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.

Ferdinand Bol was first an apprentice of Jacob Cuyp in his hometown and / or of Abraham Bloemaert in Utrecht.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

by Benjamin Cuyp, ca.

View of Dordrecht, by Aelbert Cuyp.

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.

Joseph interpreting the dreams of the baker and the butler, by Benjamin Gerritsz Cuyp | Benjamin Cuyp, ca.

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.

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

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

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

Jacob van Ruisdael, Aelbert Cuyp, Hendrick Avercamp, Ludolf Backhuysen, Meindert Hobbema, Aert van der Neer.

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 RKD also lists Jan van Bijlert, the two Boths, the two Honthorsts, Leonaert Bramer, Bartholomeus Breenbergh, Hendrick ter Brugghen, Jacob Gerritsz Cuyp, Willem van Drielenburg, Wybrand de Geest, Nicolaus Knüpfer, Cornelis van Poelenburch, Henrik Schook, Matthias Stom, Herman van Swanevelt, Dirck Voorst, and Jan Weenix.

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.

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.

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

Jacob Gerritsz Cuyp, his father, was a portraitist.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Although Aelbert Cuyp signed many of his paintings with a script “ A.

Furthermore, many possible Cuyp paintings were not signed but rather initialed “ A.

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.

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.

Cuyp ’ s third stylistic phase ( which occurred throughout his career ) is based on the influence of his father.

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 Albert Cuyp Market, which is held on the Albert Cuypstraat