10.3 Lievens and Venetian Art in Amsterdam
In 1644, Lievens moved to Amsterdam, where he lived in the periods 1644–1653, 1659–1669 and 1672–1674. The presence of Italian paintings in Amsterdam became more prominent around c. 1620 and has been mapped extensively by several studies on individual collections and on the art market as a whole.1 Of particular interest are the works of art assembled by the brothers Gerard (1599–1658) and Jan Reynst (1601–1646), both of whom were successful merchants, which grew into the most important collections of Italian paintings, antique sculptures, naturalia and various other collector’s items in the Netherlands.2 The core of the Reynst collection consisted of a group of paintings they bought from the Venetian collector Andrea Vendramin (1556–1629) in the 1630s and grew until 1660, meaning Lievens had the opportunity to see the collection at its peak. It is known they also bought a Titian from the auction of Lucas van Uffelen’s (1586-1637) collection in 1639,3 an auction well-known because of the picture Rembrandt drew of the portrait of Baldassare Castiglione by Raphael [16].4 In 1660, the States of Holland and West Friesland selected 24 paintings and 12 antique sculptures from the Reynst collection to present as the so-called ‘Dutch Gift’ to King Charles II of England (1630–1665), a great tribute to the brothers as collectors.5 The gift included Bassano’s The Way to the Calvary [17] and Titian’s Madonna and Child in a Landscape with Tobias and the Angel [18].6 The 200 paintings in the Reynst collection were predominantly Italian and this emphasis on Italian art made this collection unique in the Netherlands, growing into one of the attractions of the city of Amsterdam and it may have been a source of inspiration and enjoyment for Lievens, as it served for many others.7 The Reynst collection was only surpassed in scope and quality when Howard’s wife moved with her husband’s collection, mentioned earlier, from Antwerp to Amsterdam around 1645–1646 following his death.8 When Howard’s widow died in 1654, the collection was dispersed by the Howard heirs.9 Considering that Lievens was acquainted with Howard, it is possible that his wife also granted Lievens access when the collection was in her care in Amsterdam.
The cities of Antwerp and Amsterdam were active international art trade centres, yet the activities of art dealers were not consistently documented. It is, however, certain that picture dealers such as Johannes de Renialme (1593/4–1657) and Gerrit Uylenburgh (1625–1679) in Amsterdam were buying and selling a large amount of Italian art.10 Uylenburgh is probably best known for the fiasco concerning the sale of paintings in 1671 to Friedrich Wilhelm von Brandenburg (1620-1688) – Lievens’ patron in 1653–1654 – where Uylenburgh tried to sell 13 paintings, many of which purported to be Italian, for 30,000 guilders, only to be almost entirely returned to Amsterdam.11 Henri de Fromentiou (1633/4–1693), the counsellor and representative of the Elector in Berlin, escorted the paintings back and gathered support for his opinion that the Uylenburgh paintings were copies worth little or nothing. In May 1672, more than 50 painters testified regarding the authenticity of the work, including Lievens. His involvement is significant, since it indicates that Lievens’ expertise in Italian painting was called upon. Lievens sided with his former patron, signing a document stating the paintings were ‘rubbish and poor work’.12 The dealer de Renialme had a huge disposable stock at his death in 1627, which included three paintings by Titian, two by Palma, one by Bassano and one by Tintoretto. This impressive group gives a glimpse of what other incredible works of art might have passed through this dealer’s hands during his career. Given that de Renialme owned 19 paintings by Lievens, making him the most represented artist in de Renialme’s collection,13 it is very likely that the two men had a good working relationship and that Lievens was probably well acquainted with his stock through multiple visits.
During his time in London and Antwerp, Lievens developed a curious Flemish/international style of ‘eclectic classicism’, which was an amalgamation of his sombre realism, van Dyck’s elegant style of painting and the monumentality of Rubens.14 What likely added to this fusion was the abundance of Italian art within Lievens’ immediate vicinity, as explained earlier. After his return to Amsterdam in 1644, Lievens needed to merge his new stylistic developments with what was desired by the highest ranks of society in the Netherlands.15 Many of the painters that were his direct competitors after the death of Rubens and Van Dyck,16 such as Jacob Jordaens (1593–1678), Rembrandt and Joachim von Sandrart (1606–1688), are well known to have channelled their fascination for the Venetian masters through their work and catalysed the inclusion of Venetian pictorial language in the arts of the Netherlands, making it a necessity for Lievens as well.17 Lievens thus often catered to a market that already favoured Venetian inspired paintings to match the grand art that hung in the palaces and mansions of his patrons. If a more ‘Venetian’ style was appreciated or if a client desired so, Lievens would be able to deliver.18 Five Muses on Mount Parnassus in the Oranjezaal of Huis ten Bosch is an excellent example of this [19]. Lievens was commissioned this painting in 1648, four years after his move from Antwerp as a successful history painter whose Flemish/international style, developed during his time in London and Antwerp, was in demand. Lievens arrived in Amsterdam at a moment when taste began to move away from the monochromatic and sober realism that characterised Dutch painting of the second quarter of the century.19 His experience at the English court and his development of a style which combined the monumentality of Rubens with the elegance and atmosphere of Van Dyck, proved to be lucrative.20 This painting marked the beginning of a number of important large-scale public commissions, making Lievens one of the most desired painters for princely palaces and public buildings in The Northern Netherlands.21 The focus of the case study of Five Muses will be on the depiction of nudes, which is what Titian because of his Poesie series was renowned for.
16
Rembrandt after Rafaël after Raphael
Portrait of Baldassare Castiglione (1478-1529), dated 1639
Vienna, Graphische Sammlung Albertina, inv./cat.nr. 8859
17
Jacopo Bassano
The Way to Calvary
London (England), National Gallery (London), inv./cat.nr. NG6490
18
Tiziano
Madonna and Child in a landscape with Tobias and the Angel
Great Britain, private collection The Royal Collection, inv./cat.nr. RCIN 402863
19
Jan Lievens
Five Muses on Mount Parnassus, 1650 (dated)
The Hague, Paleis Huis ten Bosch (Oranjezaal)
Notes
1 I refer to: Logan 1979, Meijer 2000, Van den Berghe 1991, Van Gelder 1993, Montias 1999; 2002 and Lugt 1936. There were 483 Italian paintings in 17th-century Amsterdam collections, in which Titian, with 53 original paintings and 16 copies, was the protagonist. Next in line was Veronese with 30 paintings, followed by Bassano with 27 paintings, with Giorgione and Tintoretto accounting for 24 paintings each and Palma for 22. Van den Berghe 1991, p. 54–55.Lievens spent some time at the court of Berlin and The Hague, yet these collections could not offer Jan Lievens much Venetian inspiration, since they had very few Italian paintings. Given the popularity of 16th- and 17th-century Italian masters among contemporary princes and also among a small group of connoisseurs in the republic, this is remarkable. They were certainly available, nor could price have been an obstacle. Ploeg/Vermeeren 1997, p. 55. Bartoschek 1990, p. 7.
2 One other collection that Lievens might have known is by Nicolaes Sohier (1590–1642). Sohier’s collection included masters such as Veronese, Titian, Bassano, a Palma Vecchio, and also a Jan Lievens. One collaborative painting can now be traced to his collection, Two Women and a Man ( Affection? Jason, Medea and Creusa?) attributed to Giorgione, Titian and Sebastiano del Piombo (Detroit Institute of Art). Even though Sohier died before Lievens arrived in Amsterdam, his collection was not sold and passed on to his son, so he still could have seen the paintings later. Van der Veen 1997, p. 92.
3 Van den Berghe 1992, p. 30.
4 Ibid., p. 24.
5 Logan 1979, p. 9.
6 Most of the ones that can be identified today are in the British royal collection, because they were part of the Dutch Gift. Other identifiable pictures of this group are: Veronese, The Dream of Saint Helena and The Mystic Marriage of Saint Catherina of Alexandria, Schiavone’s Christ before Pilate and The Judgement of Midas, Titian’s Portrait of Jacopo Sannazaro and Tintoretto’s Portrait of a Dominican Friar.
7 Logan 1979, p. 106.
8 Ibid., p. 102.
9 Haskell 2013, p. 111.
10 Golahny 1984, p. 67.
11 Lammertse/Van der Veen 2006, p. 231.A large section of these paintings Uylenburgh bought at the auction of the Reynst collection. This can be confirmed by the fact that some of the Uylenburgh paintings can be identified with the illustrated catalogue of paintings of the collection of Andrea Vendramin named De Picturis In museis Dni Andreae Vendrameno positis (1627), since Reynst bought a large part of this collection in Italy. Meijer 1999, p. 75.
12 Lammertse/Van der Veen 2006, p. 85.
13 Montias 1988, p. 255.
14 DeWitt 2006, p. 153.
15 Painters did not only make stylistic changes based on artistic grounds, but also out of social and economic means. For more information on this topic: Kok 2016.
16 According to Giovanni Pietro Bellori (1613–1696), Rubens carried ‘good Venetian colour’ back to Antwerp, and most of the artist’s early critics and biographers described him as more of a Venetian than a Flemish artist. Bellori 1627, p. 150. For the most exhaustive overview of Titian’s impact on Rubens: Held 1982 and Wood 2010. For van Dyck’s relation with Venetian artists: Brown 1987; Brown et al. 1999; Martin/Feigenbaum 1979.
17 As Erna Kok has demonstrated, von Sandrart made quite an artistic impact in Amsterdam. Mainly known as an art theorist, von Sandrart was also a painter with quite an eclectic art concept who tried to apply as many artistic developments of old and contemporary European masters to his own art by training in different styles. When von Sandrart arrived in Italy in 1629, instead of choosing sides in the colorito–disegno debate (see § 1.4), he made sure to be proficient in the Venetian colorito of Titian, and in the disegno tradition of Nicolas Poussin (1594–1665). After his return from Italy in 1637, von Sandrart’s ‘Italian’ style was a perfect fit for the international taste. As mentioned previously, Venetian paintings were highly desired among the Amsterdam collectors and their collections undoubtedly influenced the Amsterdam elite, who in turn commissioned painters that could deliver the international style, so desired in Amsterdam. Kok 2013, p. 107–108. On the colorito–disegno debate: Sluijter 2006, p. 195–219, for Sandrart in particular p. 212–217. Kok 2013, p. 113; 136.The artist who made the biggest impact in Amsterdam, was of course Rembrandt. It has long been recognised that Rembrandt took inspiration from the Venetian artists, especially Titian. Research such as the dissertation by Amy Golahny ‘Rembrandt’s paintings and the Venetian tradition’ (1984), exhibitions titled ‘Rembrandt and the Venetian Influence’ (2000) and books such as Rembrandt and the Italian Renaissance (1966), give an in-depth analysis of this relationship. Rembrandt owned Italian works himself, including paintings ascribed to Giorgione, Palma Vecchio and Jacopo Bassano. For direct knowledge of Titian’s paintings, he relied on the traffic of the Amsterdam art market. There are several indicators that Rembrandt and Lievens had rekindled their friendship in the 1650s and that they were aware of each other’s artistic endeavours and Venetian stylistic influences. Stephanie Dickey builds a strong case that the two painters remained in touch in Amsterdam. Rembrandt may have even consulted with Lievens on the many Italian paintings he saw during their years apart. Clark et al. 2000, p. 9–19. Golahny 1984, p. 251–255. Bikker 2014, p. 13–14. DeWitt 2006, p. 223. Dickey 2008, p. 50.
18 Dewitt 2006, p. 260.
19 Schneider 1973, p. 64.
20 DeWitt 2006, p. 201.
21 Ibid., p. 198–200.