Jan van Kessel I (1626–79). Crafting a natural history of art in early modern Antwerp

Jan van Kessel I (1626–79). Crafting a natural history of art in early modern Antwerp With its forty-one colour and sixty-one black-and-white plates, this beautifully produced volume offers the reader lavish visual fare. The choice, admittedly, is vast: Klaus Ertz’s catalogue raisonné lists no less than 726 works, and the author’s personal database runs to more than 500 entries. The list would be even longer if one were to include the many references to a ‘Jan van Kessel’ who is not always the one under discussion here: Jan van Kessel I (1626–1679). Although there are serious gaps in what is known about the artist’s life, a brief biographical sketch would have been helpful. Instead, the author launches straight into the fulsome praise bestowed on him in Cornelis de Bie’s Het gulden cabinet van de edel vry schilder-const, published when the artist was fifty years old. Yet to take this as an accurate marker of Van Kessel’s early reception is misleading: De Bie was a rhetorician, and moreover one sponsored by the Antwerp alderman, collector and connoisseur Antoon Van Leyen who is eulogized in the same work. The same Van Leyen, who lent Van Kessel a substantial sum of money, puts in an appearance in the artist’s Allegory of Europe (1665). Van Kessel is even raised to the status of Velvet Brueghel in another encomium on which the author leans heavily, this one by Jacob Campo Weyerman – but then Weyerman had trained with one of Van Kessel’s sons, Ferdinand. A similar problem arises in the characterization of Van Kessel’s relation to the Brueghel dynasty, which features so prominently in the eulogies by De Bie and Weyerman. Jan was indeed a grandson of Jan Brueghel I, but to assert that ‘Jan van Kessel was primed to capitalize on his family ties in order to position himself within what was one of the most prominent and enduring artistic dynasties in seventeenth-century Antwerp’ is an admission of failure to problematize that position. (In this respect, the highly insightful chapter ‘Genealogy: the burden of descent and the individuality of style’ in Elizabeth Honig’s recent study of Jan Brueghel should be required reading.) The four chapters focus on Van Kessel’s paintings of flowers and garlands; his clusters of insects; the two versions of his composite series of The Four Parts of the World (one intact in Vienna, the other partial in Madrid); and the paintings for cabinets and painted tapestries. In each chapter, the author sets out to locate the artist within the particular context of late seventeenth-century Antwerp in which art and natural history intersected. Clearly, that context is highly relevant. Yet if familiarity breeds contempt, over-familiarity with the Antwerp scene can lead to neglect of other relevant contexts. For example, although the author mentions the popularity of Van Kessel’s floral paintings among Spanish clients, it is remarkable that she nowhere mentions Juan van der Hamen y León, whose painterly touch was – controversially – preferred to even that of Velázquez by Cassiano dal Pozzo and who was collected along with Brueghel, Rubens, Snyders and others by Jean de Croÿ, II Count of Solre, in his Madrid residence. But the major weakness of the book is what might be called the ‘Freedberg complaint’. Time and again, Van Kessel is credited with an innovation in seventeenth-century Antwerp that was nothing new at all because it had been anticipated in the previous century. For instance, a large part of the discussion of paintings of insects follows Alpers in seeing the development of the microscope as crucial, yet nothing in those paintings requires anything more than keen sight or, at most, a magnifying glass – resources that were freely available in the sixteenth century and, as the Flemish miniaturists show, even earlier. Another artist who escapes mention in the book is the German Adam Elsheimer, the son of a tailor, who brought the keenness of vision required for that profession to bear on the minute details in his highly skilled and admired oils on copper. As for the particular skill in rendering the smallest parts of creatures with tiny and precise brushstrokes, one has only to think of the painter Jacopo Ligozzi (another of the Italian artists conspicuous by their absence in the book) who served several Grand Dukes of Tuscany and also worked for Ulisse Aldrovandi. Nor is there anything particularly new about the ‘pictorial strategy’ of combining insects and reptiles in incongruous scale in relation to one another: a glance at the collections of Aldrovandi, Conrad Gessner or other naturalists of the sixteenth century will easily reveal the same technique. That some further intellectual game is at stake in such juxtapositions remains to be proven. And when the author actually does refer to a sixteenth-century example – Giuseppe Arcimboldo – it is an ill-chosen one, for his technique of combining different creatures to form composite human-looking heads has nothing in common with Van Kessel’s juxtapositions. The author concludes ‘. . . the pictorial subjects and strategies that he employs prompt the beholder to meditate on new visual technologies of magnification, on the ever-increasing body of zoological, botanical, and ethnographic knowledge and new approaches to describing it, on the place of Antwerp at the center of an expanding mercantile and imperial Europe, and on emerging cultures of collecting and curiosity’. Those cultures of collecting and curiosity had already emerged a century earlier. Jan van Kessel certainly deserves a thorough monographic study, but one that sets him firmly within the broader geographical and historical framework to which he belongs, and preferably one without a repetitive and cumbersome jargon that bogs him down in ‘juxtapositions, bifurcations and tensions’ or ‘mental acrobatics’. © The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of the History of Collections Oxford University Press

Jan van Kessel I (1626–79). Crafting a natural history of art in early modern Antwerp

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ou_press/jan-van-kessel-i-1626-79-crafting-a-natural-history-of-art-in-early-liO0D0dFTE
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
ISSN
0954-6650
eISSN
1477-8564
D.O.I.
10.1093/jhc/fhx029
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

With its forty-one colour and sixty-one black-and-white plates, this beautifully produced volume offers the reader lavish visual fare. The choice, admittedly, is vast: Klaus Ertz’s catalogue raisonné lists no less than 726 works, and the author’s personal database runs to more than 500 entries. The list would be even longer if one were to include the many references to a ‘Jan van Kessel’ who is not always the one under discussion here: Jan van Kessel I (1626–1679). Although there are serious gaps in what is known about the artist’s life, a brief biographical sketch would have been helpful. Instead, the author launches straight into the fulsome praise bestowed on him in Cornelis de Bie’s Het gulden cabinet van de edel vry schilder-const, published when the artist was fifty years old. Yet to take this as an accurate marker of Van Kessel’s early reception is misleading: De Bie was a rhetorician, and moreover one sponsored by the Antwerp alderman, collector and connoisseur Antoon Van Leyen who is eulogized in the same work. The same Van Leyen, who lent Van Kessel a substantial sum of money, puts in an appearance in the artist’s Allegory of Europe (1665). Van Kessel is even raised to the status of Velvet Brueghel in another encomium on which the author leans heavily, this one by Jacob Campo Weyerman – but then Weyerman had trained with one of Van Kessel’s sons, Ferdinand. A similar problem arises in the characterization of Van Kessel’s relation to the Brueghel dynasty, which features so prominently in the eulogies by De Bie and Weyerman. Jan was indeed a grandson of Jan Brueghel I, but to assert that ‘Jan van Kessel was primed to capitalize on his family ties in order to position himself within what was one of the most prominent and enduring artistic dynasties in seventeenth-century Antwerp’ is an admission of failure to problematize that position. (In this respect, the highly insightful chapter ‘Genealogy: the burden of descent and the individuality of style’ in Elizabeth Honig’s recent study of Jan Brueghel should be required reading.) The four chapters focus on Van Kessel’s paintings of flowers and garlands; his clusters of insects; the two versions of his composite series of The Four Parts of the World (one intact in Vienna, the other partial in Madrid); and the paintings for cabinets and painted tapestries. In each chapter, the author sets out to locate the artist within the particular context of late seventeenth-century Antwerp in which art and natural history intersected. Clearly, that context is highly relevant. Yet if familiarity breeds contempt, over-familiarity with the Antwerp scene can lead to neglect of other relevant contexts. For example, although the author mentions the popularity of Van Kessel’s floral paintings among Spanish clients, it is remarkable that she nowhere mentions Juan van der Hamen y León, whose painterly touch was – controversially – preferred to even that of Velázquez by Cassiano dal Pozzo and who was collected along with Brueghel, Rubens, Snyders and others by Jean de Croÿ, II Count of Solre, in his Madrid residence. But the major weakness of the book is what might be called the ‘Freedberg complaint’. Time and again, Van Kessel is credited with an innovation in seventeenth-century Antwerp that was nothing new at all because it had been anticipated in the previous century. For instance, a large part of the discussion of paintings of insects follows Alpers in seeing the development of the microscope as crucial, yet nothing in those paintings requires anything more than keen sight or, at most, a magnifying glass – resources that were freely available in the sixteenth century and, as the Flemish miniaturists show, even earlier. Another artist who escapes mention in the book is the German Adam Elsheimer, the son of a tailor, who brought the keenness of vision required for that profession to bear on the minute details in his highly skilled and admired oils on copper. As for the particular skill in rendering the smallest parts of creatures with tiny and precise brushstrokes, one has only to think of the painter Jacopo Ligozzi (another of the Italian artists conspicuous by their absence in the book) who served several Grand Dukes of Tuscany and also worked for Ulisse Aldrovandi. Nor is there anything particularly new about the ‘pictorial strategy’ of combining insects and reptiles in incongruous scale in relation to one another: a glance at the collections of Aldrovandi, Conrad Gessner or other naturalists of the sixteenth century will easily reveal the same technique. That some further intellectual game is at stake in such juxtapositions remains to be proven. And when the author actually does refer to a sixteenth-century example – Giuseppe Arcimboldo – it is an ill-chosen one, for his technique of combining different creatures to form composite human-looking heads has nothing in common with Van Kessel’s juxtapositions. The author concludes ‘. . . the pictorial subjects and strategies that he employs prompt the beholder to meditate on new visual technologies of magnification, on the ever-increasing body of zoological, botanical, and ethnographic knowledge and new approaches to describing it, on the place of Antwerp at the center of an expanding mercantile and imperial Europe, and on emerging cultures of collecting and curiosity’. Those cultures of collecting and curiosity had already emerged a century earlier. Jan van Kessel certainly deserves a thorough monographic study, but one that sets him firmly within the broader geographical and historical framework to which he belongs, and preferably one without a repetitive and cumbersome jargon that bogs him down in ‘juxtapositions, bifurcations and tensions’ or ‘mental acrobatics’. © The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

Journal

Journal of the History of CollectionsOxford University Press

Published: Mar 1, 2018

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off