Artikelen

• 

  De oorspronkelijke gedaante van de geschilderde kamer in het Martenahuis te Franeker

  The Martenahuis in Franeker contains a special room whose walls and ceiling are decorated with vast paintings on canvas. Such fully painted rooms were very popular in the northern Dutch provinces from the last quarter of the seventeenth century and were called ‘painted rooms’ or ‘rooms in the round’. Owing to later additions and alterations, the painted room in the Martenahuis presents a disjointed picture today. The room’s original appearance has been reconstructed with the help of material-technical, art-historical and archival research. It transpires that all the elements of the room were meticulously coordinated with one another, which provides insight into the intentions of the client and the artists involved.The now white-painted flat wooden architectural elements were originally painted with a reddish-brown trompe l’oeil representation which, together with the paintings inserted into them, created the illusion of a richly decorated classical pavilion overlooking Arcadian landscapes. Technical research revealed – in contrast to what the literature had previously suggested – that all the landscape hangings, as well as the central ceiling piece and the eight original wainscot paintings, were part of a single series made especially for this room. Archival research has shown that the room came into being in or shortly after 1701, following the departure in August 1701 of the young Frisian stadholder Johan Willem Friso (1687-1711), who had stayed there while studying at Franeker University. The construction of the room was part of a large-scale renovation commissioned by the wealthy regent Suffridus Westerhuis (1668-1731), who had acquired the building in 1694. Various prints by the French architect Daniel Marot (1661-1752) served as inspiration for the room’s design. Those designs were all published before 1703. There are no elements dating back to Marot’s inventions from or after 1703, such as those included in his collected edition of 1712, whereas this is regularly the case in Frisian buildings built after 1703. As such, the painted room in the Martenahuis is one of the earliest examples of the Marot style in an upper middle-class mansion. The ambitious Suffridus Westerhuis presented himself as a modern and wealthy man of standing by having his house renovated in line with the latest architectural and interior design ideas. What’s more, the painted room he created directly mirrored Marot’s designs for Willem III (1650-1702) and his inner circle.

  One of the artists Westerhuis chose to do the landscape paintings in his reception room was the painter Jan van Bunnik (1654-1733), who created decorations for the palaces of the stadholder-king and for the country houses of his entourage. In seeking to align himself with the Republic’s highest echelons, Westerhuis was presenting himself as an administrator of high standing. Westerhuis took a keen interest in gardening and the study of nature, a highly appropriate pastime for a prominent figure at that time. As such, his choice of landscape hangings as wall decoration was quite apt. The contemplation of such landscapes was viewed at the time as a form of relaxation after onerous administrative duties. Architecture, paintings and client turn out to be inextricably linked in the Martenahuis room – a connection which, after having been concealed for centuries, has been brought to light by this recent research project.

  The Martenahuis in Franeker contains a special room whose walls and ceiling are decorated with vast paintings on canvas. Such fully painted rooms were very popular in the northern Dutch provinces from the last quarter of the seventeenth century and were called ‘painted rooms’ or ‘rooms in the round’. Owing to later additions and alterations, the painted room in the Martenahuis presents a disjointed picture today. The room’s original appearance has been reconstructed with the help of material-technical, art-historical and archival research. It transpires that all the elements of the room were meticulously coordinated with one another, which provides insight into the intentions of the client and the artists involved.The now white-painted flat wooden architectural elements were originally painted with a reddish-brown trompe l’oeil representation which, together with the paintings inserted into them, created the illusion of a richly decorated classical pavilion...

  The Martenahuis in Franeker contains a special room whose walls and ceiling are decorated with vast paintings on canvas. Such fully painted rooms were very popular in the northern Dutch provinces from the last quarter of the seventeenth century and were called ‘painted rooms’ or ‘rooms...

  Ige Verslype, Margriet Van Eikema Hommes, Annemieke Heuft

  101-122

  • Download PDF
• 

  De ruggengraat van het laagland. De boezem als schakel in de cultuurhistorische samenhang van het veengebied

  Given that the polder boezem* system, and in particular its network structure, is crucial to the spatial identity of the Dutch cultural landscape, a thorough cultural- historical understanding of that system is a precondition for the effective implementation of necessary future changes to the system. The boezem system in the western part of the Netherlands evolved over a period of more than five hundred years and exhibits considerable local differences in structure and form. It developed in response to a combination of a falling ground level and a rising sea level, which meant that excess water could no longer be drained without additional measures. Existing streams, watercourses and canals were accordingly diked in, modified and connected to one another to store water from the neighbouring polders or discharge it into the water outside the dikes. Within this system, a water level was established somewhere between the water levels inside and outside the dikes. To bridge the difference, sluices and pumping stations were built at discharge points. In order to fully understand the boezem system in the Randstad** study area, several different landscape layers were investigated. To determine the landscapearchitectural character, drawings were made based on historical maps and reconstructions, such as paleogeographic maps. The drawings were made using the overlay technique, which entails the superimposition of information from different historical sources. Each final drawing represents a reduction of information about the topic under consideration. This approach revealed three distinct landscape layers: the natural, the cultural-technical and the urban. The natural landscape layer is a reflection of geological formation: the landscape as shaped by the forces of nature. The cultural-technical landscape layer arose out of the confrontation between the natural landscape and the land reclamation grid. The urban landscape layer represents a further modification and transformation of the two previous layers. In the Randstad study area, boezems were created in a variety of landscape types: the coastal zone, the river landscape, the fenland areas and the marine clay landscape with polders. Each type of landscape has its own peculiarities, differences and similarities when it comes to the form of the storage basin (boezem). This shows that the boezem is not just an important link in the water management system; it is also an important spatial carrier of the various landscapes. Once identified and defined, those qualities can play a role in the preservation of the identity of the ever-changing landscape. The research method outlined in this article can be applied to a variety of water systems and can be of use in a revaluation of culturally and historically significant water systems worldwide.

  Translator’s note:

  * a boezem is a dike-enclosed storage basin created to manage excess water in the water network

  ** the Randstad is a conurbation in the west of the Netherlands, flanked by the cities of Amsterdam, The Hague, Rotterdam and Utrecht

  Given that the polder boezem* system, and in particular its network structure, is crucial to the spatial identity of the Dutch cultural landscape, a thorough cultural- historical understanding of that system is a precondition for the effective implementation of necessary future changes to the system. The boezem system in the western part of the Netherlands evolved over a period of more than five hundred years and exhibits considerable local differences in structure and form. It developed in response to a combination of a falling ground level and a rising sea level, which meant that excess water could no longer be drained without additional measures. Existing streams, watercourses and canals were accordingly diked in, modified and connected to one another to store water from the neighbouring polders or discharge it into the water outside the dikes. Within this system, a water level was established somewhere between the water levels inside and outside the dikes. To bridge the...

  Given that the polder boezem* system, and in particular its network structure, is crucial to the spatial identity of the Dutch cultural landscape, a thorough cultural- historical understanding of that system is a precondition for the effective implementation of necessary future changes to the...

  Inge Bobbink, Michiel Pouderoijen

  123-138

  • Download PDF
• 

  Een vertekend beeld? Opnieuw de toeschrijving van de dolhuisvrouw

  Who created the Dolhuisvrouw (Madhouse Woman) and when? The debate surrounding these questions can be traced back to two art historians, Elisabeth Neurdenburg and Juliane Gabriels. This article provides a response to Frits Scholten’s article on the subject in Bulletin KNOB no. 1, 2017, a few additions to my own article in Bulletin KNOB no. 2, 2016, and a conclusion about the art-historical context of the attribution of the Dolhuisvrouw. Scholten, who is in agreement with Gabriels’ 1930 monograph, Artus Quellien, de Oude ‘Kunstryck belthouwer’, quotes part of her argumentation and fully endorses her attribution of the Dolhuisvrouw to Artus Quellinus. However, Scholten fails to mention a crucial footnote in a later article by Neurdenburg in the 1943 Oudheidkundig Jaarboek, in which Gabriels declares that she now supports the statue’s attribution to Hendrick de Keyser. Various earlier authors have linked the appearance of the Dolhuisvrouw to a renovation in 1615, and thus to the working life of Hendrick de Keyser. Such an early date seems unlikely because the Dolhuisvrouw is absent from a meticulous map drawn in 1625 by Balthasar Floris, which shows the divided courtyard minus the statue. In the context of this debate, it is important to consider the work of Gerrit Lambertsen, Hendrick de Keyser’s pupil. Apart from a test piece in wood, Lambertsen worked exclusively in sandstone, without signing his work. Although the Dolhuisvrouw has a smooth finish, the plinth exhibits the typical input of a stone mason – of someone who is familiar with sandstone. A reference to styles proves to be of little direct use in arriving at a more accurate dating of the Dolhuisvrouw. Nowadays there are better arguments for dating the statue to the first half of the seventeenth century. Owing to a Calvinist prohibition on licentious nudity, it is likely that the statue initially stood indoors, but historical clues have been discovered that for the time being support Gerrit Lambertsen’s authorship in the second quarter of the century. For an older generation of art historians, form was all-decisive and some did not even mention material and finish. The great masters of the seventeenth century did indeed work in various materials or sought out other specialists to have their works realized in bronze or terracotta. Hendrik de Keyser and his pupil Gerrit Lambertsen both had their own workshops at different points in time, but had a lot in common in terms of origins, style and technique. This was acknowledged by Neurdenburg, as was the comparable relationship between the younger baroque sculptors from the southern Netherlands, Artus Quellinus and Rombout Verhulst. As in painting, older generations of art historians carried out pioneering work, but they looked for ‘geniuses’ in a much too small pool of talent. With selective quotations and attributions Scholten is himself continuing to contribute to what he calls ‘a stubborn misunderstanding’ requiring correction and qualification. 

  Who created the Dolhuisvrouw (Madhouse Woman) and when? The debate surrounding these questions can be traced back to two art historians, Elisabeth Neurdenburg and Juliane Gabriels. This article provides a response to Frits Scholten’s article on the subject in Bulletin KNOB no. 1, 2017, a few additions to my own article in Bulletin KNOB no. 2, 2016, and a conclusion about the art-historical context of the attribution of the Dolhuisvrouw. Scholten, who is in agreement with Gabriels’ 1930 monograph, Artus Quellien, de Oude ‘Kunstryck belthouwer’, quotes part of her argumentation and fully endorses her attribution of the Dolhuisvrouw to Artus Quellinus. However, Scholten fails to mention a crucial footnote in a later article by Neurdenburg in the 1943 Oudheidkundig Jaarboek, in which Gabriels declares that she now supports the statue’s attribution to Hendrick de Keyser. Various earlier authors have linked the appearance of the Dolhuisvrouw to a renovation in 1615, and thus...

  Who created the Dolhuisvrouw (Madhouse Woman) and when? The debate surrounding these questions can be traced back to two art historians, Elisabeth Neurdenburg and Juliane Gabriels. This article provides a response to Frits Scholten’s article on the subject in Bulletin KNOB no. 1, 2017, a few...

  Dirk J. de Vries

  139-149

  • Download PDF