Cuyp ’ s “ van Goyen phase ” can be placed approximately in the early 1640s.

Cuyp probably first encountered a painting by van Goyen in 1640 when van Goyen was, as Stephen Reiss points out “ at the height of powers .” This is noticeable in the comparison between two of Cuyp ’ s landscape paintings inscribed 1639 where no properly formed style is apparent and the landscape backgrounds he painted two years later for two of his father ’ s group portraits that are distinctly van Goyenesque.

In Cuyp ’ s River Scene, Two Men Conversing ( 1641 ) both of these van Goyen-influenced stylistic elements are noticeable

The next phase in the development of Cuyp ’ s increasingly amalgamated style is due to the influence of Jan Both.

It is around this same time that Cuyp ’ s style changed fundamentally.

In addition to the scarcely documented and confirmed biography of Cuyp ’ s life, and even more so than his amalgamated style from his three main influences, there are yet other factors that have led to the misattribution and confusion over Aelbert Cuyp ’ s works for hundreds of years.

Calraet mimicked Cuyp ’ s style, incorporating the same aspects, and produced similar landscapes to that of the latter.

Adding to the confusion is the similar initials between the two and the inconsistent signing of paintings which were produced by Cuyp ’ s studio.

Conversely, paintings which came out of his workshop that were not necessarily physically worked on by Cuyp but merely overseen by him technically, were marked with A. C. to show that it was his instruction which saw the paintings ’ completion.

Cuyp ’ s pupils and assistants often worked on paintings in his studio, and so most of the work of a painting could be done without Cuyp ever touching the canvas, but merely approving its finality.

Common among the mislabeled works are all of the reasons identified for misattributing Cuyp ’ s works: the lack of biography and chronology of his works made it difficult to discern when paintings were created ( making it difficult to pinpoint an artist ); contentious signatures added to historians ’ confusion as to who actually painted the works ; and the collaborations and influences by different painters makes it hard to justify that a painting is genuinely that of Aelbert Cuyp ; and finally, accurate identification is made extremely difficult by the fact that this same style was copied ( rather accurately ) by his predecessor.

Lastly and most importantly, the precision in mimicking Cuyp ’ s style by his follower Abraham van Calraet and their contentious signatures makes it all the more difficult to determine which paintings are genuinely that of Cuyp and which ones are actually accurate reproductions in his style.

It is this reluctance which was felt by the Rijksmuseum to reattribute works to other painters ( Abraham van Calraet does not even appear in a Museum catalogue until 1926, and even then he is not given his own entry ) which shows how important it is to art historians that painters are accurately connected to their works — and this is continuously necessary for those of Aelbert Cuyp, as Dordrecht ’ s most famous painter may not in fact be Dordrecht ’ s most famous painter.

Cuyp was one of the first Dutch painters to appreciate this new leap forward in style and while his own Both-inspired phase was quite short ( limited to the mid 1640s ) he did, more than any other contemporary Dutch artist, maximize the full chromatic scale for sunsets and sunrises.

His highly influenced style which incorporated Italianate lighting from Jan Both, broken brush technique and atonality from Jan van Goyen, and his ever-developing style from his father Jacob Gerritsz Cuyp was studied acutely by his most prominent follower, Abraham van Calraet.

Most original Cuyp paintings were signed by him, and in the script manner in which his name was inscribed.

Furthermore, his evolving technique and collaborations with his father add to the puzzle over which works should be attributed to Cuyp.

There are landscapes in the collections of the dukes of Bedford and Westminster, in which Cuyp has represented either the frozen Maes with fishermen packing herrings, or the moon reflecting its light on the river's placid waters.

We are near Dordrecht in the landscape sunset of the Louvre, in which Cuyp evidently painted the foreground and cows.

* the Albert Cuyp Market, which is held on the Albert Cuypstraat

Cuyp signed many of his works but rarely dated them, so that a chronology of his career has not been satisfactorily reassembled.

Cuyp ( 1594 – 1651 / 52 ), he is especially known for his large views of the Dutch countryside in early morning or late afternoon light.

The amount of biographical information regarding Aelbert Cuyp is tremendously limited.

While it is assumed that the younger Cuyp did work with his father initially to develop rudimentary talents, Aelbert became more focused on landscape paintings while Jacob was a portrait painter by profession.

Upon close examination of the works attributed to Aelbert Cuyp it is easily understood why his unique style developed the way it did, and how his works have been misinterpreted over the years.

Such a thin chronology and little background knowledge has led to gross misinterpretations of his works, and thus further investigation must always be done to conclude with confidence that Aelbert Cuyp is the genuine source of such great paintings.

The dining room, now decorated with what appear to be Dutch tiles but is in fact trompe l ' oeil, contains a collection of small, mainly Dutch, paintings from the 16th and 17th centuries by such artists as Aelbert Cuyp, Adrian van Ostade and Jan Steen.

Dordrecht, the home of Albert Cuyp, is sometimes found in his pictures, and substantial evidence exists that there was friendship between the two men.

The development of Aelbert Cuyp, who was trained as a landscape painter, may be roughly sketched in three phases based on the painters who most influenced him during that time and the subsequent artistic characteristics that are apparent in his paintings.

Aelbert Cuyp was born in Dordrecht on October 20, 1620, and also died there on November 15, 1691.

Even Arnold Houbraken, a noted historian of Dutch Golden Age paintings and the sole authority on Cuyp for the hundred years following his death, paints a very thin biographical picture.

Cuyp ” insignia, many paintings were left unsigned ( not to mention undated ) after being painted, and so a similar signature was added later on, presumably by collectors who inherited / discovered the works.

In the National Gallery, London picture Cuyp signs his name on the pail of a milkmaid, whose figure and red skirt he has painted with light effectiveness near the edge of Van Der Neer's landscape.

Jacob Gerritsz Cuyp, his father, was a portraitist.

In general it may be said that Cuyp learned tone from the exceptionally prolific van Goyen, light from Both and form from his father.

Aelbert Jacobsz Cuyp ( October 20, 1620 – November 15, 1691 ) was one of the leading Dutch landscape painters of the Dutch Golden Age in the 17th century.

The year after his marriage Cuyp became the deacon of the reformed church.

Even Houbraken recalled that Cuyp was a devout Calvinist and the fact that when he died, there were no paintings of other artists found in his home.

Cuyp took from van Goyen the straw yellow and light brown tones that are so apparent in his Dunes ( 1629 ) and the broken brush technique also very noticeable in that same work.

Both, and subsequently Cuyp, used the advantages of this new lighting style to alter the sense of depth and luminosity possible in a painting.

A Cuyp drawing may look like he intended it to be a finished work of art, but it was most likely taken back to the studio and used as a reference for his paintings.