The Story of Dutch PaintingCaffin, Charles H. (Charles Henry)
History
The Story of Dutch Painting
Caffin, Charles H. (Charles Henry)
Painting, Dutch
The lack of cohesion, of which these dissensions were a symptom, and
that had always been close to the surface of unity owing to the
excessive individualism of the cities, was reflected in the new art.
Small as was the total area of the country, it supplied a number of
artistic centers, each with its group of artists, who had sufficient in
common to constitute a school. Under the influence of tradition, or more
often of some conspicuous member of the group, they presented
similarities of motive that distinguished their choice of subjects and
even their method of painting. Thus we may note a school of Haarlem, of
Leyden, of Amsterdam, The Hague, Delft, Dordrecht, and Utrecht. There
was a certain rivalry between the schools of these various cities, but,
on the other hand, a centripetal force that tended also to draw them
together. Communication was easy in so small a country, and, moreover,
the growing importance of Amsterdam as the commercial capital made it
gradually a center also of art. The result was a happy combination of
homogeneousness and individualism. The paintings of the period possess a
common excellence, of a kind so distinctive that you may recognize at
once a picture as belonging to the School of Holland, and yet they
reveal so many individual traits that the homogeneousness is not
characterized by monotony.
Accordingly, if we do not make the mistake of trying to surround the
school of each city with an arbitrary wall, separating it conclusively
from other cities, we may get many suggestions that help to classify our
comprehension of the Holland School as a whole. I propose, therefore, to
distribute the artists, whose names we have already reviewed, according
to their individual schools; to the cities in which they worked, and, in
most cases, were born and educated.
Under the head of Utrecht, then, we find the names of Heem, Hondecoeter,
and Weenix, all three of them still-life painters. But, while this
points to the fact that the distinguishing characteristic of the Utrecht
School was the painting of flowers, dead game, and birds, it is not to
be assumed that still-life is unrepresented in the other schools. The
catalogues contain the names of no less than a hundred painters in this
department, distributed throughout the various cities, and, as time
goes on, congregating especially in Amsterdam. To the latter Weenix and
Hondecoeter migrated; and it is interesting to note how the change of
locale affected their art. Corresponding to the wealth of the capital,
their pictures became much larger, designed as superb decorations for
the walls of sumptuous houses.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account