The Collaboration Between Peter Paul Rubens and Jan Brueghel the Elder1 Christine Van Mulders
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Collaboration Between Peter Paul Rubens and Jan Brueghel the Elder1 christine van mulders The corpus of paintings made by Peter Paul Rubens in collab- Among the new artist duos we fi nd Cornelis van Dalem-Gillis oration with Jan Brueghel the Elder comprises some thirty Mostaert, Jacob Grimmer-Gillis Mostaert, Hans Vredeman works. Among them we fi nd wreaths or garlands of fl owers de Vries-Gillis Mostaert, Jacob Grimmer-Marten van Cleve around religious images, interiors with allegories, and land- and Cornelis Molenaer-Marten van Cleve.5 The practice of scapes with historical scenes. The period in which their col- collaborative production units also survived the iconoclasm laboration took place runs from 1598-1600, the probable date of 1566-1585. Gillis van Coninxloo collaborated with Karel of their fi rst joint effort, until 1625, the year of Brueghel’s van Mander and Gillis Mostaert; Joos de Momper ii with death.2 Frans Francken ii, Sebastiaen Vrancx, Hendrick van Balen The study of the creative process in works made by Rubens and Jan Brueghel i and ii.6 Other duos included Denijs van and Jan Brueghel the Elder together can be situated within Alsloot-Hendrick de Clerck, Abel Grimmer-Hendrick van the broader context of collaborative ties between independ- Balen and David Vinckboons-Hendrick de Clerck.7 ent artists in general. Investigation into the genesis of the During the fi rst half of the 17th century, when Antwerp’s conceptual framework underlying their combined efforts recovery was underway and the city continued to be a promis- can be articulated around institutional mechanisms like ing center for commissions from the Church, court, nobility the organization of the painters’ guilds, on the one hand, and affl uent middle class, and had the added advantage of an and cultural or socio-economic mechanisms on the other. extensive international art market, the phenomenon of col- In addition, there are also a number of specifi c biographical laboration was even more widespread. Production units that facts concerning both artists that initiated and stimulated had grown up around fi gures like Jan Brueghel the Elder and their decision to work together. Rubens undoubtedly played a role in this process. Like their The earliest forms of collaboration between independent 16th century counterparts, they were stimulated by speciali- painters, though hardly numerous, turn up in the fi rst quar- zation, which was at its peak in the 17th century. Brueghel ter of the 16th century, when they arose as a result of speciali- participated in collaborative projects throughout his career. zation in painting and the development of various genres.3 The earliest works that he produced in tandem with other art- Joachim Patinier, a skillful landscape painter, regularly relied ists date from between 1589 and 1596, during his stay in Italy, on specialized fi gure painters like his good friend Quinten where he worked for distinguished patrons like Cardinal Metsijs.4 Around the middle of the 16th century, the growing Federico Borromeo.8 While abroad, he painted works with number of genres – from traditional northern forms, such artists like Hans Rottenhammer and Jacob de Backer.9 Even as narrative devotional scenes, landscape, moralizing scenes after his return to Antwerp, he continued to make paintings from daily life, market and kitchen scenes, still lifes and por- with Rottenhammer.10 It was probably shortly after his return traits, to Italianate forms featuring religious, mythological from Italy that Brueghel came into contact with Hendrick and allegorical subjects – provided a stimulus to even greater van Balen, with whom he became close friends and with specialization. These, in turn, favored the rise of production whom he frequently collaborated. From the beginning of the units consisting of independent artists acting in tandem. 17th century onward, Van Balen had specialized in painting 107 1 the female nude, unlike Brueghel who concentrated on land- contain any specifi c provisions concerning these tempo- scapes and still lifes. In numerous allegorical scenes depict- rary production units. This is rather unusual, given that the ing the fi ve senses, the elements and the seasons, Van Balen trend toward specialization and collaboration grew over the provided Brueghel’s landscapes with fi gures.11 Many of these course of the 17th century into a characteristic mode of artis- paintings were made on commission for Borromeo.12 Tobias tic activity. In fact, the strict guild system seems to have cre- Verhaecht, Hendrick van Steenwijck, Sebastiaen Vrancx and ated an atmosphere of collegiality. This feeling of solidarity Hendrick de Clerck also collaborated with Brueghel before was in some cases given extra intensity by the long tradition Rubens returned from Italy, and continued to do so after- of intermarriage between artists’ families – the Brueghel, ward.13 Over the years, new collaborators joined their ranks. De Jode, Kessel and Teniers families are good examples.15 Brueghel also worked with Joos de Momper ii, Frans Francken The guild’s implicit recognition of independent collabora- ii, Peter van Avont, Jan Wildens and Frans Snyders.14 Rubens tion is evident, among other things, from the large number would continue to work with Brueghel throughout his career, of deans who regularly participated in this sort of activity. but he also collaborated with other artists, the most impor- Another sign of appreciation was the city of Antwerp’s gift tant being Jan Brueghel the Younger, Paul Bril, Frans Snyders, of two panels depicting the Allegory of Sight and Smell and the Paul de Vos and Jan Wildens. Allegory of Touch, Hearing and Taste to Archdukes Albert and All of this suggests that the institutional context of the paint- Isabella during their visit in 1618 – according to contempo- ers’ guild did not stand in the way of independent collabo- rary sources, these paintings were the result of collabora- ration. The labor regulations of the Guild of St. Luke did not tion between twelve of the most important artists of the day fig. 1: peter paul rubens and jan brueghel i (attributed), Battle of the Amazons, 108 Potsdam, Stiftung Preussische Schlösser und Gärten Berlin-Brandenburg, Schloss Sanssouci, Bildergalerie under Brueghel’s direction.16 In addition, the Antwerp rheto- Collaboration between masters of standing like Rubens and ricians’ chamber, the Violieren, had their blazon painted in Brueghel belonged to the high-level category. Of course, the 1618 by a group of four artists: Frans Francken ii, Hendrick determining factor in the rising value and growing success van Balen, Sebastiaen Vrancx and Jan Brueghel i. of paintings like these was their exceptionally high quality. This cultural and socio-economic context was also related to Even though Brueghel and Rubens were clearly excellent all the way in which paintings acquired value in 17th-century round painters, they were nevertheless aware of their best Antwerp. In addition, it is necessary to distinguish between qualities. Brueghel’s delicate, almost miniaturistic painting different levels of collaboration, which were also character- technique showed to best advantage in still-life and land- istic of the artist’s social status. Honig describes the process scape paintings, while Rubens’ ingenious hand was able to in terms of low- and high-level collaboration; Van der Stighelen animate the human fi gure with rapid yet perfectly control- discusses collaborative circuits.17 led style. By making cabinet paintings together, they were In low-level collaboration, ‘second rate’ painters operated able to combine their strengths. from purely opportunistic considerations. Collaboration was The value and success of these works were largely owing to a necessity, given the one-sided craftsmanship that speciali- the high socio-cultural status of the cooperating artists. The zation brought with it. Moreover, a considerable amount of increasing interest of 17th-century viewers in a painting’s work could be produced in a short time. Authorship was of authorship and the new role and social status of the con- little importance, and the dealer – who was often both go- noisseur that went with it popularized the act of looking and between and initial patron – usually withheld this informa- the attempt to distinguish between different hands in col- tion from potential buyers. In this type of collaboration, the laborative paintings. In contrast to earlier connoisseurs who dealer acted more as an organizer or supplier. adhered tot the Renaissance idea that authorship resided in 2 fig. 2: peter paul rubens and jan brueghel i, Banquet of Achelous, New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art 109 the mind of a single artist as something separate from the Snyders. When chance brought them together again at the endless variants that could be produced by the atelier, the court of the archdukes, the ideal circumstances gave extra new connoisseur judged an authorship that was plural in its impetus to their collaboration. Archdukes Albert and Isabella mode of expression. The possession of such paintings was were highly active patrons: Brueghel worked for them from reserved for the socially privileged. In addition to the canon 1606 onward,22 and Rubens entered their service as a court of important painters, there also arose a canon of collabora- painter in 1609.23 tive teams: the most highly sought-after included Brueghel- Only a few commissions from Albert and Isabella have been Rubens, Brueghel-De Momper and Brueghel-Van Balen. documented. The earliest of these is the Banquet of Achelous Because the demand for paintings by these prominent teams (New York; fi g. 2) of ca. 1614-1615.24 The painting – or at least a could not always be satisfi ed, and because works of this type version of it – is depicted in the Allegory of Painting (Anet) by were too expensive for the majority of collectors, copying an anonymous Flemish master.25 The castle of Mariemont in was rampant.