This article deals with the process of canon formation for Flemish and Dutch painters from the 17th century onwards. We examine how the essential art-historical treatises and art encyclopedias since Houbraken's Grote Schouburgh der Nederlandsche Konstschilders en Schilderessen ranked and evaluated the leading painters, based on the attention given to them in these volumes. Using standardized z-scores, we map the relative importance the selected artists received in these publications over the 3 centuries. In doing so, we emphasize the path-dependency and the dimension of time in explaining the endurance of certain artists in the long run. From our research it emanates that the canon of Netherlandish painters is much more volatile than previously assumed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarkerE. (1999). The making of a canonical artist: Vermeer. In BarkerE.WebbN., & WoodsK. (Eds.), The changing status of the artist (pp. 192–219). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
2.
BeversT. (2005). Cultural education and the canon. A comparative analysis of the content of secondary school exams for music and art in England, France, Germany, and the Netherlands, 1990-2004. Poetics, 33, 388–416.
3.
BonusH., & RonteD. (1997). Credibility and economic value in the visual arts. Journal of Cultural Economics, 21, 103–118.
4.
BradenL. E. (2009). From the Armory to academia: Careers and reputations of early modern artists in the United States. Poetics, 37, 439–455.
5.
BürgerW. (ThoréTh.). (1866). Van der Meer de Delft. Gazette de Beaux-Arts, 21, 297–330, 458–470, 542–575.
6.
CornelisB. (1998). Arnold Houbraken's Groote Schouburgh and the canon of seventeenth-century Dutch painting. Simiolus. Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art, 26, 129–143.
7.
d'ArgenvilleD. (1745-52). Abrégé de la vie des plus fameux peintres (3 vols.). Paris: De Bure l'ai né.
8.
KaufmannT. Dacosta (1997). An independent Dutch art? A view from central Europe. De Zeventiende Eeuw, 13, 359–369.
9.
de MarchiN. (2008). Reluctant partners. Aesthetic and market value, 1708-1871. In AmariglioJ.ChildersJ., & CullenbergE. (Eds.), Sublime economy: On the intersection of art and economics (pp. 95–111). London: Routledge.
10.
GinsburghV., & WeyersS. (2006). Persistence and fashion in art. Italian renaissance from Vasari to Berenson and beyond. Poetics, 34, 24–44.
11.
GinsburghV., & WeyersS. (2008). On the contemporaneousness of Roger de Piles' Balance des peintres. In AmariglioJ.ChildersJ., & CullenbergE. (Eds.), Sublime economy: On the intersection of art and economics (pp. 112–123). London: Routledge.
12.
GinsburghV., & WeyersS. (2010). On the formation of canons: The dynamics of narratives in art history. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 28, 37–72.
13.
HalbertsmaM. E. (2007). The call of the canon: Why art history cannot do without. In MansfieldE. C. (Ed.), Making art history. A changing discipline and its institutions (pp. 16–31). New York: Routledge.
14.
HechtP. (1998). Rembrandt and Raphael back to back: The contribution of Thoré. Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art, 26, 162–178.
15.
HechtP. (2009). Een wisselende lijst en een begrip dat onder druk staat. Boekman. Tijdschrift voor Kunst, Cultuur en Beleid, 21, 69–73.
16.
HoubrakenA. (1718-21). Grote Schouburgh der Nederlandsche Konstschilders en Schilderessen (3 vols.). Amsterdam: B. M. Israël.
17.
LynaD. (2010). The cultural construction of value. Art auctions in Antwerp and Brussels (1700-1794). Unpublished dissertation. University of Antwerp.
18.
McKeenCattelJ. (1903). A statistical study of eminent men. Popular Science Monthly, 64, 359–377.
19.
MurrayC. A. (2003). Human accomplishment: The pursuit of excellence in the arts and sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950. New York: Harper.
20.
RichardsonJ. (1719). An argument in behalf of the science of a connoisseur. London: Publisher.
21.
RosengrenK. E. (1985). Time and literary fame. Poetics, 14, 157–172.
22.
SimontonD. K. (1991). Latent-variable models of posthumous reputation: A quest for Galton's G. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 607–619.
23.
SimontonD. K. (1997). Genius and creativity: Selected papers. Greenwich: Ablex.
24.
SimontonD. K. (1998). Fickle fashion versus immortal fame: Transhistorical assessments of creative products in the opera house. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 198–210.
25.
SluijterE. J. (2002). Beelden van de Hollandse schilderkunst. “Vele vermaerde ende treffelicke schilders.” In de NijsT. & BenkersE. (Eds.), Geschiedenis van Holland, 1572 tot 1795. Deel II (pp. 379–420). Hilversum: Uitgeverij Verloren.
26.
StuurmanS., & GreverM. (2007). Introduction: Old canons and new histories. In GreverM. & StuurmanS. (Eds.), Beyond the canon. History for the twenty-first century (pp. 1–16). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
27.
ThoréT. (1858-60). Musées de la Hollande (2 vols.). Paris: Renouard.
28.
TurnerJ. (1996). The dictionary of art (34 vols.). London: Oxford University Press.
29.
van ManderK. (1604). Het Schilder-boeck. Haarlem: Davaco Publishers.
30.
van MiegroetH. (2005). Recycling Netherlandish paintings in the Paris market in the early eighteenth-century. In RauxS. (Ed.), Collectionner dans les Flandres et la France du Nord au XVIIIe siècle (pp. 251–288). Lille: Conseil Scientifique de l & Univ. Charles-de-Gaulle.
31.
VliegheH. (1998). Flemish art, does it really exist?Simiolus. Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art, 26, 187–200.
