The Art of Painting by Johannes Vermeer

The Art of Painting, also known as The Allegory of Painting, or the Painter in His Studio, is a 17th-century oil-on-canvas painting by Dutch painter Johannes Vermeer. Many art historians interpret the scene as an allegory of the art of painting itself, which explains the alternative title. After Christ in the House of Martha and Mary, it is Vermeer’s largest known work. As in The Allegory of Faith, this is one of the few works by Vermeer in which part of the ceiling is visible. Its intricate composition and rich iconography also make it the most complex painting in his oeuvre. Though most of Vermeer’s works are quiet, domestic genre scenes, The Art of Painting stands apart in its ambition and intellectual reach. The work is owned by the Austrian Republic and is housed in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna.

L'Art de la peinture de Johannes Vermeer.

This illusionistic painting is one of Vermeer’s most celebrated works. Art historian Svetlana Alpers describes it as both unique and ambitious.1 Walter Liedtke calls it “a virtuoso display of the artist’s power of invention and execution, staged in an imaginary version of his studio.”2 According to Albert Blankert. “No other painting so flawlessly integrates naturalistic technique, brightly illuminated space, and a complexly integrated composition.”3 Vermeer was known for working slowly and with meticulous care, often using costly pigments. He is especially admired for his masterful treatment of light, which plays a central role in this composition as in many of his works.

Contents

  • 1 Description
    • 1.1 Elements
    • 1.2 Symbolism and Allegory
  • 2 Provenance
    • 2.1 Nazi interest
    • 2.2 Request by the heirs for restitution
  • 3 References

Description

The painting shows an artist at work in his studio, painting a young woman who poses near a window, with a large map of the Low countries hanging on the wall behind her. Vermeer signed the work on the map, just behind the model’s neck, but did not include a date. In 1663, the French traveller Balthasar de Monconys visited Vermeer, but reported that he had no painting to show at that time. Most scholars date The Art of Painting to around 1665–1668, though some argue it may have been completed as late as 1670–1675.4 It may have been created, as one source suggests, “in order to have an outstanding specimen of his art in his studio.”5 Vermeer evidently valued the painting highly—he never sold it during his lifetime. As Svetlana Alpers notes, it serves as a kind of summary and reflection on his artistic achievement.6 7

Elements

Détail du peintre usant de son appuie-main.
 
The painting contains only two figures: the painter and his subject, a young woman with downcast eyes. The painter is thought to be a self-portrait of Vermeer, according to Jean-Louis Vaudoyer, while Binstock suggests the shy girl may have been one of his daughters.8
 
The painter is dressed in clothing that was already old-fashioned in Vermeer’s time. His outfit—a slashed doublet, voluminous breeches, and a soft beret—evokes styles associated with earlier, Burgundian court fashion. The curtain and the Spanish chair serve as repoussoirs, guiding the viewer’s eye into the composition. 
 
Vermeer had a theoretical interest in painting. Several objects in the scene—a plaster mask, perhaps alluding to the paragone debate,9 pieces of cloth, a folio, and some leather on the table —are difficult to interpret, but may symbolize the Liberal Arts.[citation needed] The marble-tiled floor and the ornate gilt chandelier highlight Vermeer’s craftsmanship and his mastery of perspective. The vanishing point lies just in front of the model, directly beneath the wooden knob of the map rod. An X-ray of the painting revealed a small hole at that spot, now hidden under the paint. Vermeer inserted a pin there to stretch thread and mark auxiliary lines with chalk. There are no visible corrections in the work—the composition and color scheme were conceived with meticulous precision from the outset. 

Leo Belgicus by Visscher (1611)10
The map in the background shows the Seventeen Provinces of the Netherlands, flanked by twenty views of prominent cities.11 In the upper left corner, two female allegorical figures appear — one holding a cross-staff and compasses, the other a painter’s palette, brush and a city view.12 Painted ships sail across the folds of the map, adding a dynamic touch. The map was published by Claes Janszoon Visscher in 1636 under the title „Nova XVII Provinciarum Germaniae inferioris descriptio / et accurata earundem … de novo emendata … rectissime edita per nicolaum piscatorem“. Versions of this map without the city views can also appear on paintings by Jacob Ochtervelt and Nicolaes Maes. Comparable maps were found in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris and in the Skokloster in Sweden.13 14

Symbolism and Allegory

Art historians have identified symbolic meanings in several elements of the painting. The female figure is widely believed to represent a muse, most likely Clio,15 the Muse of History,16 “the proclaimer, glorifier and celebrator of history, great deeds and accomplishments”. This interpretation is supported by her attributes: she wears a laurel wreath, holds a trumpet, and carries a book, possibly by Herodotus or Thucydides. These features match the description of Clio in Cesare Ripa‘s 16th century emblem book Iconologia.17 18 However, according to Ripa, History should be looking backward and not downward as she does in this painting.19
 
Clio in: Cesare Ripa, Iconologia, translated into French by Jean Baudoin, p. 72 (1643)

Following Vermeer’s contemporary Gerard de Lairesse, who was influenced by French Classicism and the emblem tradition of Ripa, another interpretation is possible: De Lairesse describes History and Poetry as the principal sources of inspiration for a painter.20 21 The female figure, dressed in a blue, could therefor also represent Poetry; 22 in that case, the map behind her would symbolize History.

According to De Lairesse, Poetry holds a trumpet in her right hand and a scroll or stage manuscript in her left. She is crowned with laurel, as her task is to immortalize deeds and trumpet the praise of heroes.23

Clio by Johannes Moreelse

Moreover, history offers such rich material to those who aspire to the highest level of painting that the variety of subjects is virtually endless… On this most exalted level of painting, Clio—the foremost among her sisters—sits surrounded by a thousand open books: she offers ample inspiration even for the smallest of scenes, and when well executed, she will reward the painter with honour and glory24

In the words of media theorist Jens Schröter, Vermeer’s Art of Painting does not present the act of painting as a physical or expressive gesture, but as a symbolic and intellectual event. The painter is placed in an idealized studio setting, where the creative act is silent, frozen, and elevated — a representation of thought and theory rather than manual execution.25
 
This dual reference to History and Poetry recalls the long-standing tradition of allegorically pairing the arts. As Michael Thimann has noted, such personifications often served to distinguish painting’s material power from poetry’s idealizing force.26 
 
A theorized double eagle on top the chandelier[24]The double headed eagle, symbol of the Habsburg Holy Roman Empire, possibly adorns the central golden chandelier, may allude to the former rulers of the Low Countries. The large map on the back wall, with west oriented at the top, features a pronounced vertical crease that divides the Seventeen Provinces into north and south. This crease is often interpreted as symbolizing the political separation between the Dutch Republic in the north and the Habsburg-controlled southern provinces. The map reflects an earlier division as well—between the rebellious Union of Utrecht and the provinces that remained loyal to Spain.27 However, according to Liedtke political interpretations of both the map and the chandelier are unconvincing; they may overlook other, more central motives. 

Provenance

His biggest signature ever

The painting is considered especially significant to the artist, as Vermeer never parted with it—not even when he was in debt. In 1676, his widow Catharina Bolnes transferred the painting to her mother, Maria Thins, in an attempt to avoid the sale of the painting to satisfy creditors,28 or as collateral for a loan. However, the executor of Vermeer’s estate, the renowned Delft microscopist Anton van Leeuwenhoek, deemed the transfer legally invalid. According to John Michael Montias , it was at the very least a curious transaction. Most of Vermeer’s other paintings were sold at a public auction held by the Lucas Guild in Delft on 15 March 1677.29 

It is not known who acquired The Art of Painting at that time, though it is believed to have been Jacob Dissius, who had already acquired 19 paintings of Vermeer.30 The painting was likely owned by the physician and art-lover Gerard van Swieten and subsequently passed to his son, the diplomat Gottfried van Swieten, patron of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven.31 In 1813, it was purchased for 50 florins by the Bohemian-Austrian Count Rudolf Czernin and placed on public display in the Czernin Museum in Vienna.

Until 1860, the painting was attributed to Vermeer’s contemporary Pieter de Hooch. At the time, Vermeer himself was largely forgotten, and his name had nearly vanished from art historical discourse. A forged De Hooch signature had even been added to the canvas. It was only in 1860 that Gustav Friedrich Waagen, director of the Royal Gallery in Berlin (Königlichen Gemäldegalerie), recognized the painting as a true Vermeer masterpiece.32 33

The French art critic and political exile Étienne-Joseph-Théophile Thoré, writing under the pseudonym W. Bürger, played a pivotal role in reviving Vermeer’s reputation. His fascination began in 1842 upon encountering View of Delft at the Mauritshuis in The Hague. Struck by its beauty and the obscurity of its creator, Thoré embarked on a two-decade quest to uncover Vermeer’s oeuvre. He scoured European museums and archives, attributing numerous works to Vermeer that had previously been misattributed to other artists.

In 1866, Thoré published the first major study of Vermeer in the Gazette des Beaux-Arts, asserting that The Art of Painting was among Vermeer’s most significant works, referring to it as Vermeer dans son atelier. Thoré’s dedication culminated in the 1866 Paris exhibition Exposition rétrospective de tableaux anciens, where he showcased several Vermeer paintings, some from his own collection. This exhibition captivated the French public and marked a turning point in Vermeer’s posthumous recognition.

Nazi interest

In 1935, Count Czernin attempted to sell the painting to Andrew W. Mellon, but the Austrian government prohibited its export as it was considered part of the nation’s cultural heritage.34 35 After the annexation of Austria, Philipp Reemtsma, with the support of Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, tried to acquire the painting. However, the transaction to a private person was blocked because the work could not legally be sold to a private indidivual. Eventually, on November 20, 1940, it was acquired by Adolf Hitler for his planned Museum in Linz through his agent, Hans Posse at a price of 1.82 million Reichsmark.36 At the end of World War II, the painting was recovered from a salt mine near Altaussee, where it had been hidden—along with other works of art—to protect it from Allied bombing raids. In 1946, the painting was returned to the Austrian government by the Americans, as the Czernin family was deemed to have sold it voluntarily, without coercion from Hitler. It was transported to Vienna from the Munich Central Collecting Point by Andrew Ritchie, head of the Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives program (MFA&A) for Austria, who locking himself and the painting in a train compartment during the journey.37

Request by the heirs for restitution

The Art of Painting.jpg
Johannes Vermeer’s ”The Art of Painting”], (4:55), [Smarthistory]

In November 1945, Count Jaromir Czernin requested the return of the painting, claiming he had been forced to sell it to Hitler. Three court cases, the last in 1960, rejected his claims. The 1998 Washington Declaration led to a renewed review, and in September 2009, the heirs submitted another request.

In March 2011, the restitution commission unanimously decided not to recommend returning the painting. They concluded that the sale was voluntary and that Hitler did not actively pursue acquiring the work. There was no evidence of political coercion or antisemitic pressure influencing the sale.38 39

References

  1. Svetlana Alpers (1983) The Art of Description. Dutch Art in the Seventeenth Century, p. 119 ↩
  2. Liedtke, Walter (2007). Dutch paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. p. 893. ISBN 0-300-12028-1 ↩
  3. A. Blankert (1978) Vermeer of Delft, p. 47-49. Oxford: Phaidon ↩
  4. Stokstad, Marilyn (1995). Art History. New York, NY: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., Publishers. p. 797. ISBN 0810927764 ↩
  5. Vermeer and the Delft School, p. 396 ↩
  6. S. Alpers, p. 122 ↩
  7. KHM on the “Art of Painting” ↩
  8. Vermeer’s Family Secrets: Genius, Discovery, and the Unknown Apprentice by Benjamin Binstock, p. 172.(1) ↩
  9. Essential Vermeer (2) ↩
  10. Monumenta Cartographica Neerlandica Vol. VI ↩
  11. Brussel, Luxemburg, Gent, Bergen (Henegouwen), Amsterdam, Namen, Leeuwarden, Utrecht, Zutphen en het Hof van Holland in Den Haag; en rechts Limburg, Nijmegen, Arras, Dordrecht, Middelburg, Antwerpen, Mechelen, Deventer, Groningen en het Hof van Brabant in Brussel. ↩
  12. S. Alpers, p. 126 ↩
  13. S. Alpers, p. 120 ↩
  14. Monumenta Cartographica Neerlandica I (1986) ↩
  15. K.G. Hulten (1949) ‘Zu Vermeers Atelierbild’, In: Konsthistorisk Tidskrift, 18, p. 92 ↩
  16. Iconologia, or, Moral emblems ↩
  17. Iconologia di Cesare Ripa …: divisa in tre libri, ne i quali si esprimono … by Cesare Ripa ↩
  18. Clio (4) ↩
  19. Iconologia di Cesare Ripa, p. 269.(5) ↩
  20. Groot-Schilderboek (1712), p. 4, 6, 115, 121, 293 ↩
  21. Weber, Gregor J.M. (1991) Der Lobtopos des ‘lebenden’ Bildes: Jan Vos und sein “Zeege der Schilderkunst” von 1654, p. 61. ISBN 3-487-09604-8 ↩
  22. Iconologia di Cesare Ripa …: divisa in tre libri, ne i quali si esprimono … by Cesare Ripa ↩
  23. Groot-Schilderboek, Aantekeningen over ‘t Leven van Gerard de Lairesse, z.p. ↩
  24. Inleyding tot de hooge schoole der schilderkonst: anders de zichtbaere werelt (1678)–Samuel van Hoogstraten ↩
  25. Schröter, Jens (2006): Das Malen des Malens. Zur Selbstthematisierung der Malerei von Vermeer bis Pollock, in: www.theorie-der-medien.de, Nr. 36.
    https://www.theorie-der-medien.de/text_druck.php?nr=36 ↩
  26. Michael Thimann, Über die Grenzen von Malerei und Poesie. Eine Allegorie von J.H.W. Tischbein aus dem Jahr 1783, in: Kunstchronik 72 (2019), Heft 7, p. 333–340.
    https://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/artdok/7340/ ↩
  27. Vermeer: The Art of Painting, Exhibitions – NGA ↩
  28. Montias, J.M. (1989) Vermeer and his Milieu. A Web of Social History, p. 338-339. ↩
  29. Essential Vermeer ↩
  30. Kunst&Politik – Vermeer ↩
  31. U.S. National Gallery ↩
  32. Waagen, G.F. “Handbuch der Deutschen und Niederländischen Malerschulen”. Stuttgart 1862, Bd II, p. 110 ↩
  33. Kunst&Politik – Vermeer ↩
  34. Kunst & Politik – Vermeer ↩
  35. Hitler and the European Art ↩
  36. Vermeer: The Art of Painting, The Painting’s Afterlife – NGA ↩
  37. Spirydowicz, K. (2010). Rescuing Europe’s Cultural Heritage: The Role of the Allied Monuments Officers in World War II. Archaeology, Cultural Property, and the Military. L. Rush. Woodbridge, The Boydell Press: 15-27 ↩
  38. Heirs’ Claim for Hitler’s Vermeer Rejected by Austrian Panel ↩
  39. KHM ↩

Loading

Eén reactie op “The Art of Painting by Johannes Vermeer”

Geef een reactie

Je e-mailadres wordt niet gepubliceerd. Vereiste velden zijn gemarkeerd met *