Dutch still life artists in Germany in the 17th century. Cultural interaction.

Antsiferova Polina Konstantinovna ORCID: 0009-0004-2025-4937 Postgraduate student of the Department of Art History, European University in St. Petersburg (ANOOVO "EUSPb") 191187, Russia, Saint Petersburg, Gagarinskaya str., 6,, room. 1H, 2H, 4H, 5H, 6H, 7H polina.ant@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

In the Dutch art of the XVII century, new genres appear – landscape, household genre and still life. In the Dutch Republic, a proto-capitalist country with developing mercantilism, goods began to acquire a cultural connotation ^{[1, pp. 252, 256, 260]}. The goal of a wide range of society was the acquisition of luxury goods and direct possession of them, and the practice of collecting, donating and exchanging these items elevates the world of material objects to a new level. The development of the art market, the country's achievements in social and exact sciences, as well as the influence of Calvinism on social attitudes, the change of the customer and new demands in art had their influence on the emergence and further development of Dutch still life as a genre. Still life, however, developed under the influence of external factors – the work of Dutch and Flemish artists existed in close connection, many young masters chose to go to Italy, Germany or other European states.

Germany, being so close to the Northern Netherlands, was more inclined to accept the influence of Dutch art. German art at the beginning of the XVII century was completely different from Dutch art - it strongly gravitated towards mannerism. The realistic interpretation of new genres has captivated the German public of all circles, from the bourgeoisie to the elector himself, but this realism should be understood in an unconventional sense. It is no coincidence that Dutch art became popular in Germany precisely in the second half of the 17th century, when many genres had already lost the chamber sophistication inherent in them in the first half of the century. Still life is becoming much more decorative and such areas as images of game, trompe l'il (or "deception") and floral still life in its extremely complicated composition come to the fore. The German public appreciated the "hyperbolized" realism, which acted as a real picturesque spectacle and by the end of the century ceased to be a catalyst for a delicate dialogue between the work and the viewer.

Dutch artists in 17th-century Germany at the court of the Elector.

Researchers do not write much about the interaction of Dutch and German art within the still life genre, the topic appears to be extremely unexplored. In his monograph, the Russian art historian Yu. A. Tarasov argues that German masters began to pay attention to still life details back in the XV-XVI centuries, following such famous Dutch artists as Rogier van der Weyden (1400-1464), Hans Memling (1433-1494) and Jan Gossart (1478-1553) ^{[2, p. 5]}. Foreign researchers also adhere to similar views ^{[3, p. 29]}. In historiography, we do not find a full-fledged printed study of Dutch and German still life in the XVII century. There is an extensive Gerson Digital project from RKD, the Netherlands Institute of Art History in The Hague, in which researchers study Dutch and Flemish works of the Golden Age in terms of interaction with other national schools. The authors rely on Horst Gersen's monumental text of 1942 ^[4] and actively complement the project "Gerson Digital: Germany" ^[5].

When talking about 17th-century Dutch art, it is always important to remember the division into Flemish and Dutch. Indeed, some masters of still life who came to Germany were born in the Southern Netherlands and successfully assimilated into a new country. The Flemings, who often gravitated towards complicated overloaded decorativeness in their works, found an extremely willing audience at the Brandenburg court, who welcomed the grandiloquence of their works. This does not mean that the Germans gravitated more towards Flemish art than Dutch – they perceived "Dutch" in their own way. Researchers do not agree on this issue. Back in the early 17th century, German researchers E. Neustein and M. Grunewald argued about which art the Germans gravitated more towards. Neustein wrote that "German nature, with its mystical and irrational view of striving for the development of one's own soul, is more in line with Flemish nature than with the sober, anti-romantic and rational Dutch character" ^[6]. Grunewald claimed that "in the painting of the XVII century, the German spirit gathered and reflected, which was expressed only by the Dutch and to a much lesser extent by the Flemings" ^[7].

In Germany in the second half of the century, people from the south really came for the most part and they worked mainly in the second half of the XVII century. Among the masters of still life, however, we see a completely different picture. Artists such as Abraham de Lust (1650-1659), a Flemish who lived in Leeuwarden for a while, moved to Germany; Hendrik van der Borcht (1583-1660), a Flemish who lived in Italy and Germany; Cornelius Biltius (1653-1686), was born in The Hague and moved to Germany in the 1680s; Hendrik de Froment (1653-1694) – born in Mastricht, worked at the court of Elector Frederick William I since 1670; Augustine Tervesten (1649-1711) – was born near Gouda, traveled to Germany, England, France; Adrian van der Spelt (1630-1673) – was born in Leiden, received the position of court artist after 1664 in Germany; Willem van Rooyen (1645-1713) – born in Haarlem, also received a position as a court artist in Berlin in 1669; Peter Nason (1612-1688) – born in Amsterdam, painted portraits in Berlin ^{[8, pp. 43-148]}. Most of the masters of still life who arrived in Germany were still Dutch, not Flemish, which is probably explained by the very features of the genre and the geographical location of the Northern Netherlands. It is noteworthy that if in Italy in the first half of the XVII century Dutch masters often went for inspiration and then, inspired, returned to their native lands ^{[9, p. 13]}, then in Germany we see a completely different picture – artists who worked in the genre of still life are invited to paint at court and stay in a new country for for a long time.

German masters of still life and the "early breakfasts" direction

In the first half of the century, several artists appeared in Germany who created Dutch-like "set tables" - a small-format still life style depicting food, dishes and other elements. In many ways, these masters are not inferior to their neighbors, creating subtle exquisite compositions, beautiful in their simplicity. The German artist Georg Flegel (1566-1633) was a master who largely determined the development of this genre in German and Western European pictorial art. It is assumed that Flegel painted individual still lifes around 1600. Several works are known, believed to have been written in collaboration with Lucas van Falkenborch, depicting feasts ^[10]. Unfortunately, his earliest dated still life was painted back in 1630, which leaves us in the dark about the exact dating of his previous paintings ^{[11, pp. 56-57]}. It is almost impossible to determine when and how exactly the interaction between Flegel in Frankfurt and the Dutch masters of still life in the north took place. However, this interaction seems obvious – if Flegel did not borrow the plot of the "set table" from the Flemings or the Dutch, then they could quite borrow it from the German master. Flegel's paintings, which in composition and color scheme are closely related to the paintings of the masters of "early breakfasts" - the Dutch Floris van Dyck, Floris van Schoten and the Flemings Osias Bert and Clara Peters, apparently, were already bought in Antwerp at the beginning of the century ^{[12, p. 28]}. Despite the absence of any documents linking these Flemish, Dutch and German artists, it is clear that the development of "early breakfasts" took place in parallel in Antwerp, Holland and Frankfurt am Main ^{[12, p. 28]}. It is very difficult to trace the moment of the appearance of the first such work, given that such works begin to appear with varying frequency throughout Europe (Swiss artist Joseph Plepp, works by Italian artists).

"Luxurious" and floral still life by Dutch masters in Germany

To a greater extent, interest in Dutch still life in Germany was determined by the personal preferences of the main person in the country. We know that the Great Elector Frederick William I had special tastes in relation to art, and he probably appreciated the genre of still life. Broder Mathisen, a German master of still life, worked at his court, who set the tone for other artists who worked in the genre of still life in Germany. It is difficult to attribute these works to any particular direction. Matissen's paintings could be considered a "luxurious still life" - the trend of the mid-second half of the XVII century, depicting all the variety of dishes, filigree dishes and material wealth, if not for the obvious attributes of vanitas and the small vertical format of the paintings. Probably, the artist worked exclusively for the requests of his client.

In the elector's collection we find several still lifes by Peter Nason ^[5], which are similar in style to paintings by Matissen. These works combine all the features inherent in the work of successful Dutch masters, however, we do not see any compositional persuasiveness or original author's idea. Such still lifes lack the deliberate decorative redundancy that the Dutch "luxurious" still life was famous for, and the somewhat simplified interpretation of details and extremely conditional composition also does not allow them to be attributed to Dutch "early breakfasts" or "monochrome banquets". The works of Mathisen and his Dutch followers can hardly be called art that was strongly influenced by Flemish or Dutch. It appears secondary, often flat and does not possess those distinctive artistic qualities that distinguished the Dutch still life among the genre art of other European countries - clarity of forms and composition, fine elaboration of colors.

The Haarlem-born artist Willem van Rooyen has been working in Germany since 1669 and brings to the country the traditions of the trompe l'oeil trend, "deceptions" depicting caught game nailed to the wall. This trend is often associated with the name of Melchior de Hondecoeter, who created amazingly realistic images of game, demonstrating a subtle sense of plastic form. Such "deceptions" were very popular with the elector and were widely used in the works of German masters. The works most often depicted birds, the main prey on the hunt. Paintings with similar trophy images were hunted by wealthier townspeople, who rarely, if ever, participated in the hunt themselves, but had the opportunity to flaunt "deceptive" images of such trophies. Undoubtedly, hanging a picture of a beaten game was a more elegant solution than hanging animal carcasses in a rich house. In addition to hunting still life, Van Rooyen creates "luxurious still lifes" in the manner of Mathisen and floral still lifes. It is believed that the artist borrowed some motifs from another Dutch master who worked in Germany – Hendrik de Fromantu. Flower paintings by de Froment and van Rooyen are often very similar in style and composition, and often to such an extent that the exact authorship of their paintings is in doubt ^{[13, p. 50]}. Probably, through de Froment, the influence of Baltasar van Alst's work also comes to Germany ^{[14, p. 265]}.

De Fromentou was not only a court artist, he was responsible for the collection of paintings by the elector, and several times made trips to auctions to buy paintings that replenished the emerging collection. In 1682, he attended the auction of Sir Peter Lely's estate in London, and in 1684 went to Amsterdam on business on behalf of his employer^[5]. In addition, he sold paintings that were sent to him from the Netherlands at his own expense. The elector valued his opinion very much, as follows from the lawsuit brought against an art dealer who tried to sell him Italian paintings of poor quality for very big money ^[5].

It is noteworthy that the Great Elector rather gravitated towards the Flemish tradition of still life than the Dutch one, despite the fact that in the first half of the century and in Germany there were masters of "early breakfasts". At court, he kept Dutch artists. He was attracted by the decorative baroque of the "luxurious still lifes", he also preferred still lifes depicting rare flowers and insects. He was probably attracted by those Flemish features that Dutch art of the second half of the XVII century contains - a love of complicated composition, the introduction of brighter shades into the overall color scheme, the lack of a single compositional completeness. Despite the fact that the Germans, according to testimonies, appreciated precisely the Dutch craving for realism, and works devoid of this quality are being distributed in Germany. Probably, the elector really liked the genre of still life, but it is his peculiar tastes that determine the directions and manner in which Dutch masters work in Germany, and do not reflect at all the trends that we see in still life in the Netherlands.

It is important that we can only talk about the influence of Dutch artists on the German artistic environment in the second half of the XVII century, and we cannot talk at all about the interaction of German and Dutch masters in the Netherlands. We know about one German master who moved to Amsterdam in 1650-1667 – Bartolomeus Wiebke ^{[8, p. 217]}, but his manner is extremely secondary. We know only two paintings by this artist – one fruit and one hunting still life, both works quite conditionally copy the traditions of more famous Dutch artists. Probably, Wibke's works were not in great demand either at home or in Amsterdam, since the master did not leave a significant artistic trace in either of the two countries.

Conclusion

It would seem that the neighborhood of Germany and the Netherlands should have given noticeable artistic fruits, however, we do not find them in the genre of still life. Trips to Italy have a much greater impact on the creative manner of artists, but even then only indirectly and to a greater extent on Flemish masters. Dutch still life appeared at the beginning of the century as an original phenomenon, overgrown with artistic features peculiar to certain regions. The figures of individual masters of still life in the Northern and Southern Netherlands had such weight that the tradition they developed during the first half of the century in certain directions is fully welcomed by the artistic environment of other countries. Dutch still life does not change significantly under the influence of German traditions. On the contrary, artists come to European countries and share their achievements, which are met with a considerable amount of enthusiasm not only from the masters or the general public, but also from significant court figures. The Elector actively invites the masters of still life to the court, following his specific tastes.

It seems surprising that German art had almost no influence on the development of Dutch still life, but it is important to understand that the Dutch were pioneers in this genre and were much more willing to respond to artistic changes within their own country than in others. They preferred to preserve the unique character of their art, focusing on the depiction of everyday objects, wealth and nature in the context of Dutch culture. The deliberate or unconscious refusal to follow the artistic trends of other countries allowed them to create soulful works over the course of a century, which reflected their own identity as virtuoso artists and as residents of a young prosperous country.