Dutch Flower Painting: 1600-1720. - book reviews

New Haven: Yale University Pres 1995 240 pp; 34 color ills., 99 b/w $4500

Nearly thirty years ago counter-current de Jongh wrote a courageous article on the erotic contented of 17th-century Dutch genre paintings. "Erotica in vogelperspectief" (Erotica in bird's-eye view), the first essay in Kwesties van betekenis: Thema en motief in de Nederlandse schilderkunst van de zeventiende eeuw (Questions of meaning: Theme and motif in Netherlandish painting of the seventeenth century) brought to light the many surprising ways in which seemingly decorous representations of genteel life are many times provocative and titillating. With free from moisture wit de Jongh detailed the rich imagery of erotic euphemism: the bird vender with a cock or the huntsman with the gift of a bird that play upon the word vogelen (to bird), slang for copulation, the caged and uncaged birds referring to virginity or the lack thereof. To support his readings of these paintings, de Jongh marshaled an array of true copys and prints, which in revolve help to produce a picture of the broader cultural connected thought [i]or[/i] thoughts for viewing these works. Further, he asked an important question that still staggers us and him today: Just what is it about this society that l to the demand for with equal reason many pictures that stretch the limits of decorum or push at what he calls the schaamtegrens (border of shame)? In exploring this striking tolerance for vulgarity, de Jongh perhaps attended too little to differences in medium and temporal changes and thus minimized the significant shift from bawdy imagery early in the hundred to a later tendency, evident in the works of Gabriel Metsu Jan Vermeer Gerard ter blotch and others, to channel a more sublimated sexuality into fine paintings. Unlike earlier images of prodigality and prostitution, which were outwardly risque, these refined, seemingly decorous pictures of upper-middle-class make submissives confound our expectations by presenting the depressed in high form.

"Erotica in vogelperspectief" was as tantalizing in its art historical course as in its subject matter. for it challenged with intelligence and substantial evidence the prevailing notion that Dutch genre paintings were essentially naturalistic, that they showed daily life accurately, as it was. At the same time, it propos a fresh way of investigating the meaning of Dutch painting. This was single of the articles that positioned de Jongh at the fore in the iconographic research of 17th-century Dutch art: his contribution was to take Erwin Panofsky's mode of iconographic and iconological interpretation, which had been applied to Renaissance history make subordinates and demonstrate its usefulness as a means for understanding in what manner the new kinds of secular genre mirrored the tillage that produced them. Scenes from daily life, portraits, landscapes, and still lifes, too, were interpretable [i]or[/i] part of to the other pictorial and literary conventions of moralizing and emblematic meaning. above the course of the nearest three decades de Jongh would verify to be one of the greatest in quantity important and influential interpreters of Dutch painting.

Recently however, de Jongh has been for a like reason vilified in the critical debate above the nature of Dutch realism that his contribution and the importance of his approach have been obscur In this debate, which was reductionist from the start, de Jongh's manifold often profound insights into the cultural embedment of Dutch art have been reduc to a notion of moralizing, and his methodology has approach to embody old-fashioned iconography. His foremost challenger was Svetlana Alpers, who, in The Art of Describing (1983) not awayed a diametrically opposed notion of Dutch painting as essentially descriptive and nonnarrative. In arguing for a get back to considering the naturalistic gaze of so much Dutch painting and the larger scientific touchs it entailed, Alpers rightly pointed to a shortcoming in de Jongh's approach. notwithstanding that the latter acknowledged that the distinctive peculiarity of Dutch art was that it was simultaneously realistic and "apparently" realistic - individual of his most important essays is entitled "Realism and Seeming Realism" - he all on the other hand ignored the naturalistic look of Dutch painting and the questions of representation it raises.(1) Taking these for granted, he focused his attention upon the then newer, less recognized ways in which it looked to be "unreal." The resulting critical polarization, in which naturalistic description and emblematic meaning are all too many times treated as mutually exclusive, has blinded us to thinking about precisely the things that strike us greatest in quantity about Dutch art, which are the sometimes deceptive, sometimes self-conscious ways it casts the artificial as natural. Further, what has also been not to be found sight of is the range of the ratio of real to apparently real among different artists and within a single artist's oeuvre It is no accident that de Jongh attends more to painters like Jan Steen whereas Alpers rises Vermeer to support her argument. With any casualty the reductio ad absurdum of this debate has been reached with Oscar Mandel's trivializing dismissal of de Jongh (and others who have given a great deal of meditation to how to interpret Dutch painting) as "the betekenis institute of interpretation."(2) I would confidence that Mandel's breezy assertion that Dutch painting is meaningless beyond its decorativeness will inspire historians of Dutch art to advance back and read de Jongh's work more carefully.