Antwerp and Amsterdam: Artistic
Exchange c.1580-1675
Stephanie S. Dickey
E: sdickey@iupui.edu
This workshop proposed
a critical analysis of interactions between seventeenth-century
artists and artistic communities today designated
as "Dutch" and "Flemish."A The
discussion focused primarily on issues of style, workshop
practice, market, etc., rather than on political identity,
which was considered elsewhere (see the workshop by
Haeger, Courtright and Koslow). The workshop began
with a general discussion based on the following questions:
1. Can we define a
typical "Dutch" style, or are there too
many differences between regions or even between individual
workshops? How much has "Hollandocentrism"
colored, perhaps unfairly, our picture of Dutch art
as practiced throughout the United Provinces? How
much do particularities of subject, rather than style,
affect our picture of the "Dutchness" of
Dutch art?
2. Are there unifying
stylistic factors that can be seen as distinctive
for Flemish art? Is there a "Flemish" style,
or just a "Rubens" style?A
3. What conclusions
can be drawn from personal interactions between artists
north and south of the political divide? How permeable
were the borders of artistic exchange?
Stephanie Dickey presented
a general introduction, using as a focal point passages
from Arnold Houbrake's Groote Schouburgh. Writing
long after the official establishment of the Republic,
Houbraken discusses various Flemish artists alongside
their Dutch contemporaries as examples of the greatness
of Netherlandish art. Also, however, in presenting
the rationale for the choice of artists he includes
(1753 ed., I, pp. 6-7), Houbraken considers artists
from 'Dutch' cities such as Deventer and Leeuwarden
no less, nor more, foreign to Holland than those of
Brabant, Prague and Cologne. His approach thus argues
both for a broad acceptance of Dutch and Flemish artists
as part of the same tradition, and for the persistence
of Hollandocentrism as an organizing principle.
Five short presentations
presented case studies of work in progress on interactions
between artists in Flanders and the Netherlands. Axel
RA1/4ger discussed architectural interiors by Bartholomeus
van Bassen in which staffage is provided sometimes
by Dutch and sometimes by Flemish figure painters.A
Dennis Weller discussed the impact of the Bruegelian
tradition on the genre paintings of Jan Miense Molenaer.
Karolien De Clippel presented evidence of the impact
of Rembrandt's prints on the Antwerp genre painter
Joos van Crasebeeck. Thomas DA?ring discussed the Van
Dyckian qualities of drawings by Govert Flinck. Shelley
Perlove discussed Flemish influence on Jan Lievens's
portrait of the Jewish physician Ephraim Bueno.A
The general discussion
that followed focused on evidence for, and against,
the concept of a 'continuous Netherlands', in which
artistic collaboration and market exchange moved freely
between Catholic south and Protestant north. Examples
presented, especially Van Bassen's free cooperation
with both Dutch and Flemish figure painters, raised
intriguing questions about whether our modern scholarly
tendency to separate the two traditions should be
re-evaluated. In a valuable concluding remark, Hans
Vlieghe summed up an important theme that emerged
in the discussion: for both Dutch and Flemish artists,
the Netherlandish tradition of Van Eyck, Bruegel and
Rubens A? not the classical and Italian Renaissance
tradition A? provided an essential role model. This
shared heritage underlies the communal interests and
cooperative practices of Dutch and Flemish artists
in the seventeenth century.
<<BACK
|
