Interesting article...

‘Women Artists of the Dutch Golden Age’ Review: Pedagogy Without Pandering

An informative, sometimes surprising show looks at eight female artists who worked during the 17th and early 18th centuries without playing to modern trends.

By

 Karen Wilkin 

Nov. 12, 2019 5:03 pm ET

Clara Peeters’s ‘Still Life of Fish and Cat’ (after 1620) Photo: National Museum of Women in the Arts

My first response to news of the exhibition “Women Artists of the Dutch Golden Age” was not enthusiastic. Resurrecting obscure female painters, writers, musicians and the like is something of an industry among aspiring academics and the show’s being organized for the National Museum of Women in the Arts was another strike against it; I’ve never believed in ghettoization. But my curiosity grew when I learned that the curator, Virginia Treanor, had been a student of Arthur K. Wheelock Jr. , the legendary authority on the Netherlandish 17th century and former curator of Northern Baroque Art at the National Gallery. As it turns out, “Women Artists of the Dutch Golden Age” is modest, thoughtfully selected, informative and sometimes surprising. The artists’ histories are always interesting—sometimes more interesting than their work—and there are some compelling works on view.

Women Artists of the Dutch Golden Age

National Museum of Women in the Arts 
Through Jan. 5, 2020

Eight artists who worked during the 17th and early 18th centuries are included, represented by works drawn largely from the museum’s own collection. It’s a small sampling, we learn, of the many women during that period in Holland who, like their male counterparts, provided a thriving art market with paintings and prints. They are Clara Peeters (1594-after 1657), Magdalena van de Passe (c. 1600-1638), Anna Maria van Schurman (1607-1678), Judith Leyster (1609-1660), Maria Schalcken (c. 1645/1650-c. 1700), Maria Sibylla Merian (1647-1717), Alida Withoos (c.1661-1730), and Rachel Ruysch (1664-1750). 

Unusually for her time, when women artists normally acquired their craft skills from relatives, Leyster learned from established master Frans Hals in her native Haarlem, before marrying a painter and moving to Amsterdam. But several others, including Van de Passe, Schalcken, and Withoos, were the daughters or sisters of artists. They entered the family business and sometimes passed it on. Van de Passe, for example, like her father and brothers, an accomplished engraver, taught the technique to Van Schurman. Ruysch’s father was a noted scientist and professor at the Amsterdam Botanical Garden; his daughter is thought to have helped him draw botanical specimens before she married a fellow artist, embarked on a six-decade-long painting career, and produced 11 children. (The wall text reassures us that since both Ruysch and her husband were very successful, they could afford help.)

Judith Leyster’s ‘The Concert’ (c. 1633) Photo: National Museum of Women in the Arts

Many of the eight specialized in floral still lifes, a subject probably thought suitable for women, although it was not exclusively their province. Peeters, an admired flower painter, was also apparently the first artist to specialize in still lifes of fish—witness her “Still Life of Fish and Cat” (after 1620), with delectable crayfish and a plump creature with sparkling scales. The cat eyeing the bounty is less convincing, but in compensation, we can identify every bloom in Peeters’s nearby “Still Life of Lilies, Roses, Iris, Pansies, Columbine, Love-in-a-Mist, Larkspur and Other Flowers in a Glass Vase on a Table Top, Flanked by a Carnation and a Rose” (c. 1610), as we also can in Ruysch’s and Withoo’s lush gatherings. Withoos was commissioned to record plants for botanists, yet her works are also fantastic. In those on view, an improbable assortment of wild and cultivated varieties grow together on the forest floor. (There’s a charming toad in the corner of one picture.) 

Gorgeous, larger-than-life color engravings of tropical vegetation, displayed in bold, graphic arrangements, attest to the intrepid Merian’s two years in Suriname, then part of the vast international Dutch trading empire. The painter/naturalist’s exhaustive field notes on South American flora, insect life, and customs she made before returning to Amsterdam became the basis for this exhibition’s prints. Merian’s fascination with the life cycles of insects adds a lively cast of characters to the engravings. 

Rachel Ruysch’s ‘Flowers in a Vase’ (mid-1680s) Photo: National Museum of Women in the Arts

Van Schurman, represented by two notably different self-portrait engravings, supposedly made the same year, from the same plate, is most fascinating for her biography. Daughter of an important printmaker, she was a celebrated intellectual, the first Dutch woman to attend university (seated behind a curtain). She corresponded with scholars in 13 languages, and, among many other things, published a book debating “Whether a Maid May Be a Scholar,” which appeared in Latin in 1640 and in English in 1659. It was said in her lifetime that visiting Utrecht without seeing Anna Maria van Schurman was like visiting Rome and not seeing the pope.

Leyster, the best known of the show’s artists, was also, as a figure painter, the most ambitious. In “The Concert” (c. 1633), one of her frequent music-making themes, she holds a songbook, seated between a violinist and a lute player, one in elegant black, the other in rose. The vigorous brushwork and the protagonists’ animated expressions seem to confirm her reputed connection with Hals. 

It was believed that Leyster stopped painting after 1637, when she and her husband moved to Amsterdam and began raising children, but the Washington show boasts a recently discovered self-portrait, thought to date from the 1650s. Fashionably clad in black with wonderfully painted lace, Leyster presents herself as a painter with a palette, gazing steadily at us, as if defying any challenges to her status as a serious artist. 

“Women Artists of the Dutch Golden Age” makes no extravagant claims for the merits of the artists on view, but simply enlarges our conception of the period. We learn a lot. 

—Ms. Wilkin is an independent curator and critic.

This is an article that Maryann Roper ask to be shared with the group.  

STELLA ROSS-CRAIG was one of the foremost British botanical illustrators of the 20th century. She died in 2006, just shy of her 100th birthday.

Her major contribution to the worlds of both art and botany was her series Drawings of British Plants, first published in 1948 and completed in 1973. The series eventually included 31 installments, and contained over 1300 plates. She drew both from life and from herbarium specimens at Kew Gardens. A quote from Ross-Craig admits that doing ‘all those little hairs and things’ gave her the shudders. She worked to complete two drawings per week.

In addition to her pen-and-ink works, she produced watercolors of over 3,000 species of plants,  contributing over 300 of her works to Curtis’ Botanical Magazine, the journal of the Royal Horticultural Society.

She also illustrated The Flora of Tropical East Africa (1961) and painted a series of sixty orchid portraits.

Ms. Ross-Craig never sought publicity: “I didn’t want to sell them.  I just wanted them to be done as records.”   Although her work was greatly admired in the botanical art world, it was not until 2001 that a public exhibition of her work was organized.

In 1999, she became the sixth person to receive the Kew International Medal.

In 1999, she became the sixth person to receive the Kew International Medal.

(See additional images, below.)

(All information and images are found in various entries on the internet.)

NCBC Enjoy a Mat Cutting Workshop...

The circle would like to send out a big "Thank You" to Linda Koffenberger for the wonderful job she did in our mat cutting workshop on August 19, 2019.  Her step by step demonstration of the process was easy to follow and very informative.

The group watching as Linda explains the process...

Hands on for anyone willing...

RECENT NYT ARTICLES OF INTEREST … The Review section of June 17's New York Times had several interesting art-related articles … You need to know that I am very technology-challenged, and this is my first attempt at blog posting … so if this is entirely unreadable, I apologize … and will try again ... "The Art of Adventure" by R.M. Peck … is a review of "Explorers' Sketchbooks", a new book by Lewis-Jones and Herbert. Mr. Peck quotes William Beebe, an American naturalist and explorer of the early 20th century: "All about us, nature puts on the most thrilling adventure stories ever written." Included in the book are a handful of female artist/explorers: Maria Sybilla Merian is a name familiar to many; but unfamiliar to me were Gertrude Bell (who drew shards of found pottery) and Marianne North. Ms. North, a friend of Darwin, circle the globe - twice! - in the early 1800s on a 'mission to paint as many different species of plants as she could find.' I'm not sure I will read the whole book, but I will try to learn more about Ms. North and her work.

"On the Trail of Art Looters" by Amanda Foreman … is a brief exploration of looting art for profit and propaganda. A photo (above) of part of the Arch of Titus in Rome show a menorah looted from the Temple in Jerusalem during Rome's sack of that city in 70 A.D. It is mind-boggling to imagine that this might be an actual and accurate depiction of the menorah taken from the great Temple. Another bit of art history mentioned in this article: In his looting of Italian art works, Napoleon took the four horses from the front of St. Mark's Cathedral in Venice. He intended to mount them on his Arc de Triomphe in Paris. However, when he was defeated at Waterloo, a condition of surrender was that France return the horses to Italy. And they were returned. Restitution.

And, finally, "When Two Hands Were Better Than One" by John Wilmerding claims there is strong evidence to prove that Degas actually painted part of the background (the windows) of Mary Cassatt's painting "Little Girl in a Blue Chair". He says the two artists openly shared ideas and compared paintings. To Cassatt's surprise, the painting was not accepted to a major show. I, personally, wonder if it wasn't accepted because she was a woman (please know that the article doesn't actually say this). Cassatt and Degas were very open about their interaction … but I also wonder whether 'two hands' might not be better than one when it comes to getting art accepted into a show. Worth thinking and wondering about ... And that's all … just some food for thought … P.S. The painting WAS accepted into later shows.

Explaining Differences in Paint Colors with the Same Pigment Number

Linda Working on a Color Chart

Thanks again to all who attended our Jan. 30 meeting!

A question came up about paints with the same pigment number that are different colors. Linda Koffenberger, (who teaches art at NCBG and has a professional background in paint color mixing), answered our question here:

"The first example is Ultramarine Blue, which comes either with a red bias or a green bias.  Both are coded as PB29.  The reddish-toned Ultramarine is usually sold as French Ultramarine and the cooler, greenish-toned one is sold just as Ultramarine Blue.  Originally Ultramarine was a mined pigment made from Lapis Lazuli and was the most expensive pigment there was.  Then in the 1800's, a way to manufacture it was invented.  The process uses silica (or sand) and "Ultramarine poor in silica" has the greenish-tone and the "Ultramarine rich in silica" as the red tinge.

The second example is Yellow Oxide, a naturally occurring mineral.  Its chemical name is iron(III) oxide-hydroxide.  It is sold under the name Yellow Oxide, however, and the code on the tube is PY42.  The thing is this mineral can be any where from yellow to dark-brown and even black.  So the pigment manufacture tries to blend batches to make the color uniform from one tube to the next.  But another manufacture may have a slight different blend so the color varies from manufacture to manufacture." 

"Color in Nature" exhibit in Southern Pines

One of our Circles members, Miriam Sagasti has some gorgeous work in an upcoming exhibit: “Color In Nature”, opening Friday, January 6, with a reception 6 to 8 p.m. The exhibit is on display through January 27. The Campbell House Galleries are at 482 East Connecticut Avenue, Southern Pines, NC. For more information visit www.mooreart.org.

ASBA Annual Meeting and Fiona Strickland

Maryann Roper
November 3, 2016

 

For the first time (ever), I went to this year's American Society of Botanical Artists' (ASBA) Annual Meeting.  My main reason for going was to see the Hunt Institute's Triennial Exhibit, opening in conjunction with the ASBA meeting. It is one of the best showcases internationally for contemporary botanical art.    

The meeting itself was also inspiring. A special treat was a session called 'Techniques', with Fiona Strickland as one of the featured artists. You can see her work in the Member Gallery on the ASBA website, and at the website for the Jonathan Cooper Gallery in London, where, until November 12, she has a show of her botanical watercolor paintings. Her paintings are remarkable for their incredibly detailed drawing and for their bold color.

In any work of art "...the viewer and the painter have a dialogue..."

Fiona Strickland

I love to hear how other artists paint ... for inspiration and for practical tips. From my notes, here are some of her thoughts.

• She stores/organizes her paints by their level of transparency. And prefers to use only the most transparent colors.
• To help find colors, and to have a visual of each color always on hand, she has made a paint chart that corresponds to the location of each tube of paint (Winsor & Newton) in her storage trays. She also keeps handwritten charts with additional information about each color (transparency, lightfastness, etc).
• She uses Winsor & Newton sable brushes, mostly Size 2.
• She takes 'hundreds' of photos of her subject: for reference and for accuracy ...and because it often takes 3 or more months for her to finish a painting ... and the subject may be long gone by then.
• She spends a lot of time observing the subject and tries to show 'something unexpected' about it in her composition.
• She does a VERY detailed drawing and lifts much of the graphite after transferring it, using a 3H or 4H pencil on the watercolor paper. She spends a lot of time to make her drawing exact.
• She begins with a pale wash in a small area. And tries to pack as much information (details, color changes, shading) as possible into each small space.
• She works - almost to completion - one small section at a time
• She always uses complements, never blacks, for shadows and shading.
• Because her paintings are often large (her subjects are often larger than life-sized), she uses a tilt table. She puts her paper on a foam core board in order to be able to turn it without touching or creasing it.

An interesting point, to me, was that, despite the accuracy and details of her drawings, she made the point that her paintings were not primarily about science ... but more about making an emotional connection with the viewer.

An interesting point, to me, was that, despite the accuracy and details of her drawings, she made the point that her paintings were not primarily about science ... but more about making an emotional connection with the viewer.

Another impressive lesson was the time she spends in observation and drawing ...she doesn't rush into painting.

Finally, the larger-than-life size of her subjects allows each subject to make a huge impact on the viewer ...because she draws in such detail, the size allows the details to be seen and appreciated.(It was also interesting to me that about half of the paintings in the Hunt Institute Exhibit were also larger-than-life sized.)

If you have the chance to see her work in person, or attend a workshop that she is teaching ... it will be well worth your time!