First, a typo of sorts. You have the queen as a brother, not sister. You might want to change it.
I suppose I have read about half of the post while sitting in a busy business class lounge at JFK.
Perhaps dividing it into more than one post as you originally intended would have been a better choice, especially since the post is a series of individual pieces.
More than anything, you are a historian who loves telling good stories.
I really liked the thread about works on paper working their way into paintings. Maybe the Maximilian at the end could have been tied to the series--not Manet's print version, but the newspaper images he was working from (if I remember correctly). Not a complaint, just a thought: how far this can be taken. Also, obviously, those newspapers would not be in the collection--but they link nicely with the print on the Teniers.
Also to the Rubens--isn't Vermeyen's print news-broadsheet-adjacent, being of a historical / political subject? Fascinating that Rubens would have been using a painting underlying the print. But given how it was part of Rubens's repertory of images he used and re-used, wouldn't one expect something on paper? Could it not have been another print made from Vermeyen's--or perhaps the drawing underlying it?
“sea of paper” is a great way to put it, I remember a story about the engravings that reproduced Charles Le Brun’s ‘History of Alexander’ paintings, when the prints were first seen in Italy they were found so impressive that it was feared that the northerner had surpassed Michelangelo, but then no one who saw the paintings thought this
and yes, exactly, I was thinking of looking at that Manet catalogue (the fate of your copy reminds me of the sort thing one might read in Updike and then remember long afterwards)
I love that Bernhard novel, in fact I gave a copy to my phd advisor to read on a flight to Vienna, it now occurs to me that she never mentioned it to me afterwards, hmm… maybe not everyone wants to hear that art historians are really art wreckers, who shrivel and ruin art with their twaddle (but I do try to keep it in the back of my mind)
I never read a single Updike. Not sure how this is possible, Updike was actually pretty well translated, I remember seeing a bunch of his novels when I was growing up...
The Le Brun prints story is amazing.
Who has written well about this phenomenon, the painting/print connection, beyond individual cases? (Have you?) Can you recommend something? I remember Chris Wood's Altdorfer book has things to say about it, maybe I should look in his notes--but I am more interested in the late 16th-17th c.
No rush, you are traveling, but in case and when something comes to mind.
My first thought is to check the appropriate chapters of ‘The Print before Photography’ by Antony Griffiths, which is sort of an encyclopedia of printmaking for the years 1500 to 1800, I have it at home (my favorite pandemic reading), will look at his bibliography once I’m home, but also a primary source comes to mind, there’s a much-cited and fun-to-read article from the August 1679 Mercure Galant advertising print series sponsored by the French state including the ones after Le Brun, the link here is to the description of the History of Alexander prints, the article as a whole starts about thirty pages earlier
Thanks—I have the Griffiths, it is an amazing book, although I only browsed it. I will check; I was thinking it was primarily about technology rather than such issues but it must be a great starting point. And I look forward to what you linked!
I think there might be a relevant chapter in the third part of the book, also now I’m wondering if there’s a book on prints and armor, I remember a curator at the Met found a scene from the ‘Quarante Tableaux’ of Tortorel and Perrissin (series of forty events from the French Wars of Religion published in Geneva around 1570) on a piece of armor in the Met’s collection, not sure if he ever published that
That’s a great idea about the Manet, surely derived from news images as well
as the Goya. I wish I’d thought of it, I’m away until the end of the month but will look into it and maybe add a PS when I’m back.
As for Rubens and Vermeyen, this is from the old ‘Age of Rubens’ catalogue (by the way I love this book, and there are cheap copies online, but they should come with a warning about size, it’s one of the largest books I own):
“Vermeyen's original may be recorded in several seventeenth-century Antwerp inventories, for example, that of the Antwerp painter and dealer Herman de Neyt in
1642: ‘Den Moor van Meester van Aelst, met Tunis achter. Den vader vanden voors|chreven Moor die Keyser Carel te voet valt’.”
The ‘van Aelst’ is Pieter Coecke van Aelst, who worked with Vermeyen on the Tunis tapestry designs. Somewhere else in the entry it’s mentioned that the works of Vermeyen were often attributed to van Aelst at the time.
The Vermeyen print is thought to have been made within a year of the battle so definitely a news print, and there would have been a drawing as well as possibly now-unknown copies of the print, but I guess since the lost painting was floating around in Antwerp in Rubens’s time, that’s considered the most likely source.
There was a show around the various versions of the execution of Maximilian at MoMA a couple of decades ago, with all the various related images, including the ones Manet worked from. There is a catalog (a copy of which remains on my ex-wife's bookshelf...).
The whole paper / painting connection is so fascinating. Easel painting and murals were swimming in a sea of paper, much of which is lost: images on paper that were used by painters, and images made from paintings. It was a transformative moment in my education when I learnt that Lessing's Laokoon was based on a print--obviously, he had never been to Rome. Stories like the ones you are telling here suggest the extent to which this was always the case, and they provide a way to imagine the place of the paintings in the context of the time. The Rubens / Vermeyen connection is a perfect example.
By the way, I remember seeing the Rubens in 2019 when I spent an afternoon at the MFA: I was accompanying a medievalist friend who was there for research, so for most of the time, I was sitting there looking at him looking at a Burgundian saint back stage. Anyway, we had a little time to look at the museum, and I remember seeing the Rubens, and I could not believe it was Rubens... It has to do with the genre, but even more, with how closely it is based on the print. I will get the Rubens catalog, thanks for the recommendation.
I look forward to your Italian post.
Oh, I have meant to say this--have you read Bernhard's "Old Masters"?
Finally finished your piece on the Boston MFA.
So I saw the photo of the Manet execution where the Sargent group portrait used to be.
Weird.
I suppose you're working on the next article. What will it be?
First, a typo of sorts. You have the queen as a brother, not sister. You might want to change it.
I suppose I have read about half of the post while sitting in a busy business class lounge at JFK.
Perhaps dividing it into more than one post as you originally intended would have been a better choice, especially since the post is a series of individual pieces.
More than anything, you are a historian who loves telling good stories.
I enjoy hearing & reading them.
I'll read more about the Boston MFA another time.
Keep writing.
🦄💖
I really liked the thread about works on paper working their way into paintings. Maybe the Maximilian at the end could have been tied to the series--not Manet's print version, but the newspaper images he was working from (if I remember correctly). Not a complaint, just a thought: how far this can be taken. Also, obviously, those newspapers would not be in the collection--but they link nicely with the print on the Teniers.
Also to the Rubens--isn't Vermeyen's print news-broadsheet-adjacent, being of a historical / political subject? Fascinating that Rubens would have been using a painting underlying the print. But given how it was part of Rubens's repertory of images he used and re-used, wouldn't one expect something on paper? Could it not have been another print made from Vermeyen's--or perhaps the drawing underlying it?
“sea of paper” is a great way to put it, I remember a story about the engravings that reproduced Charles Le Brun’s ‘History of Alexander’ paintings, when the prints were first seen in Italy they were found so impressive that it was feared that the northerner had surpassed Michelangelo, but then no one who saw the paintings thought this
and yes, exactly, I was thinking of looking at that Manet catalogue (the fate of your copy reminds me of the sort thing one might read in Updike and then remember long afterwards)
I love that Bernhard novel, in fact I gave a copy to my phd advisor to read on a flight to Vienna, it now occurs to me that she never mentioned it to me afterwards, hmm… maybe not everyone wants to hear that art historians are really art wreckers, who shrivel and ruin art with their twaddle (but I do try to keep it in the back of my mind)
I never read a single Updike. Not sure how this is possible, Updike was actually pretty well translated, I remember seeing a bunch of his novels when I was growing up...
The Le Brun prints story is amazing.
Who has written well about this phenomenon, the painting/print connection, beyond individual cases? (Have you?) Can you recommend something? I remember Chris Wood's Altdorfer book has things to say about it, maybe I should look in his notes--but I am more interested in the late 16th-17th c.
No rush, you are traveling, but in case and when something comes to mind.
My first thought is to check the appropriate chapters of ‘The Print before Photography’ by Antony Griffiths, which is sort of an encyclopedia of printmaking for the years 1500 to 1800, I have it at home (my favorite pandemic reading), will look at his bibliography once I’m home, but also a primary source comes to mind, there’s a much-cited and fun-to-read article from the August 1679 Mercure Galant advertising print series sponsored by the French state including the ones after Le Brun, the link here is to the description of the History of Alexander prints, the article as a whole starts about thirty pages earlier
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6487244d/f135.item
Thanks—I have the Griffiths, it is an amazing book, although I only browsed it. I will check; I was thinking it was primarily about technology rather than such issues but it must be a great starting point. And I look forward to what you linked!
I think there might be a relevant chapter in the third part of the book, also now I’m wondering if there’s a book on prints and armor, I remember a curator at the Met found a scene from the ‘Quarante Tableaux’ of Tortorel and Perrissin (series of forty events from the French Wars of Religion published in Geneva around 1570) on a piece of armor in the Met’s collection, not sure if he ever published that
I will bother you more once I get to it… Thanks!
That’s a great idea about the Manet, surely derived from news images as well
as the Goya. I wish I’d thought of it, I’m away until the end of the month but will look into it and maybe add a PS when I’m back.
As for Rubens and Vermeyen, this is from the old ‘Age of Rubens’ catalogue (by the way I love this book, and there are cheap copies online, but they should come with a warning about size, it’s one of the largest books I own):
“Vermeyen's original may be recorded in several seventeenth-century Antwerp inventories, for example, that of the Antwerp painter and dealer Herman de Neyt in
1642: ‘Den Moor van Meester van Aelst, met Tunis achter. Den vader vanden voors|chreven Moor die Keyser Carel te voet valt’.”
The ‘van Aelst’ is Pieter Coecke van Aelst, who worked with Vermeyen on the Tunis tapestry designs. Somewhere else in the entry it’s mentioned that the works of Vermeyen were often attributed to van Aelst at the time.
The Vermeyen print is thought to have been made within a year of the battle so definitely a news print, and there would have been a drawing as well as possibly now-unknown copies of the print, but I guess since the lost painting was floating around in Antwerp in Rubens’s time, that’s considered the most likely source.
And I’m glad you like the paper/paintings subject in general, I’ll try to find more for future posts to make this a recurring theme. A favorite at the Met: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/436791
Just got a cheap copy of the Age of Rubens catalog--it is fabulous, thanks for the recommendation. (And def not something to read in bed.)
There was a show around the various versions of the execution of Maximilian at MoMA a couple of decades ago, with all the various related images, including the ones Manet worked from. There is a catalog (a copy of which remains on my ex-wife's bookshelf...).
The whole paper / painting connection is so fascinating. Easel painting and murals were swimming in a sea of paper, much of which is lost: images on paper that were used by painters, and images made from paintings. It was a transformative moment in my education when I learnt that Lessing's Laokoon was based on a print--obviously, he had never been to Rome. Stories like the ones you are telling here suggest the extent to which this was always the case, and they provide a way to imagine the place of the paintings in the context of the time. The Rubens / Vermeyen connection is a perfect example.
By the way, I remember seeing the Rubens in 2019 when I spent an afternoon at the MFA: I was accompanying a medievalist friend who was there for research, so for most of the time, I was sitting there looking at him looking at a Burgundian saint back stage. Anyway, we had a little time to look at the museum, and I remember seeing the Rubens, and I could not believe it was Rubens... It has to do with the genre, but even more, with how closely it is based on the print. I will get the Rubens catalog, thanks for the recommendation.
I look forward to your Italian post.
Oh, I have meant to say this--have you read Bernhard's "Old Masters"?
Well, you've convinced me that the MFA is one of the greatest museums on our continent. Now I just have to get there!