[permalink] [id link]
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.
Some Related Sentences
Cuyp and ”
Cuyp and many
Cuyp signed many of his works but rarely dated them, so that a chronology of his career has not been satisfactorily reassembled.
Adriaen and Isaac van Ostade, David Teniers, Aelbert Cuyp, Johannes Vermeer and Pieter De Hooch were among the many painters specializing in genre subjects in the Netherlands during the 17th century.
The Wallace Collection also displays many other treasures, such as two paintings by Titian, four Rembrandts, three Rubenses, four Van Dycks, twenty-two Canalettos, nineteen Bouchers, masterpieces by de Hooch, nine Teniers, Frans Hals, nine Murillos, two Velázquez and paintings by Domenichino, Cima, Daddi, Reni, Rosa, Thomas Gainsborough, Joshua Reynolds, Antoine Watteau, Nicholas Lancret, Jan Steen, Aelbert Cuyp and nine Guardis.
Cuyp and paintings
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Adding to the confusion is the similar initials between the two and the inconsistent signing of paintings which were produced by Cuyp ’ s studio.
Most original Cuyp paintings were signed by him, and in the script manner in which his name was inscribed.
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.
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.
It consists of 84 paintings and includes some outstanding works by artists including Hendrick Avercamp, Gerard Ter Borch, Pieter Claesz, Aelbert Cuyp, Frans Hals, Pieter de Hooch, Jacob van Ruisdael, Jan Steen, David Teniers the Younger and Willem van de Velde.
Cuyp and after
The same feeling and similar subjects are found in Cuyp and Van Der Neer, before and after their partnership, but Cuyp was the leading genius.
They are less valuable in the market than those of Cuyp or Hobbema ; but, possessing a charm peculiarly their own, they are much sought after by collectors.
Cuyp and painted
We are near Dordrecht in the landscape sunset of the Louvre, in which Cuyp evidently painted the foreground and cows.
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.
Cuyp and so
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.
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.
Cuyp and similar
Calraet mimicked Cuyp ’ s style, incorporating the same aspects, and produced similar landscapes to that of the latter.
Cuyp and signature
A very early picture, dated 1628, in the gallery of Gotha, bears the signature of Johannes in full and shows de Heem familiar with the technique of the young Aelbert Cuyp.
Cuyp and was
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.
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.
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.
At the age of eight, he was discovered at the famous Albert Cuyp Market by comedian Johnny Kraaykamp and made his television debut in AVRO's Weekendshow.
He was a contemporary of Albert Cuyp and Meindert Hobbema, and like the latter he lived and died in comparative obscurity.
Dordrecht, the home of Albert Cuyp, is sometimes found in his pictures, and substantial evidence exists that there was friendship between the two men.
Ferdinand Bol was first an apprentice of Jacob Cuyp in his hometown and / or of Abraham Bloemaert in Utrecht.