DAVID III RYCKAERT A seventeenth-century Flemish painter VOLUME I by BERNADETTE M R VAN HAUTE Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF LITERATURE AND PHILOSOPHY in the subject of HISTORY OF ART at the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA Promoter: Prof Karin M Skawran Joint Promoter: Prof Hans Vlieghe NOVEMBER 1996 SUMMARY This thesis in two volumes is a study of the paintings of David ill Ryckaert (1612- 1661 ). Ryckaert grew up in a family of artists, and painted within a close community of fellow artists. According to several twentieth-century critics, Ryckaert was no more than a minor imitator of other Flemish painters. Underlying such relegation of Ryckaert is an uncritical and distinctly Modernist glorification of originality, or merely novelty. The chief argument of this thesis is that a careful reconstruction of the socio-cultural circumstances ofRyckaert's work calls into question the destructive employment of originality as a criterion of artistic greatness. Much of the vocabulary of Flemish art of the time was established. Artists thus proved their excellence both to fellow painters and a public fully conversant with the artistic traditions of subject and style, if such pictorial conventions were notably refmed or treated with a remarkable grace. Embracing the criteria of personal style and the beauty of the work, this environment is clearly averse to the blank veneration of new or original art. I argue that the term originality is itself dangerous therefore and that to neglect Ryckaert's work as that of a minor imitator is invalid and unhelpful. A careful examination of Ryckaert's known oeuvre reveals that his work is distinguished by a fine modelling, harmonious composition and a warm palette with colourful highlights. Although he relied on an established iconographic repertory, he maintained creative variation, thereby ensuring a steady demand. Ryckaert's imitation of other artists' work requires us to adjust twentieth-century criteria which tend to be pejorative of those who borrow from fellow artists. In fact Ryckaert could be said to have refmed his individuality as a painter through the testing creative encounter with and imitation of other artists. Key terms: Art history; Painting, 17th century; Antwerp (Belgium - Flanders); Ryckaert family; Genre art; Peasant painting; Imitation; Collaboration; Art market; Allegory in art. ~· DECLARATION I declare that David III Ryckaert: A seventeenth-century Flemish painter is my own work and that all the sources that I have used or quoted have been indicated and acknowledged by means of complete references. Bernadette M.R. Van Haute ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am indebted to many people for their assistance in the preparation of this study. First of all, I must thank Prof. Hans Vlieghe who first suggested that I study Ryckaert and who, as my joint promoter, has continued to support me with his learned guidance. I also wish to acknowledge my deep gratitude to my promoter, Prof. Karin M. Skawran, for her insight, encouragement and meticulous scrutiny; to Prof. P.J. Verkruijsse, for his assistance with transcriptions of seventeenth-century hand-written documents; to Dr Matthew Curr, for his invariably valuable advice on language; and to my husband Alexander, for his patience and love. A special word of thanks is due to the staff of the Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie in The Hague; the Rubenianum in Antwerp; the City Archives of Antwerp and of the Koninklijk Instituut voor het Kunstpatrimonium in Brussels, for their professional assistance. My gratitude also extends to those museum directors and curators who took the time to show me archival material, as well as the paintings by Ryckaert in their museums and galleries. My appreciation, furthermore, goes to the various auction houses, for their generous co-operation. I would also like to express my gratitude to the Research and Bursaries Committee of the University of South Africa for a grant from the Overseas Doctoral Research Fund; and to the Department of History of Art and Fine arts for awarding me the Robin Aldwinckle Memorial Scholarship. CONTENTS VOLUME I PREFACE 1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS v INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER I The Ryckaert family 10 CHAPTER II David ill Ryckaert and his father: Collaboration or imitation? 32 CHAPTER ill The early years 1636-ca.1639 56 CHAPTER IV The middle period ca.1639-1649 87 CHAPTERV The mature period ca.1649-1661 122 CONCLUSION 183 PLATES 188 VOLUME II CRITICAL CATALOGUE 1 Catalogue A : Authentic paintings 3 Catalogue B : Unresolved paintings 160 Catalogue C : Incorrect attributions 174 Catalogue D : Unidentifiable paintings 211 BIBLIOGRAPHY 220 APPENDICES Appendix I : Chronology 241 Appendix II : Transcriptions of notarial deeds 249 PREFACE To many Postmodern critics, the concept of originality in an artist's work is employed freely and often far too loosely as a criterion of aesthetic excellence. As will be pointed out in this study of David ill Ryckaert, a presumed lack of originality in his work has led twentieth-century critics to discount its importance. I mean to argue that the circumstances surrounding the production of Ryckaert's paintings make it difficult or impossible to employ the term originality in assessing the work. This study is concerned with not only the re-appraisal of the work of this often underrated artist, but by implication also with an interrogation of the term originality which even today is invoked and revered rather uncritically. If an artist is not original, according to the most banal critics of Modernist aestheticism, then he is at best an imitator of others or at worst a mere copyist. Such glorification of originality or simply novelty was alien to the culture of Flemish painting in which David ill Ryckaert flourished. Drawing on the work of other artists, sometimes employing other artists to complete works or consciously incorporating elements of famous paintings as a signatory compliment, were all part of the creative community of art in David's day. A critique of the disregard for this particular culture of art allows a wider appreciation of artists such as David ill Ryckaert. Such a critique similarly demands a shift away from aesthetic ratings of artists according to an altogether rigid paradigm based on the ignis fatuus of originality. An understanding of the context ofRyckaert's art provides another, and I would suggest, a more sensitive, certainly a fairer, way of appreciating the individual endeavours of David ill and possibly the work of other artists as well. In order to demonstrate the workings of such a community and tradition of artists, it is essential to present a number, or series, of contextual frames in which to view the production, and achievement, of David Ill Ryckaert. Each chapter provides a new frame - moving from the most general yet foundational influences of his family, i which was intimately part of the creative community, to the more specific and obviously identifiable relations of contemporary artists and David ill Ryckaert. Within each chapter, a chronological approach is followed, which provides an opportunity to trace Ryckaert's artistic development and to place it precisely within contemporary trends in genre painting. The introduction provides a critical review of existing literature on the artist, including writings of early biographers. By establishing the extent and nature of research done on the artist and his work, existing shortcomings and serious misinterpretations are pointed out and serve to justify the aims and methodology of the present study. Chapter One investigates relations between David ill Ryckaert and his relatives. It is designed, in the first instance, to dispel current misconceptions about the respective fields of specialisation of his family members. As such, this first chapter serves as an initial frame of reference within which to examine the influence of these persons on David ill Ryckaert. Chapter Two, which covers the period from Ryckaert's birth to the year of his admission to the painters' guild, deals with his apprenticeship in the workshop of his father, David II. Special emphasis is laid on possible collaboration between father and son. Another issue, related to his apprenticeship, is the nature of imitation, which is examined with reference to contemporary literature, language and market conditions. This context affords us a serious re-appraisal of his eclecticism. Chapter Three covers the first years of Ryckaert's career, when he was deeply influenced by the work of Adriaen Brouwer. His borrowings of iconographic schemes or motifs devised by other painters, such as David II Teniers, the Rotterdam painters and Jacob Jordaens, are also investigated. In Chapter Four, attention is focused on Ryckaert's works of the 1640s, when he developed a personal style characterised by confident modelling and a more unified composition. In terms of iconography, he relied on the examples set by Teniers and Jordaens. The year 1649 is discussed as a turning point in Ryckaert's career: after painting works for the Archducal gallery, he enjoyed widespread popularity, which encouraged him to expand his repertory widely. In Chapter Five the paintings created during the last decade are discussed and explained in the accumulated context of events of a personal and a more general nature. This cumulative perspective allows ii for speculation on implications ofRyckaert's rise in the social hierarchy. The sudden variety in the choice of subject matter calls for specific attention to the question of imitation. Since Ryckaert ventured into fields of painting which were ultimately foreign to him, the possibility of collaboration is also investigated. Only by means of a careful reconstruction of the conventions and circumstances surrounding David III Ryckaert is it possible to show how inimical it would have been to him and his fellow Flemish painters, to use the term imitation in a crudely pejorative way. Adaptation of existing styles, techniques and subjects was a minute and testing undertaking.