Johannes Vermeer: Painter or Rebel?

It has always been muttered that playing the guitar is the work of the devil or, more famously, that rock and roll is the devil’s music.

During the Dutch Golden Age, the former was avidly believed. Whilst there were numerous superstitions bandied around during the 17th century, this one is particularly interesting as there is a wealth of Dutch guitar music and paintings of guitar playing to come from this era.

The Guitar Player, c. 1672.
Oil on canvas, 53 x 46.3 cm.
The Iveagh Bequest (Kenwood).
Courtesy of English Heritage.

In a society where superstition could cost a person their life (witch trials in the Netherlands in the 17th century were a common occurrence, the largest of which was the Roermond witch trial leading to the deaths of 64 people), pursuing or documenting an activity which was linked to the devil was a dangerous thing indeed. While music may just be music, and the guitar just a guitar, might it be said that Johannes Vermeer, in his depiction of The Guitar Player, was actually a true rebel of the Dutch Golden Age? If superstition was still as rife in 1673 as 1613 (the year of the Roermond witch trial) then, yes. Portraying an act considered to be of the devil may have been the 17th-century equivalent of David Bowie’s controversial “The Next Day” music video!

However, 60 years is a long time. It is possible that Vermeer, in this painting, was merely completing a portrait, that he simply liked music, or even that he was poking fun at a superstition which no longer held a place in society. But isn’t it more fun thinking of the great Dutch Master Johannes Vermeer as an artistic rebel harbouring an agenda to shock society?

Whether you think of Vermeer as a classical Dutch painter or a slightly more risqué artist with a bone to pick with society, you can find all you need to know about Vermeer and music at London’s National Gallery. Currently hosting the exhibition Vermeer and Music: The Art of Love and Leisure, which will be running until September 8th, this is an unparalleled opportunity to get to grips with a multisensory display. To further pique your interest, check out Johannes Vermeer by Jp. A. Calosse.

- Fiona Torsch

The Good, the Bad, and the 17th Century

Here we are again at the 17^th century, the time of Master Rembrandt and his many self-portraits. But, frankly, when I consider wanting to go back in time, I don’t fancy returning to the 17^th century. There were a tonne of wars. Famines in Russia, France, and Finland and a plague in both Seville and London. Shakespeare died, for crying out loud – I’m still mourning this loss.

 

Rembrandt van Rijn, The Landscape with the Three Trees, 1643.
Etching, drypoint, and engraving, 21.3 × 27.8 cm.
Collection of Marie and George Hecksher.

 

The Good:

• Jamestown, Virginia was established – which later led to a massacre of 347 English settlers by the natives (essentially score one and only)
• St Peter’s Basilica was completed
• Torture was outlawed in England (we’re still waiting for that in other countries)
• Cape Town was founded
• New Amsterdam was founded and soon thereafter renamed New York – I wonder what it would be like if it were still named as such?
• The Taj Mahal was started and completed
• The steam engine
• Bach and Monteverdi
• Rubens
• Donne and Milton
• Galileo and Newton
• (As discussed before) Ice cream

 

Rembrandt van Rijn, Self-Portrait with a Velvet Beret and a Jacket with a Fur Collar, 1634.
Oil on oak, 58.4 x 47.7 cm.
Gemäldegalerie, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Berlin.

 

The Bad:

• The pilgrims arrived on the Mayflower
• Aurochs became extinct (I bet you don’t even know what they are)
• Mount Vesuvius erupted
• The Great Fire of London (which might be good because it got rid of that pesky plague)
• The Ottomans
• Louisiana was claimed by France
• Salem witch trials
• Calculus

 

So maybe a fair amount of interesting and positive things occurred, but the bad here weigh rather heavily. I’m much happier in the 21^st century, with the ability to look back smugly and mock.

 

Rembrandt van Rijn, Portrait of Hendrickje Stoffels with a Velvet Beret, c. 1654.
Oil on canvas, 74 x 61 cm.
Musée du Louvre, Paris.

 

Visit the de Young Museum in San Fran to see Rembrandt’s Century, through 2 June, whilst still enjoying all of the luxuries of today. Also, keep an eye out for Rembrandt by Émile Michel, out soon from Parkstone!

 

-Le Lorrain Andrews

Rubens, Making Women Look Good Since 1698

Though Peter Paul Rubens’ impressive works are around 400 years old, I still find comfort in his representations of the female body. They are round, plush, and beautiful. Ruben’s women make me feel more comfortable in my own skin, regardless of my weight or how many dimples are on my thighs – okay, that’s not entirely true, I have a mini-breakdown any time I discover one and try chalking it up more to the fact that I’m getting older and less that I haven’t stepped foot in a gym in at least four years*.


Peter Paul Rubens, Venus in front of the Mirror, 1614/1615.
Oil on panel, 123 x 98 cm.
The Princely Collections, Lichtenstein.

What is going on in our society where models and actresses are all thinner than thin, so thin, in fact, I’d guess if a muscular or Big Handsome Man (BHM), were to place a hand on their shoulder they’d break in half! Personally, I’d rather look more like Adele, America Ferrera, or the OLD Emma Stone than Nicole Richie, Keira Knightly, or the NEW Emma Stone. Part of it is genes, of course, and one man’s poison is another man’s cure, but women whose genes would never allow them to be a size zero are killing themselves, literally, through diet (read: starvation) and over-exercise. I’m not a huge activist of exercise in the first place (clearly, based on my lack of gym membership), though I know (and advocate the fact that) it makes your heart healthier and your life longer. But, if we’re being honest here, I just don’t like to sweat.


Peter Paul Rubens, Venus in front of the Mirror, 1614/1615.
Oil on panel, 123 x 98 cm.
The Princely Collections, Lichtenstein.

A little Googling of “Rubenesque women” will yield some interesting results – try at your own risk and beware of those NSFW sites. Linking the term to Big Beautiful Women (BBW) – which actively encourages being overweight and obese – is taking it a bit too far. Ruben’s women weren’t overweight or obese, they were real women of real sizes of their time, with childbearing hips and capabilities – remember when that was important? You know, before 12-year-olds started having babies; HOW DO THEY DO IT!? – I digress.


Peter Paul Rubens, The Landing of Maria de’ Medici at Marseille, 3 November, 1600 (detail), 1622-1625.
Oil on canvas, 394 x 295 cm.
Musée du Louvre, Paris.

I’m not sure whether or not it’s too late for western societies, young girls especially, to get over busting their butts (no pun intended) to be waif-thin. Luckily for women everywhere, the beauty aesthetic changes with the times, so perhaps the next desired woman of said times will be able to just be who she is – beautiful at any size, confident, and intelligent. Because, really, isn’t it confidence that makes a person sexy?

Relish in the curves, bottoms, and bosoms of yesteryear at the Peter Paul Rubens exhibit in the Von Der Heydt-Museum, Wuppertal from 10.16.2012-28.02.2013. Also for your viewing pleasure, procure these colourful ebooks: Peter Paul Rubens and Baroque Art. Finally, ladies, feel free to say YES to your next piece of cake or pie and love the skin you’re in.

-Le Lorrain Andrews

*All joking and sarcasm aside, please do not take my lightness towards exercise seriously. Walk, swim, run, join a yoga or salsa class; hop, skip, or jump. Whatever you do, keep moving.