison of the works of the Russian “artist of eternal ice” Alexander Borisov and the Dutch “winter artist” Louis Apol, who were the first to depict such a phenomenon as a white night in the Far North. But their artistic interpretation of this phenomenon differs. A. Borisov perceives the North as a kind of “living” space in his own experience of figurative-symbolic comprehension of the world order, but at the same time does not lose touch with his realistic painting manner. And L. Apol impartially captures the surrounding nature, remaining in the principles of the features of compositional construction, which are characteristic of late romanticism. The European painter prefers muffled coloring, while on the canvas of the Russian artist, the paints literally ring and glow.

AbstractA century ago the Rijksprentenkabinet in Amsterdam acquired a 19th-century album containing 56 rapid sketches in black chalk after 17th-century, mostly Dutch paintings (Note 1). The sketches, which are numberd, have the names of the painters wrillen on them in the artist's own hand. They were first published in 1895 (Note 2) by E. W. Moes, who concluded that they were by a Delft artist, and C. Hofstede de Groot, who convincingly attributed them to Leonaert Bramer (1596-1674) and identified two of the paintings in question. Since then various other paintings have been identified (Notes 5, 7, 8, 11 and 12), notably by A. Blankert, who has made his findings available for the present publication, and other drawings belonging to the series have been found, Frits Lugt leading the way here (Notes 9 and 10). The present study, the first to be undertaken in depth since 1895, has brought to light three more sketches after paintings by Bramer himself (cat. nos.9-11) and one probably after Wouwerman (cat. no.65), while seven more paintings have been identified and one of the sketches without a name has proved to be after a painting by Antonio Maria Viani. Two lists of the sketches so far found are given here: that of State I reproduces the original order, that of State II gives the artists in alphabetical order as they appear in the catalogue published here. These sketches are of exceptional documentary value, since they have not only given us the names of some previously unknown painters, such as M. de Berch, J. Garbaal, P. Monincx and A. Pick, but they have also revealed unexpected aspects of some well-known ones, e.g. a still life by P. van Groenewegen, a Dutch landscape by J.B. Weenix and a genre piece of a very Utrecht character by L. de Jongh. Moreover, the sketches afford a fine glimpse of collecting in Holland in the 17th century, a subject otherwise known uirtually only from non-visual documents. On the back of one of the drawings (cat. no.6) appears a list of the owners of the pictures sketched (Fig. I), possibly written by Bramer himself. This is reproduced here in an amplified version of Moes' transcription, with one completely new name yielded by the present study. The styles given in the list suggest that the men concerned appear in it in order of their social standing. The first, Simon Graswinckel (c.1611-71), was a member of a wealthy Delft family of brewers and regents. He owned a great deal of property in and around Delft, but is reported by his brothers-in-law to have spent his time in gaming-houses and taverns (Note 30). His will of 1663 is known, but no paintings are mentioned in it. The second man on the list was probably a Van Beresteijn, another family from the wealthy upper echelons of Delft society. His precise identity came to light in a roundabout way via the inventory of 28 February 1652 of Adriaen van Vredenburg, in which are listed a number of paintings that were very probably sketched by Bramer (Note 32), notably one of Jezebel, this mention and Bramer's sketch being virtually unique indications of this subject in Dutch 17th-century painting. Vredenburg does not appear in the list of owners of the paintings, but on his death his property went to his stepdaughter, whose guardian he had been and who married Theodorus van Beresteijn in November 1652. Antonie van Bronchorst is known only from the commission he gave Bramer in 1653 to painl frescoes in his house (Note 34), while Capitein van der Bon..., Nicolaas van der Werch and Johan Persijn have not yet been traced in the Delft archives. Willem de Langue (1599-1666), on the other hand, was a lawyer and a connoisseur of paintings unparalleled in Delft in the mid 17th century (Note 36). He himself made the inventories of the paintings in important estates and he numbered many artists among his clientele (Note 37). Portraits of him and his wife by Van Vliet are known (Note 38), while he also appears as an officer in a militia piece of 1648 by Jacob Willemsz Delff (Fig. 2). Abraham de Cooge (before 1600-after 1680) was the most versatile person in the list, being an engraver, painter, dealer in tulip bulbs, organs and paintings and pottery manufacturer (Note 39). He was registered in the Guild of St. Luke in Delft in 1632 and two paintings by him are known (Note 40). In 1646 Leonaerl Bramer made illustrations to the picaresque novel Lazarilo de Tormes for him (Note 17). In the 1650's De Cooge was increasingly involved in art-dealing and that on no small scale. He also had representatives in Antwerp, so was probably among the biggest art-dealers in the Northern Netherlands. Adam Pick (c. 1622-before 1666) enrolled in the Guild of St. Luke in Delft in 1642 (Note 43) and was active in the town up to the early 1650's as a painter of landscapes, genre pieces and still lifes (Fig.3) and also as the keeper of the Toelast ( Wine Cask) inn. He probably moved to Leiden, where he is mentioned in 1654 as a vintner, in 1653, perhaps as a consequence of the death of his first wife in 1652, f or he certainly sold the inn that year. The inventory of their joint property drawn up in 1653 includes a list of paintings, which tally with nos.8(?) -98 in the State I list. Only one painting by Pick is known (Fig.3), plus the sketch by Bramer after another (cat. no.44). Reinier Jansz Vermeer (1591-1652, Note 46), the father of Johannes, started out as a silk weaver, but appears in 1629 as an innkeeper and in 1631 was registered in the Guild of St. Luke in Delft as an art-dealer. From then on he came into frequent contact with local painters, Bramer included, but his dealing was probably only a sideline of his innkeeping. He died in October 1652. The last owner on the list is Bramer himself, who returned to Delft in 1628 after a lengthy period in France and Italy (1614-27, Note 49). He played a leading part in the Guild of St. Luke and was among the most successful painters in Delft around the middle of the 17th century. Later in life, however, he was often in financial difficulties (Note 50). He was one of the very few Dutch fresco painters (Note 51), as well as a painter of history and genre pieces and a prolific draughtsman and illustrator (Note 52), while just one document provides evidence of his dealing in paintirtgs (Note 54). The presence of works by Bramer himself among the sketches seems to rule out the theory that he made them as an aide mémoire for his own use (Note 15), while their very rapid character makes it unlikely that they were produced for one of the owners as an art-object. It also seems highly improbable that the collectors/owners would have wanted their collections of paintings sketched together in one book. The most acceptable suggestion appears to be that they were made in connection with a forthcoming sale of pictures, particularly as three of the owners listed were involved in art-dealing, while in the cases of Vermeer, Pick and Van Beresteijn there was every reason for paintings from their collections being sold around the end of 1652 or beginning of 1653: Vermeer's death left his family in dire financial straits, Pick will probably have sold his pictures (as he did his inn) before moving to Leiden and Van Beresteijn will probably have wanted to realize some money on his wife's inheritance. Thus the dates of Vermeer's burial in October 1652 and Pick's inventory of March 1653 would seem to provide crucial clues to the dating of the sketches, which were probably made in rapid succession, to judge from the unity of style, despite the great diversity of the models, and the straightforward consecutive numbering. Presumably the intention was to bring these pictures from Delft collections together for a sale (Note 18) and Bramer was commissioned to make sketches in advance (or even to make a certain selection, Note 19) possibly to give an idea of what was on offer to collectors or dealers elsewhere (which might explain the 'inking in' of the painters' names originally written in chalk on five of the drawings, cat. nos. 17, 35, 36, 47 and 64). Bramer made such chalk inscriptions on ten of the drawings (Note 20), probably while sketching them. Afterwards he inscribed and numbered all of them in ink (Note 5). Notes in another 17th-century hand appear on cat. nos.22 and 24. The sheets may all have been of the same size originally, but have since been cut down, often wholly or partly along the framing lines around the sketch. This may well have been done by Bramer himsef or the dealer he made them for. Just over half of them remained together and were stuck into the present album in the 19th century. There are no portraits among the sketches and only two stll lifes and two marine paintings, but eleven Italianate landscapes and 22 history paintings. Thus the subjects differ somewhat from the categories arrived at by Montiasfor mid 17th-century Delft from his study of inventories (Note 56). The preference for history pieces is probably to be explained by the high social standing of the owners. The majority of the pictures were very modern for that time and of the 41 artists, 28 were still alive in 1652-3 and eight of them were only 35 or younger. Bramer's material contradicts Montlas' conclusion that Delft collectors showed a preference for local painters (Note 58), whose work amounted to 40-50% of that listed in the inventories. Of Bramer's 41 painters, only thirteen were from Delft (Note 59) and only five are found in Montias' list of the most common painters in Delft inventories. Thus the pictures sketched by Bramer fall outside the 'normal Delft pattern' and evince a less provincial taste. However, the collectors were still not among the leading figures of their day in this field by comparison with, for example, Boudewijn de Man of Delft (Note 62), whose collection included works by Goltzius, Bloemaert, Rubens, Rembrandt and Ter Brugghen in 1644. The pictures sketched by Bramer were presumably to be brought together for public auction and the sketches may very probably have been made with an eye to the sale catalogue. While sale catalogues are known in the second half of the 17th century, they only relate to very important collections, which makes these sketches very unusual as a documentation of a sale of pictures from average well-to-do collectors and dealers. The collection of sketches as such certainly has no parallel at this period (Note 64).

The Massacre of the Innocents of Matthew 2,16–18 is a famous motif of Early Modern European art and transcends borders of genre and confession. This article explores an example of its cross-confessional use looking at the sacred poem La Strage degli Innocenti (1632) by Italian poet Giambattista Marino, its German adaptation Verdeutschter Bethlehemitischer Kinder-Mord (1715) by Hamburg Protestant poet Barthold Heinrich Brockes and the influence of paintings from the Dutch milieu. Die biblische Episode des Bethlehemitischen Kindermordes aus Matthäus 2,16-18, ist ein prominentes und überaus beliebtes Motiv der frühneuzeitlichen Künste in Europa. Sein Erfolg ist derart groß, dass bei seiner Rezeption nicht nur die verschiedenen Genres und Gattungen, sondern auch die Konfessionsgrenzen überwunden werden. Dieser Artikel untersucht einen fruchtbaren Austausch von Katholiken und Protestanten am Beispiel von zwei geistlichen Epen: La Strage degli Innocenti (1632) des italienischen Dichters Giambattista Marino sowie die deutsche Adapation Verdeutschter Bethlehemitischer Kinder-Mord (1715) des protestantischen Hamburger Dichters Barthold Heinrich Brockes. Bis heute jedoch ist das italienische Opus dem literarischen Kanon kaum bekannt, obgleich es inmitten der konfessionellen Auseinandersetzung zu einer kulturellen Schnittstellte Europas avanciert. Der folgende Beitrag diskutiert also nicht allein den interkonfessionellen Gebrauch des Motivs, sondern veranschaulicht darüber hinaus die kulturhistorische Relevanz von Marinos geistlichem Epos über den Vergleich mit Kindermord-Gemälden aus dem niederländischen Milieu.

AbstractThe seventeenth-century, probably Flemish, artist Abraham Casembroot (Bruges? before or in Ι593 - Messina Ι658) spent the latter half of his life in Sicily. His entire extant oeuvre was produced there, which is probably why he is so little known in the Netherlands. The painter lived in the east-coast port of Messina, where for the last nine years of his life he held the post of consul for the Republic of the United Netherlands. Some of the bulletins he sent to the States General in his consular capacity are kept in the Rijksarchief at The Hague. So are the documents which confirm his appointment in Ι649 and that of his successor and thus establish Ι658 as the year of Casembroot's death. Information about his life can be found in biographies of Messina artists. The most detailed account is by Francesco Susinno in his Vite de' pittori messinesi of Ι724, although later vite of Messina artists also devote a comparatively large amount of space to Casembroot. As a painter he was evidently held in considerable esteem in Messina, where he had five local pupils. Casembroot specialized in harbour and marine views and tempests; according to the vite his paintings were much in demand in both Sicily and the Netherlands. The well-known seventeenth-century collection amassed by Don Antonio Ruffo of Messina boasted no fewer than ten works by Casembroot, one of which was very likely the large canvas The Swordfish Catch, now in the Museo di San Martino in Naples. Incidentally, a hitherto unpublished document reveals that one of Casembroot's consular duties was to deal with the ship that in all probability had on board Rembrandt's Aristotle, commissioned by Ruffo. It is remarkable that currently only four authenticated paintings by Casembroot are known, plus a fifth which is attributed to him on convincing grounds. His imaginary harbours resemble those by less well-known Netherlandish painters in Italy such as Cornelis de Wael and notably Adriaen van der Cabel. For a long time the latter was thought to have been responsible for four large series of sketchbook drawings with Sicilian studies which were in the Kupferstichkabinett in Berlin until the I9305 and subsequently scattered. In I973 Hans Mielke observed numerous stylistic correspondences between sheets from this former Berlin series and a preliminary drawing by Casembroot for an etching. There is also a stylistic resemblance to other traceable sheets from the former Berlin series (a considerable number of which are now in the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge), some of which have been identified as preliminary studies for etchings by Casembroot. Consequently, three of the four Berlin series of sketchbooks previously attributed to Van der Cabel must now be established as Casembroot's work. Compared with Casembroot's paintings, his etchings and drawings exhibit more obvious personal stylistic characteristics, which Mielke had already observed in the nervous lines and the distinctive manner in which the small human figures are depicted; this enables reliable attributions to be made now. Mielke also demonstrated that Van der Cabel made use of drawings by Casembroot for his own etchings, and he is quite likely to have owned drawings by Casembroot. Casembroot's best-known work is a series of etchings of views of Messina and the surrounding countryside which he dedicated to the collector Lucas van Uffelen. Preliminary drawings for this series and for an authentic painting have survived. Casembroot utilized the drawings he did from nature in his sketchbooks as preliminary studies for etchings and paintings. Surviving sheets show small figures engaged in various activities, topographical sketches and accurate studies of local ships. The artistic quality of Casembroot's oeuvre is not particularly high. Its current significance is largely due to the topographical depictions of Messina and its environs, which look completely different today as the result of natural disasters. Despite his lengthy sojourn in Sicily, Casembroot remained a recognizably northern painter. His subject-matter displayed typically Dutch features which were uncommon in Messina, where local painters generally confined themselves to history pieces. With his harbour and sea views Casembroot seems to have discovered a gap in the market, which may account for his success in Messina.

The seventeenth century was an incredibly fascinating time for art in England developmentally, especially because most of the artists that were receiving the commissions from English patrons and creating the art weren’t English, they were Dutch. Over this one hundred year period scores of Dutch artists migrated over from the Dutch Republic and showed England this Golden Age of painting that had established Dutch artists back in the Netherlands as pioneers in their line of work. In studies of Anglo-Dutch art, portraiture is a genre that has been widely researched; Peter Lely (a Dutch-born portraitist) is one of many widely acclaimed artists of this genre; comparative to many of the artworks and artists chosen for this research. Generally Anglo-Dutch relations, politically, economically, religiously and of course culturally there was, during the seventeenth century, so much going on between these two nations. Did this intense ever-changing relationship have an impact on that the other ‘low’ genres of art that was produced throughout this century? This research involves understanding and thinking about the impact of the cultural exchange that took place between England and the Netherlands in the seventeenth century on ‘low’ art – marine, landscape and still life painting. This research entails thinking about the origins of these genres as well as looking at individual paintings on a detailed basis and understanding how this cultural interchange manifests and translates itself through visual motifs – objects (large and small), stylistic characteristics and theme of the painting. Various themes and interpretations - in particular iconography and iconology, descriptive versus narrative art and national identity - have been explored and considered in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the literature that already exists for this art in an effort to consider something new but to also interpret the paintings in a different way – this research has considered these paintings through the visual elements and has explained the cultural significance they provide.

Abstract Until the eighteenth century the Russians had not been great art collectors. There were some notable collections of gold and silver artefacts, and some of the aristocratic dynasties confirmed the purity of their lineage with handsome portraits of their ancestors, but there was no tradition of private picture galleries. This state of affairs was to change in 1697, when Peter the Great (r. 1682-1725) first went abroad, to Amsterdam, at the time one of the thriving trade centres of Europe. The Tsar, then in the fifteenth year of his reign, had already shown a strong proclivity for Western culture and society, and while he was in Holland he manifested an interest in European painting. After their artistic renaissance of the seventeenth century, the Dutch were avid picture collectors, and Peter attended several art auctions and saw first-class works in the Town Hall and in private collections. Inspired, he invested in a few marine paintings, which reflected his passion for all things nautical.