‘Jan Maurits Quinckhard: Painter of the elite’

‘Jan Maurits Quinckhard:

Painter of the elite’

Arianne Deligianis

Master dissertation Art History Faculty of Humanities

University of Amsterdam

Supervisor: Dr. William Worth Bracken

Second Examinator: Dhr. prof. dr. Frans Grijzenhout

List of contents List of contents

Introduction

1. Life and choices of Jan Maurits Quinckhard

1.1. The struggle for success: challenges for a young painter 1.2. Early years and education of Quinckhard

1.3. Career as an independent artist 1.4. The issue of competition

2. Passing the baton: ensuring an artistic lineage 2.1. Quinckhard’s teachers

2.2. Quinckhard’s pupils and the concept of retiring 2.3. The painting style of Quinckhard

3. The exigency for commitment: painter-patron relationships 3.1. Establishing connections: Quinckhard’s networking

3.2. Timelessness and sameness: ‘’everything must always be the same’’

4.Conclusion

5. Bibliography

6. List of illustrations

‘’ Genius is present in every age,

but the men carrying it within them remain benumbed

unless extraordinary events occur to

heat up and melt the mass so that it flows forth’’

Introduction Introduction

For over two centuries, there has been considerable debate regarding the value and artistic production of the eighteenth century in the Netherlands. Dutch eighteenth century art used to be called the ‘’Silver Age’’ compared to the glory of the 17

century, also known as the Golden Age. Slowly but steadily, art historians are beginning to re-evaluate the importance of Dutch eighteenth century art and the role it played for the country’s artistic legacy.

Nowadays, it is believed that eighteenth century Dutch art has been underestimated. Light is being shed on aspects like the Enlightenment and its effect on artistic development,

inventions regarding painting techniques (such as the rise of pastel portraits) and significant painters that had for long remained underexposed, like Jan Maurits Quinckhard, on whom this thesis will focus.

At the turn of the century, young people stood before the feet of a new era, aspiring to become successful artists. Jan Maurits Quinckhard (1688-1772), an immigrant from

Germany, was one of them. He made the choice to travel to the Netherlands and follow an artistic education in order to pursue a life of success and fame as a painter. However, like every other young person sharing his dream at that time, Quinckhard was still standing in the shadow of the seventeenth century: an age that did not receive the name ‘’Golden’’ without a reason (later in the 19

century). Old masters like Anthony van Dyk, Ferdinand Bol and Frans van Mieris had long been dead, but their fame was still very much alive and their names had not been forgotten. In fact, now that they were dead, their paintings had risen in value (in some cases, they had increased at least three- or fourfold), as Jan van Gool mentioned in his work.

It seemed that seventeenth century painters of the Dutch Republic had reached the zenith of artistic production and ability. Their country had been one of the most powerful and influential countries in the world, but now its power had begun to dwindle. One of the most pressing issues was the problem of internal conflict. The Orangists and Patriots were incessantly at each other’s throat, and the stadholder could not take decisive action. The Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 left the country exhausted by war, longing desperately for peace and stability. Thus, soon every conflict or meddling with political European issues was avoided.

In addition to this, the Republic had lost its position as a ruling maritime authority.

Dutch economic and social development was being overshadowed by its more illustrious

1 Junko Aono, Imitation and innovation: Dutch genre painting 1680-1790 and its reception of the Golden Age

(Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, 2011), p. 38.

island neighbour. The Netherlands were yet again at war with England, a country that had grown more powerful and formed mercantilist challenges for the nation. The Republic fought largely defensive wars against England and France to preserve both its independence and its commercial prerogatives. Subsequently, now that the country was not as influential and had retreated from European politics in order to retain peace and tranquillity, the influences of other countries, such as France and England, became evident in the Netherlands. Examples of such foreign influence could be seen in several cases, from interior design and fashion (which was becoming increasingly French) to painting style and techniques. It is important to belabour this point because it applies to the arts as well; French and English artistic fashions and styles could increasingly be distinguished in Dutch paintings. New techniques and uses of colours such as pastels, extensively used in France and England, rose to popularity and earned the favour of art collectors. Dutch art began to change and, naturally, young painters realised they had to adapt to these changes and maybe even take advantage of this event.

In Quinckhard’s time it was not easy to become a painter. In fact, choosing to earn one’s living as a painter had never been the easiest choice and came along with a lot of challenges. For instance, around the turn of the century, there occurred a change in the patronage system and the conditions under which one received commissions were different.

Instead of patrons approaching painters, painters had to seek patrons out and convince them of becoming their clients.

The open market no longer offered artists what they needed. As a result, they had to find support in that diminishing circle of wealthy collectors. It demanded not only talent, but also hard work to prove oneself as a capable and confident artist.

Naturally, this demanded excellent social skills.

Many of these collectors looked back to the 17

century with nostalgia and wanted to possess works painted in that style, maybe as reminders of those ‘’glory days’’.

What they found appealing about seventeenth century art was its uniqueness and national character. In the eighteenth century, art was being ‘’invaded’’ more and more by foreign influences, which estranged Dutch art, made it something it was not. Classicizing elements were mostly what

‘’spoiled’’ Dutch art in their eyes. So, instead, collectors looked back to the time when, in their opinion, real Dutch art was made. For instance, there was a high market demand for polished genre-pieces by fijnschilders like Gerrit Dou and Frans van Mieris, genre paintings that depicted typical Dutch life and tradition.

As a result of these changes, painters felt increasingly unsure about how they had to establish a relationship with their clients in order to receive commissions. Many young painters started their career by copying such old masters in order to win the favour of

2 Ibid., p. 33.

3 Maria S. La Barge, Francois Valentijn’s Oud en Nieuw Oost Indien and the Dutch Frontispiece in the 17

and

18

centuries (Miami: University of Miami, 2008, Master Thesis), p. 4.

collectors. This is why many artists would choose to paint a lot of genre pieces at the early start of their career.

Such challenges young painters faced, will be presented from the perspective of one of the artists representing the young generation at the beginning of the eighteenth century, namely Jan Maurits Quinckhard. He came to the Netherlands, had to settle as an artist and fight to survive. Nothing simply happened, unless someone made it happen. But what were his choices and challenges and how did Quinckhard cope with them? How did his actions play out eventually? With Jan Maurits Quinckhard as a study case, I will be analysing the challenges he faced as a painter and the strategy he used to realise his ambitions. As every action leads to a reaction, so did Quinckhard respond to the situation he was confronted with in a certain way.

To explore how Quinckhard optimized his options artistically, first there needs to be a broader historical framework. In the first chapter, thus, attention will be paid not only to Quinckhard’s situation, but also to the artistic situation in the Netherlands at the beginning of the eighteenth century in general. What were the challenges young painters were faced with after the passing of the Golden Age? After an overview of these challenges, there will be a refocus on Quinckhard; what was Quinckhard’s background and how did he spend his early years in this new artistic climate? Where did he decide to turn to for his education? How was his further career as an independent artist? Lastly, the first chapter will again move away from Quinckhard, to address the issue of competition. Who else was active as a portraitist in Amsterdam alongside Quinckhard and how did he deal with it?

The answer to the latter will be given in the second chapter, which, among others, will be taking a closer look at Quinckhard’s chosen teachers. Who were they and why did

Quinckhard choose them, is there more behind Quinckhard’s motives? Moreover, is there a connection between him, his mentors and their mentors in turn, a possible solution that dealt with the aforementioned challenge of competition? Afterwards, there will be a close

inspection of Quinckhard’s painting style and characteristics, which will be compared to the style of his teachers to assess further connections between them. Also, it is important to research how his chosen painting style fits in the situation he was in and the problems he faced as a young portraitist. A pressing dilemma in Quinckhard’s time was also the issue of versatility. In these changing times of the eighteenth century, many painters choose to remain versatile, in order to appeal to more potential patrons. This is the opposite of what occurred during the Golden Age, where painters chose to specialize in order to deal with the growing competition. What was Quinckhard’s opinion on the matter? This will be clarified by delving into his oeuvre, so as to establish whether Quinckhard preferred versatility or specialization.

As will be discussed later on, Quinckhard was most famous and sought after

throughout his lifetime for his portraits. An interesting observation is that, although he is often described as a man who painted with thematic variety, my research shows that this is not the case. He has been characterized as a portraitist, a genre painter, but also a print maker, an interior decorator, a copyist, a miniature painter, a history painter and a restorer. In fact, apart from a few single exceptions dating from the beginning of his career, Quinckhard only painted portraits, thus choosing to specialize in this genre. This decision is interesting, because it made Quinckhard stand out, and suggests that he was not a prototype of an eighteenth century painter, who was more versatile. Although Quinckhard represents the common problems all young painters faced, his choices he made to deal with them are quite different and can be related to the activities of few other painters.

Nevertheless, when it comes to the genre of portraiture itself, Quinckhard’s oeuvre was indeed quite multifaceted, which means that it included individual portraits, pendants, official group portraits, but also family portraits and conversation pieces. The aspect of variety does not stop there, however. Quinckhard’s portraits were also very different in size and colour, ranging from miniatures to life size works and from grisailles to brightly coloured paintings. The formal ones are austere, sober, traditional, and almost a bit stiff (e.g. group portraits of regents). On the other hand, his informal portraits (mostly family portraits and couple portraits) are intimate, more diverse and unique when compared to each other and adhere to characteristics of the conversation piece. These different sides of Quinckhard’s work will be analysed and discussed further on in this thesis to investigate whether his style had further purposes linked to his artistic ambitions.

Lastly, a third chapter will cover the topic of Quinckhard’s clients and patrons. Since in the eighteenth century, a personalized relationship between a painter and a patron was crucial, it is important to look at Quinckhard’s networking and social activities. An attempt will be made to look into the commissions and who his main clients were. In addition to this, questions regarding his ties with his clients and the connection between his chosen painting style and his patrons will also be investigated.

I decided to devote this thesis to the painter Jan Maurits Quinckhard because although he is considered to be one of the most noteworthy portraitists of the eighteenth century, there has still not been enough attention for him. He had a considerable influence on fellow

painters, and was an icon of transition between two centuries. He was one of the few painters

to be active from the very beginning of the eighteenth century and lived a long life, filled

with artistic aspiration. It is curious, because the painters and critics of his time thought very

highly of him and wherever his name appears in writings, it is always accompanied by

nothing but admiration and awe for his qualitative paintings and character. Despite this, a

good, systematic research has not yet been conducted on the matter. This is why I will

attempt to shine more light on Quinckhard, his patrons and portraits. Thus, hopefully, my thesis can provide insight into this painter and his work for future students who might be interested in the same subject.

The leitmotif of this thesis is choice. It is important to consider at all times that a painter like Jan Maurits Quinckhard did certain things for a reason. Every young painter in the Netherlands had to make certain choices in order to realize his ambitions.

The famous Denis Diderot once spoke of genius, saying: ‘’ Genius is present in every

age, but the men carrying it within them remain benumbed unless extraordinary events occur

to heat up and melt the mass so that it flows forth’’. In my opinion, these ‘’extraordinary

events that melt the mass so that it flows forth’’ are nothing else but our own decisions, an act

of decision-making, responding to what is happening around us. It is not luck or circumstance

that defined Quinckhard’s career, or that of any other eighteenth century painter for that

matter. Quinckhard was responsible for his own choices, through his actions. Whether he

made the right or wrong choices, is yet to be uncovered.

1. Life and choices of Jan Maurits Quinckhard 1. Life and choices of Jan Maurits Quinckhard

1.1. The struggle for success: challenges for a young painter

Right before and after the turn of the eighteenth century, even before Quinckhard arrived in the Netherlands, different events started tearing at the fabric of Dutch society. Some of these events are important for this thesis because they are related to the artistic changes of the time and the challenges young painters faced, most importantly, the problems Quinckhard faced when he settled in Amsterdam. After the Peace of Utrecht, a neutral position was held by the Dutch towards all international and foreign affairs. By all costs, war and conflict had to be avoided.

In a way, artists were also reluctant to take risks, not in the field of politics, but that of art. It was too early to focus on innovation, and even if they wanted to, most did not even know where to begin. Would imitation provide them the recognition they desired? Was one to imitate or invoke Golden Age art, as it was popular amongst collectors, or would painters be appreciated more if they attempted to create something new, or should they choose a middle path instead?

In the beginning, eighteenth century art was quite neutral, repetitive, blandly imitating seventeenth century popular art. Examples are early works by Willem van Mieris, the son of Frans van Mieris. He chose to imitate a very specific painting type of the

seventeenth century; genre painting. This is what most young painters chose to paint, since from the beginning of the century, genre painting was very desired by collectors and was often sold at auctions. In fact, for these young painters, this nostalgia for the Golden age was almost a nuisance, and one of the major problems for beginning painters. The embarrassment of riches had brought about changes. How were young painters to surpass the ones that came before them and how could they convince contemporary patrons to buy their art instead of Golden Age masterpieces? How was one to follow something that seemed to be

insurmountable? Most patrons still looked back to the past era and its splendour, and wanted to possess paintings made by the old masters instead.

This problem of the young artists can be better explained through the work of Harold Bloom, an American literary critic and Sterling Professor of Humanities at the University of Yale. He defined the same problem but referred to young poets instead of painters. In his book The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry (1973), Bloom states that young poets were hindered in their creative process by the ambivalent relationship between them and precursor poets. Moreover, he argues that poets were often unavoidably influenced by great

4 Seymour Slive, Dutch Painting 1600-1800 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), p. 295.

5 Lyna Dries, ‘’Name Hunting, Visual Characteristics, and ‘New Old Masters’: Tracking the Taste for Paintings at

Eighteenth Century Auctions’’, Eighteenth Century Studies, Vol. 46, No. 1 (2012) , p. 61-62.

poets before them, and as a result their work would partly derive from existing works.

This was not good enough according to Bloom. In order to find great success, poets (and in our case, painters) had to create something of their own, and this awareness caused anxiety in the young generation. This can just as well apply to young painters of the eighteenth century.

These young people, who wanted to accomplish something new, suffered under the weight of things already accomplished.

Another issue related to the difficult start of young painters (and to the preference for Golden Age art) could have been the fact that there were still so many seventeenth century paintings circling around in the art market, that there simply was not enough capacity to buy paintings by the new generation. Art dealers had to make sure a part of this oversupply of paintings was sold first, in order to start worrying about newly made art. These paintings were so durable they did not need to be replaced yet.

Moreover, art merchants were blamed by some for reinforcing the difficult position young painters already were in. For instance, Jan van Gool (1685-1763), a painter, writer and biographer of eighteenth century artists, argued that these ‘’powerful art dealers’’ were the culprit, ensuring young painters did not get the attention they deserved. According to Van Gool, they tried to mislead the art buying audience into thinking that old masters were superior to the young painters and that contemporary art was nothing but the last breath of a culture that once was praiseworthy.

Van Gool was very clear in his views on over-promoting the 17

century.

Specifically, he once wrote:

‘’…If an art lover already owned a splendid cabinet of dead Masters, then the art of the living masters is deemed far too low to be permitted into his cabinet, since it brings him no profit; for the self- serving rule of thumb of these art dealers, who could better be called art destroyers, is to keep the

living masters, and with them the living Art, completely outside the art trade, so as to increase demand for their own outfit.’’

Van Gool was not the only one; Houbraken called art dealers keelbeulen, cutthroats, in other words. During the same period, William Hogarth complained in England about the negative role art dealers played in the encouragement of young artists to make their own way.

Gerard Hoet, on the other hand, was an art dealer and although he agreed that Dutch art was waning, he did not believe that art dealers were to blame. He defended the honest job

6 Harold Bloom, The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), second revised edition, p. 14.

7 Aono, Imitation and innovation, p. 30.

8 Slive, Dutch Painting, p. 296.

9 Johan van Gool, De nieuwe Schouwburg der Nederlantsche Kunstschilders en Schilderessen, (’s-Gravenhage: Leiden, 1750-1751), Vol. 1, pp. 360-1.

10 Harry Mount, ‘’The Monkey with the Magnifying Glass: constructions of the connoisseur in eighteenth-

century Britain’’, Oxford Art Journal, Vol. 29, No. 2 (2006), p. 170.

of the art dealers and shoved the blame towards the artists themselves.

This caused a heated debate that kept going on between Van Gool and Hoet. No matter who was right and who was wrong, the fact remained that without proper guidance and enlightened patrons, a young painter could not make a name for himself in the eighteenth century.

Unfortunately, in this period, with the economic crisis and the wars still evident, there were not many wealthy patrons left who were willing to spend large amounts of money on art, let alone that of contemporary artists. Still, it is important to remember that although the patronage system did change, it did not entirely vanish. However, it is true that potential buyers became confined to a smaller group of affluent citizens.

The diminishing numbers of collectors and patrons combined with the disappearance of the anonymous market led to further difficulties. Painters like Quinckhard were not as independent as painters were a century before, and thus had to establish good connections, even real and personal bonds with patrons. This demanded not only great effort, but also effective tactics.

After 1670, a family background in art, good connections with wealthy collectors, and apprenticeships with successful 17

century masters seem to have played a crucial role for young men as they examined their professional options.

Another factor that helped young painters was whether they were sons or daughters of famous 17

century painters. A few examples are Willem van Mieris, born in a big family of artists, Constantyn en Theodorus Netscher, Justus van Huysum (son of the decorative painter Jan van Huysum I) and his son Jan van Huysum.

Luckily, Quinckhard had all these advantages. In fact, two of his teachers, Arnold Boonen and Nicolaas Verkolje, also belonged to this group of painters that followed in the footsteps of masters who produced expensive works of art for the happy few and then became successful painters of the new generation. Eventually, Quinckhard studied under these

successful painters, all painting in a way that appealed to the elite.

Quinckhard did the same, still without entirely following his previous masters. More on this will follow in the second chapter.

Another challenge that inhibited young painters from growing and becoming successful was the dilemma of having to choose between versatility or specialization. The market change in combination with this new need for private patronage, forced painters to step out of their comfort zone. Eventually, most painters chose to expand their oeuvre and learn to paint different subjects. This versatility was a result of the changing relationship between the painter and the art collector/buyer. The phenomenon of choosing to be versatile

11 Slive, Dutch Painting, p. 297.

12 Junko Aono, ‘’Ennobling daily life: A question of refinement in early eighteenth-century Dutch genre painting’’, Simiolus: Netherlands quarterly for the history of art, Vol. 33, No. 4 (2007-8), p. 252.

13 Aono, Imitation and innovation, p. 34.

14 Ibid., p. 35.

occurred increasingly amongst the young painters, proving that these people were aware of their challenges and were trying to make certain choices in order to improve their position.

Adaptation was a vital action for their professional survival. To use Quinckhard’s teacher as an example; Nicolaes Verkolje, being aware that adaptation was essential, engaged in the production of history paintings in a classicising style, while also adopting this style for genre painting.

Genre painting and classicistic elements were both popular in the eighteenth century, so Verkolje cleverly made use of both to attract more clients. For instance, the women in his genre pieces are just as idealised as the ones in his Biblical and mythological scenes. Such idealised women are rarely seen in genre pieces of the Golden Age. In

Verkolje’s works, not only their appearance is comparable, but also their postures can be similar. This adaptation of the classicising style as an innovative painterly strategy, was applied by other painters as well, like Willem van Mieris.

Soon, there were barely any painters left that would dedicate their lives to painting only one subject (for example only seascapes, battles or architectural interiors).

Super- specialisations (like ‘’Bentheimpjes’’), which were very popular in the century before, vanished. Seventeenth century masters had the luxury to reject a commission because it was not their field of specialty. In fact, sometimes they were forced by severe competition to become specialized not only in a type of painting, but in a specific scene within that category, in order to be unique and to provide unprecedented quality. One could not make a living anymore this way. In the eighteenth century, this process was turned around. This resulted in painters engaging in painting history pieces but also portraits or genre scenes in order to please a potential patron, that could provide their income for a very long time. Surprisingly, Quinckhard was not one of those artists, and chose to specialize in portraits. However, in his early years, he also experimented with genres, painting history pieces and genre scenes, although only for a brief time.

A good example of a versatile artist and opposite of Quinckhard was Willem van Mieris (1662-1747), who chose to focus on genre painting, since that was the legacy of his father, who was still very popular in the eighteenth century.

However, Willem van Mieris had to satisfy different demands. One of his wealthiest patrons, Pieter de la Court (whose properties were estimated at ƒ 1.200.000 after his death), advised him to be flexible and paint all types of paintings; genre pieces, history paintings, landscapes, portraits and even still lives.

Maybe it was this very versatility that created the complex combination of different genres in one painting, such as genre motifs in portraits or genre elements in history paintings

15 Aono, Imitation and innovation, p. 115.

16 Slive, Dutch Painting, p. 299.

17 Aono, Ennobling daily life, p. 252.

18 Ibid., p. 253.

(or the other way around). Jan Maurits Quinckhard was also a painter whose father had the same profession, and like Van Mieris, Quinckhard also followed in his father’s footsteps.

However, where Van Mieris decided to train himself to paint different subjects, Quinckhard chose to stick to portraits. Speculations on this choice will be analysed later on.

Even in the eighteenth century, there was a dispute about whether versatility instead of specialization was a positive development. Some still valued specialization highly, one of those being Arnold Houbraken, who grieved the current affairs and stated in his De groote schouburgh der Nederlantdsche konstschilders en schilderessen that:

‘’…rightly so when one sees that diverse spheres of art have been torn off and have fallen into the grave together with their laudable creators, with no hope that they will rise again with beauty enhanced. Who has emerged in painting the sea and ships since the death of Porsellis, Bakhuysen, W.

van de Velde, and Van Everdingen? Who in the painting of domesticated animals since the death of Berchem, Potter, A. van de Velde, and Van der Does? Who is their equal or superior?’’

Houbraken makes clear with these words that the standards of the old masters were very high and that they still put a lot of pressure on later painters. He also implied bitterly that

contemporary artists were in his opinion falling short of those standards.

Once more, not everyone agreed with such statements. According to Jan van Gool, the painter Nicolaas Verkolje painted The Rape of Europe around 1730 in order to prove that he could paint flowers, animals and water just as well as the old masters, who spent their lives devoted to only one of these subjects (img.1). Verkolje went on to state that it was in fact much more demanding to be versatile rather than specialized, and thus it was more

honourable. Finally, he compared those specialized painters to people who knew only one letter of the alphabet.

Jan van Gool condemned such claims, being especially annoyed by Verkolje’s overconfident statement that he could surpass the old masters.

So, already two of the most influential art critics and biographers of the eighteenth century (Houbraken and Van Gool) seemed to disapprove and frown upon this versatility and did not believe it could ever reach the standards of excellence set by the Golden Age painters.

Naturally, such words were not very encouraging for a young painter. Although these art theorists preferred 17

century art and stated contemporary art was inferior and should imitate the old masters (and wrote a lot about this), young painters did not change their attitude or their versatile way of painting (at least, not all of them). Art critics and theorists

19 Arnold Houbraken, De groote Schouwburgh der Nederlantsche konstschilders en schilderessen,

(‘s-Gravenhage: Swart, 1753), Vol. 2, p. 132. : ‘’En met reden, daar men ziet, dat verscheiden deelen van de Konst afscheurt, met hun loffelyke bewerkers ten graave gedaalt zyn, buiten hoop dat de zelve schooner verryzen zullen. Wie is ‘er in ’t Zee- en Scheepschilderen naa de dood van Paarceles Bakhuizen, W. vanden Velde en Everdingen op gestaan? Wie in ’t schilderen van tam Vee naa de dood van Berchem, Potter, A. van de Velde, en vander Does?...Die hun gelyk is of hen overtreft?’’.

20 Van Gool, De Nieuwe Schouwburg, p. 395-6.

like Houbraken had a lot of influence and through their writings they might even have put pressure on some painters.

In his early years, Quinckhard was not entirely devoted to portraiture. Some history paintings are known and a few very genre-like portraits were painted by him between the 1720’s and 1730’s. A comparison between two works of art might be of help here. As mentioned above, Verkolje painted the Rape of Europe around 1730, as proof of his virtuosity and to make clear that versatility was more blessing for a painter than a curse.

Quinckhard also painted the same subject around that time (img.2). Moreover, Tibout Regters, Quinckhard’s pupil, also chose to paint this subject in his early years. Is it possible that by painting this, Quinckhard and Regters seconded Verkolje’s statement? Did they want to show too that they could paint human figures, animal, flowers and landscapes equally well? Unfortunately, it is difficult to answer this question with certainty, it was a popular subject after all, and the two paintings do not have a lot in common.

Where some painting types diminished, other genres only fully blossomed in the eighteenth century and not in the Golden Age, like decorative painting, with Gerard de Lairesse, Isaac de Moucheron and Jacob de Wit as leading artists. This new fascination by the concept of ‘’hiding’’ a wall by making it something else, also was a culprit that led to the decline of paintings according to Jan van Gool, because pictures would usually be hung where later only wall paintings were seen.

On the other hand, the habit to collect all the paintings in one cabinet also arose in this time. Last but not least, there was the genre that managed to remain strong and just as popular as always, maybe even more in a certain sense;

portraiture. Portraits were needed as long as there were people living. So, with the advent of this tension to decorate every wall with mural paintings and decorations, there was little need (or space) for paintings, apart from one type of painting, which people simply needed:

portraits. No matter how many landscapes, architectural designs or sculptures embellished ones walls, there was still the need to own portraits by loved ones, family members or famous and respected people.

So in the end, young painters were faced with a great challenge: on one hand, they had to be ‘universal’ painters, who could paint everything and equally well. Yet, they also were expected to cope with traditional categories and moreover, they still had to meet the high standards set by 17

century specialization.

Turning to classicism was another option for young painters. It is a vital and

characteristic part of Quinckhard’s oeuvre as well. It is a choice Quinckhard made, a style he adapted, which seemed to work best for him and his pursuit of a career. Quinckhard started

21 Van Gool, De Nieuwe Schouwburg, p. 358-9.

22 Aono, Ennobling daily life, p. 256.

implementing such elements before neo-classicism became the norm. He was not the only one; this return to classical models was typical of young eighteenth century painters. Walter Jackson Bate, an American literary critic and biographer provided an interesting theory about this phenomenon in his work The burden of the past and the English poet (1970). Bate recognized, that ‘’the remorseless deepening of self consciousness, before the rich and intimidating legacy of the past, has become the greatest single problem that the modern poetry has had to face’’. Bate spoke of poetry, but the principle is the same when it comes to art. Furthermore, Bate quotes T.S.Eliot:

‘’ Not only every great poet, but every genuine, though lesser poet, fulfils once and for all some possibility of the language, and so leaves one possibility less for his successors.’’

Bate continues to state that ‘’whatever he may say or not say about his predecessors, the poet, from Dryden to Eliot, has been unavoidably aware of them, and never so much as when he has tried to establish a difference.’’

This is an important notion, for according to Bate, a painter would feel the pressure of the past most and would realise most clearly the burden his predecessors put on his shoulders when he himself tried to do something different, something new. Indeed, painters like Quinckhard were aware they had to find a way to make the weight the Golden Age had put on their shoulders easier to bear, if they could not get rid of it

entirely. Naturally, realising what they had to do was far easier than actually doing it. So Bate argues in his work that the poets of the eighteenth century surmounted the overpowering legacy of the Renaissance by a return to classical models.

This is also evident in eighteenth century Dutch art, and offered the advantage of sufficient distance from the glorious but threatening Golden Age. Moreover, according to Bate, this offered yet another advantage: the superior claim to correctness. Bate’s argument could provide an insight into the way of thinking of the young painters as well. Namely, the way they attempted to reconstruct art history shows that they followed a similar pattern.

According to the theory of Bate this is because poets (and in our case, painters) sought to discredit the close past (the Golden Age) and erect some more distant model of artistic value.

This distance between them and classical art freed the painters from the intimidation that closer models imposed. Still, this does not mean young artists would ignore or attempt to avoid anything that was related to the Golden Age. Quinckhard never attempted to

completely set aside the influence of the Golden Age or fully reject it. Probably quite on the contrary; he must have admired his predecessors, but understood he could not continue imitating their work. So, he turned to a combination of classic elements in order to gain the advantage of a traditional literary culture while at the same time claiming a certain

23 Walter Jackson Bate, The Burden of the Past and the English Poet (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1970), p. 4.

originality, due to the more refined and classical characteristics. This way, Quinckhard attempted to solve the problem of the pressure for originality without losing the advantages of his cultural heritage, remaking the tradition he owned.

Quinckhard lived in a time when the Golden Age was still fresh in everyone’s memory. There was something nostalgic about it, and maybe people of the older generation still wanted to live in that time. Quinckhard might have been aware of this and thus, he tried to retain this little bit of ‘’Golden Age’’ aura in his work. It did not make him traditional or afraid to take risks after all, but smart and sensitive to ‘’what people wanted’’, what they would pay for. More importantly, it seems to have worked, since Quinckhard attracted some of the wealthiest clients in Amsterdam and other cities.

1.2. Quinckhard’s arrival in Amsterdam

In 1710, when he was only twenty two, Jan Maurits Quinckhard came to Amsterdam, finding himself amidst all these young painters, facing the same (aforementioned) challenges, and trying to claim their place in this new artistic climate. Quinckhard originally must have faced yet an extra challenge, having come from Germany, thus being an ‘’immigrant’’ in a country he had never visited before.

Quinckhard was born in 1688, in a small town called Rees am Rhein, in the district of Cleves, Germany. Founded in 1228, Rees was the oldest town of the lower Rhine area and was situated near the Dutch border. Despite the artistic tradition that existed in his family for years (his father and grandfather were both portraitists), Quinckhard originally followed an education at a Latin school that would prepare him for a study in the field of Science, according to the wishes of his father, Julius Quinckhard I.

Until his seventeenth year, Quinckhard studied there. Still, Jan Maurits Quinckhard decided to follow in his father’s footsteps. Thus, his father became his first teacher and mentor in the art of painting until the young painter turned twenty two.

After settling in the Netherlands, he became an official citizen on the 21

of October, as Jan Mouritse Quinchart.

Maybe this was because, after all, Amsterdam was still an attractive city for young people in general and for artists even more, due to its glorious heritage. Another reason could have been that Amsterdam provided a larger scope of opportunities and clients, compared to his own town. Besides, Quinckhard was neither the first nor the last one to do this. In that time, more painters were leaving

24 Van Gool, De Nieuwe Schouwburg, p. 131.

25 A.J. van der Aa, Biographisch Woordenboek der Nederlanden (Amsterdam: Israël, 1969), Vol.15, p. 552.

26https://rkd.nl/nl/explore/artists/record?query=quinkhard&start=1 , RKD artists, Jan Maurits Quinkhard

(visited 12 March 2014).

Cleves (and Germany in general) in exchange for a more exciting life in the Netherlands.

Examples are Mathijs Wulfraet, J.H.W.Tischbein and Willem Laquy.

Cleves was well known among the Dutch (they called it Cleef); several painters like Govert Flinck originated from Cleves, and in the seventeenth century quite a few Dutch painters lived and worked there for a while, like the Baroque painter Jan de Baen, Joris van der Hagen, and Quinckhard’s own pupil, Jan de Beijer. During the Thirty Years War, the city had been under the control of the Dutch Republic, and ever since there were comings and goings between the district of Cleves and the Netherlands. According to Paul Knolle, ‘’the German artists were inspired by the traditional cultural contacts between Cleves and the Low

Countries, the high quality and reputation of Dutch art, and the prosperous art market, the rich private art collection and the high level of art education of the neighbouring country’’.

In Amsterdam, Quinckhard continued his artistic education under different masters.

His first teacher was the famous Arnold Boonen (1669-1729). Afterwards, Quinckhard became a pupil of Krzysztof Lubieniecki (1659-1729) for a short time, a Polish Baroque painter and engraver active in Amsterdam (Lubieniecki painted genre pieces and portraits).

Later, he also became for some time a pupil of the history painter Nicolaas Verkolje (1673- 1746). More on this matter will follow later on.

Quinckhard’s first marriage followed soon, around 1727, when he wedded Barbara Huting. This did not take place in Amsterdam.

However, the marriage did not last long; in 1735, Barbara Huting died, leaving Quinckhard behind with an eight year old daughter, named Catharina Barbara, and a one year old son, named Julius Henricus (1734-1795?). His son would later become a painter himself, taught by his father. Four years after the death of his first wife, Quinckhard got married again to a fifty one year old woman who had already been a widow twice. Quinckhard himself was fifty one years old at that time. Her name was Geertruij Jongbloed. He lived with her until the end of his days.

Jan Maurits Quinckhard was buried in the Old Lutheran Church in Amsterdam.

Although there is no documentation on his religious convictions, it is most probable that he was a Lutheran. Lutheranism was still a strong presence in Germany, and many German generations of immigrants from Germany were Lutherans. Moreover, Quinckhard kept ties with Lutherans (at least one of his students, Andriessen, was a Lutheran himself). In addition to this, several of Quinckhard’s clients were Lutheran, like for instance Wilhelmus Augustus Klapperbein (1704-1786) who was painted around 1761, Jacobus Boon (1691-1776), who was a Lutheran preacher in Amsterdam, Purmerend and Rotterdam, and was painted in 1752,

27 Paul Knolle, ‘’Duitse schilders in de Hollandse school: hun komst, verblijf en reputatie 1680-1820’’, Werkgroep Achttiende Eeuw, Vol. 40, No. 2 (2008), pp. 31-49.

28 Richard Harmanni, Jurriaan Andriessen (1742-1819): behangselschilder (Leiden: University of Leiden, 2006),

p. 37.

and Johannes Hamelau (1737-1808), a Lutheran preacher of Amsterdam, Leiden, Bodegraven and Amesfoort. Coincidentally (or not), the painting of Jacobus Boon belongs to the

collection of the Old Lutheran Church nowadays. Julius, Quinckhard’s son, also painted several Lutherans.

1.3. Career as an independent artist

Jan Maurits Quinckhard lived most of his life in Amsterdam. It is speculated however that before he settled in Amsterdam, he lived temporarily in Utrecht.

He must have made an impression with his work there, since he came back several times for commissioned portraits later in his life, especially of professors and intellectuals lecturing at the University of Utrecht (img.3). Slowly but steadily, he managed to put his stamp on Dutch portraiture and by the 40’s Quinckhard had become a desired portraitist. But what happened in the 40’s that led to his rise to fame? This (quite sudden) advance of Quinckhard’s career in the 40’s did not just happen by coincidence (at this point he already was fifty two years old). In fact, I believe it was the result (at least partly) of all those years of networking finally paying off; this he achieved by entering the world of artistic education.

In a time when education was an eminent factor for a young painter’s development, it was beneficial for Quinckhard to join the Academie der Tekenkunst, in the room above the Corps du Guarde at the Leidse Poort. Apart from a member, he was also one of the founders and teachers there (founded around 1743).

It is important to keep this in mind, because such choices were related to Quinckhard’s attempt to establish a network of clients/connections.

The direct predecessor of the school was called ‘’Vriendschap vereeuwigt de Kunsten’’

(Friendship unites the Arts) and this is exactly what applied for the drawing academy as well.

Friendship and ties were the essence of success in the eighteenth century.

This school was not only meant for people who aspired to become artists, but also for people who wanted to get familiar with art as part of their general education.

Being

involved in the Academy would bring Quinckhard in contact with different people affiliated with art, thus establishing friendships or acquaintances that might come in handy one day.

An important characteristic of the Academy’s founders was that not all of them were artists. These were the so called ‘honorary members’, that made sure there were enough funds

29 https://rkd.nl/nl/explore/artists/record?query=quinkhard&start=1 RKD artists, Jan Maurits Quinkhard, under ‘Biographical details’ (visited 12 March 2014).

30 Rudi Ekkart, Tibout Regters: schilder van portretten en conversatiestukken 1710-1768 (Leiden: Primavera Pers, 2006), p. 10.

31 http://hart.amsterdammuseum.nl/10843/nl/020today-derde-prijs-voor-wouda-piera Amsterdam Museum,

‘’Third Prize for Wouda Piera’’ (visited March 20 2014), where Wouda Piera is used as an example of one of the

men that were members of the Academy and took part in annual competitions.

to keep the Academy going. They also paid for the used materials and the annual

competitions. In exchange, they earned more status and could use the building for social events, to invite and impress their friends, for instance.

In fact, most of them were wealthy regents and art collectors, like Cornelis Ploos van Amstel (1726-1798), who was a co-founder of Felix Meritis as well. This man was one of the most important Dutch art collectors the country had ever known, and owned a majestic collection of masterpieces from different time periods, including contemporary paintings. In total he owned about seven thousand drawings and about one hundred paintings.

Who did not want to have friends and patrons like Ploos van Amstel and influential regents? Through this Academy, Quinckhard established an additional way of acquiring possible commissions through its founders, thus increasing his chances of success.

In addition to this, it was the place where most of Quinckhard’s students continued their education after being privately taught by him. For example, Tibout Regters had studied under Quinckhard from 1733 to 1738, but approximately after 1743 he also became a student at the Stadstekenacademie.

Izaak Schmidt, another of his students after 1750, became a member after his six year education under Quinckhard (later he even became one of the directors). One last example is Jurriaen Andriessen, who became Quinckhard’s pupil in 1759 and was a member of the Academy a year later. A painter like Quinckhard, who was a teacher at an acclaimed Academy and whose pupils all returned to where he taught drawing lessons, might have provided Quinckhard with more allure. Nevertheless, it might also have been Quinckhard’s own interventions that ensured his students ended up in the Academy. In this manner, Quinckhard was an important connection for other people and not just the other way around. It must be remembered that by the time he had co-founded the Academy, he was reaching a peak in his career and productivity, and it was probable he had influence on such matters, as a co-founder and teacher. Moreover, this could open up the possibility that Quinckhard helped and supported younger painters, especially his own students, instead of antagonizing them. Maybe this convinced possible clients of Quinckhard’s quality and knowledge of his profession. In 1743, 1747 and 1749 Quinckhard signed an act along with some other colleagues that declared that they would come together twice a week and would have drawing sessions (usually from nude models).

So, Quinckhard was often surrounded by colleagues and pupils.

This school was probably also the place where he met Jacob de Wit (1695-1754), who was also a co-founder of the Academy. This is not the only thing they had in common,

32 Jaap van der Tas, ‘’Dilettantism and Academies of Art: the Netherlands Example’’, Playing the Piper: Causes and Consequences of Art Patronage (Illinois: University of Illinois press, 1993), pp. 44-46.

33 Slive, Dutch Painting, p. 315.

34 Ekkart, Tibout Regters, p. 10.

35 http://am.adlibhosting.com/amonline/advanced/detail.aspx?parentpriref= (visited March 20 2014).

though. In 1742 he and Jacob de Wit had manifested themselves as the two best paid painters in Amsterdam, with a yearly income of ƒ 4000.

It would be thus fair to say that Quinckhard was one of the most sought after portraitists in Amsterdam at that time. For De Wit, it was not a big surprise, since he had managed to acquire Cornelis Ploos van Amstel as one of his major patrons (probably through the Academy of which they were both founders). In fact, Quinckhard and De Wit did not live far from each other. Jacob de Wit lived in a bought house at Keizersgracht 385. From 1743 Jan Maurits Quinckhard lived at Herengracht 183, which was a rental home.

These two painters must have been acquainted with each other and had seen each other’s work. De Wit was an interior decorator, painting doors, ceilings and whole walls for luxurious houses on the Keizers- and Herengracht but also for the countryside estates and mansions of the Dutch elite. Equally important is the fact that Jacob de Wit was painted several times by Quinckhard (of which once in 1751), which is yet another indication that they were well acquainted and that De Wit appreciated Quinckhard as a painter (img.4). Another thing they had in common is that they both had chosen to

specialize in one main genre. Maybe this choice to specialize in times where most tried to be versatile, was linked to their success. In any case, this friendship could have opened a lot of doors for Quinckhard, since Jacob de Wit had a lot of connections and was widely known and accepted as one of the best interior painters in the country. Quinckhard might even have kept him close for more reasons than just friendship. Needless to say, this also might have worked the other way around. It is always good in a time of such competition and struggle for artistic success to have some important and influential friends.

Connections were in the eighteenth century a key factor to success and potential commissions, and Quinckhard and De Wit seem to have been aware of that. Maybe ‘teaming up’ was the very reason (to some extent) for their becoming the two best paid painters in Amsterdam. For example, since they were not directly competitors (Quinckhard painted portraits and De Wit was an interior decorator), they could have introduced each other to their own acquaintances to help each other become more widely known. As previously mentioned, in a time where interior decoration was something new and desired among the wealthy citizens, paintings might not have been so necessary, except for portraits. This artistic alliance between the two painters could be a very conscious attempt of Quinckhard to meet the challenge of competition he was facing. He and De Wit were no competitors, due to their individual expertise. So, probably, during the extended periods of time De Wit would spend within the very homes of his clients (unlike regular painters who painted in their own

36 Harmanni, Jurriaan Andriessen, p. 37.

37 Amstelodamum Genootschap, Vier eeuwen Herengracht. Gevelekeningen van alle huizen aan de gracht, twee historische overzichten en de beschrijving van elk pand met zijn eigenaars en bewoners (Amsterdam:

Stadsdrukkerij van Amsterdam, 1976), p. 239.

ateliers), he could have had plenty opportunities to kindly ‘’help’’ his clients to a new portraitist, if they were looking for one.

As mentioned above, around 1740 Quinckhard’s booming production of portraits indicates he was starting to become widely known. This is the decade in which he received most commissions. Most of these commissions came from governmental departments and regarded large, formal group portraits. It is known that in Amsterdam Quinckhard had received throughout his life no less than eleven commissions of this nature. Ten of these commissions were all painted between 1732 and 1750. Nonetheless, after 1750 there is only one regent group portrait known by Quinckhard.

Sometimes, patrons were so pleased with the result that later in their life they commissioned another portrait by him. For instance, Quinckhard made three group portraits for the Chirurgijnsgilde (Surgeons Guild), specifically in 1732, 1737 and 1744.

Besides formal group portraits, Quinckhard received many commissions for individual portraits and family portraits/conversation pieces. His fame became widespread with the help of Pieter Tanjé, Arnold Houbraken, and other copyists, who copied many of his paintings and published them as prints/engravings. It was indirectly a way of advertising Quinckhard’s work. New developments in printing techniques also helped Quinckhard have his paintings reproduced easier and faster. This way countless prints of one painting could be easily spread throughout the city and be viewed by everyone. Naturally, Quinckhard made sure his name was always mentioned on the prints. It might sound odd nowadays that someone would advertise his portraits through prints, but it seems to be a known

phenomenon of the eighteenth century. Someone who is said to have used prints as samples and advertisements was the English painter Joshua Reynolds.

Just like Houbraken and Tanjé printed many copies of Quinckhard’s work, so did James McArdel (1729-1765) publish nearly forty mezzotints after Reynold’s work. After McArdel’s death, Reynolds searched for other engravers, which indicates he considered reproduction of his work an important matter.

Eventually, he became the most widely reproduced artist of eighteenth century Britain, with more than four hundred reproductions and copied engravings of his work.

Jan Maurits Quinckhard’s activities were not solely making art; namely, he was also an art dealer. He would frequently appear at auctions as a buyer, though sadly there has not been done any research on what his collection included or how many paintings he possessed.

Some suggest that he was also a collector, but this has not been founded on conclusive

38 Bob Haak, Regenten en regentessen, overlieden en chirurgijns. Amsterdamse groepsportretten van 1600 tot 1835 (Amsterdam: Amsterdams Historisch Museum, 1972), pp. 50-52.

39 Harmanni, Jurriaan Andriessen, p. 37.

40 Elisabeth Perry, ‘’The Handmaiden of Art: British Portrait Engraving 1760-1820’’, Prints, Drawings and Watercolors, (Providence: Brown University Library Center for Digital Scholarship, 2000), p. 26.

41 Ibid., p.26

evidence yet.

Johan van Gool mentions nothing about such activities. Still, Van Eynden and Van der Willigen mention in their biography of the painter that Quinckhard definitely

collected not just any paintings, but qualitative works of art. Some paintings he only kept temporarily and sold them later on, almost as if he was unsure whether he should keep a work himself, or sell it. It is even mentioned that he possessed a portrait by Rembrandt (this is possible since Quinckhard had also made two drawings of this painting in 1747). The drawings are of Philips van Dorp (1587-1652) and his wife, both painted pendants by

Rembrandt and drawings by Quinckhard. He also owned a Rinaldo and Armida by Gerard de Lairesse and The Blessing of Jacob by Govert Flinck (his fellow-townsman from Cleves).

This is known due to correspondence of the ceiling painter and art merchant Louis Fabritius Dubourg, who had seen these paintings in Quinckhard’s house and mentioned he possessed them in one of his letters.

It turns out that Quinckhard’s artistic knowledge and expertise were much valued.

Subsequently, this resulted in people asking him to perform taxations and provide his opinion on works of art.

One of these people was the daughter of the painter Jan van der Heyden, who asked Quinckhard in 1738 to evaluate the collection of paintings her father left behind after he died.

He also did this for the family De Geer in 1757, when their art

collection was being shipped to Sweden. Both of these requests for taxations happened around and after the time Quinckhard’s fame had begun to take off (around and after the 40’s). The De Geer family was of noble descent, and still is nowadays, in the Netherlands, Finland and in Sweden.

Most of them were politicians and entrepreneurs. Two of its members were prime ministers in Sweden. So, it’s safe to say they were part of the elite community. But why did they choose Quinckhard to perform such a task? By simply looking at Quinckhard’s commissions, it becomes clear that the De Geer family were clients of Quinckhard and already knew him. Around 1745, Jan Maurits Quinckhard painted two pendant portraits for Petronella de Geer (1707-1780), daughter of Johan Jacob de Geer (img.5), lord of Finspång, and her husband, Willem Karel van der Meulen, lord of Blijenburg (1700-1746). They lived together in Utrecht.

Subsequently, Quinckhard’s connections with his wealthy clients combined with the quality of his work ensured that he did not only receive more commissions, but was also asked to perform other tasks for the families. Whether he got paid for the taxation is

42 Johannes Immerzeel, De levens en werken der Hollandsche en Vlaamse kunstschilders, beeldhouwers, graveurs en bouwmeesters, van den vroegsten tijd tot op onzen tijd (Amsterdam: Gebroeders Diederichs , 1857-64), p. 336.

43 Harmanni, Jurriaan Andriessen, p. 38.

44 Ibid., p. 38.

45 Ibid., p. 38.

46 Nederlands Adelboek (’s-Gravehage, Van Stockum, 1903-), Vol.83, pp. 42-86.

unknown, but it is probable he did this as a favour, to keep their friendship and support.

Building a network was just as demanding as maintaining one. This implies the De Geers were happy with the result of their commissions and trusted Quinckhard.

Apart from performing taxations, Quinckhard was also frequently asked to ‘’touch up’’ paintings that had been affected by time or were damaged somehow. Yet again, works he restored were not any works. He was trusted with some of the greatest masterpieces of the Golden Age. For example, it is known by documents and contracts that Jan Maurits

Quinckhard restored the Anatomy of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp twice, once in 1732 and once in 1747.

In 1732 the painting had been damaged by a fire in the guild chamber where it hung.

Quinckhard received the commission to ‘brighten up’ not only this painting, but all the paintings that had been affected by the fire. 'Brightening up' usually meant that a varnish of poppy seed oil or turpentine was applied locally to dull or dark areas in the painting. Cracks and slightly clouded passages could thus become saturated again, retrieving the original depth of colour.

After the restoration, the minutes of the Surgeons's Guild reported 'the jacket of Professor Nicolaes Tulp was also blistered by the fire, causing the paint in several places to peel off the canvas, that the wardens gave permission to provide this greatly esteemed professor with a new jacket'.

I mention this because, once again, this might provide an insight into Quinckhard’s choices as a painter. Not only did he produce paintings, he also restored them. This again must have added status to Quinckhard’s profession as a painter. To be asked to perform such a thing implied people trusted him with other paintings, even one from the Golden Age. With the Golden Age being so beloved and unblemished in the eyes of many collectors, this might unconsciously have made them appreciate Quinckhard’s actions, or made them think that Quinckhard respected the art they so loved.

During his life, Quinckhard also produced quite a few copies of portraits and drawings by Golden Age masters, such as Rembrandt, M.J. van Mierevelt, Caspar Netscher, Crispijn de Passe and others. This was usually done to please descendants of the portrayed

individuals, that were fighting over a specific painting of a forefather. Other times, in order to avoid such quarrels in the first place, Quinckhard would receive double commissions. For example, it is known that Quinckhard painted two versions of a portrait of Jan van Loon Sr.

(img.6). One was meant for Jan van Loon Sr. himself, and one for his son. These two are not exact copies, though, but were commissioned simultaneously. Other copies Quinckhard made from paintings by others were the pendants of Hans Martens (1555-1613) and his wife Maayken Baccher (1565-1612). These were made for the family Martens van Sevenhoven,

47 http://www.rembrandtdatabase.org/Rembrandt/painting/3048/the-anatomy-lesson-of-dr-nicolaes- tulp/history-of-conservation-and-research The Rembrandt Database, The anatomy lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp, History of conservation & research, (visited May 12 2014).

48 Ibid.

49 Ibid.

for whom by that time Quinckhard had made no less than seven other portraits, including two other pendants of forefathers as well. The originals were made by Abraham Vinck. The draperies and columns were added by Quinckhard and were not there in the original pieces.

More on this subject of copying Old Masters portraits for elite families shall follow later on.

All these activities Quinckhard engaged in aside from painting helped him distinguish himself from the other painters, something that was vital to his success and recognition. More importantly, these activities brought him in contact with a much broader crowd of the art world. Through his taxations and his art dealing and teaching at the academy, he met wealthy patrons, art collectors, writers and art dealers. He made friends with other artists that even led to artistic alliances. These were all conscious choices that helped face the challenge of competition between all the artists active in Amsterdam. To Quinckhard, the key to

competition and success were networks and friendships, that were achieved through activities like teaching at the Stadstekenacademie.

Jan Maurits Quinckhard lived a long and prosperous life and continued painting until he was very old. In fact, there are portraits signed by his hand that were made when he was 81 years old (e.g. the portrait of Ds. Th. Van Schelluynen). On the 11

of November 1772, Jan Maurits Quinckhard exhaled his last breath and died in his house at Prinsengracht. He was buried in the old Lutherse Kerk in Amsterdam. On the day of his death, Jacob Bicker Raye (captain of the militia at the Amsterdam citizen guard) noted in his diary the following:

‘’ […] did the lord Jan Maurits Quinckhard, a very distinctive fine painter and mainly portraitist, pass away at the age of over eighty years; his works will be assessed very highly, now that he is dead’’.

Though the intentions of Bicker Raye cannot be known (maybe he owned some of

Quinckhard’s paintings and only thought of personal profit), it is interesting to mention this entry, along with every other written account about Quinckhard dating back to the eighteenth century. What is interesting from this description are two things: firstly, Bicker Raye

describes Quinckhard as a fine painter and secondly, he mentions that he mainly painted portraits. It would not be surprising if by using the word ‘’fine’’, Bicker Raye alluded to the painter’s character.

A painter’s character and way of talking and acting in regard to the extent of his success must never be underestimated. Especially in the eighteenth century, a time where etiquette, flair, courtesy and charisma were all part of the image of a noble or successful man (that people could look up to), it was essential for a painter like Quinckhard, who aimed at painting the wealthy and respected citizens, regents and families of Amsterdam, to possess these qualities and adhere to the general social codes of a cultivated intellectual.

50 Harmanni, Jurriaan Andriessen, p. 38.

As a man, Quinckhard was said to be kind, gracious, modest, social and responsible.

He never caused a raucous and did not indulge in excessive drinking or smoking. He never had quarrels with customers and the lack of documentation of complaints against him must indicate no one was unhappy with his performance, or at least, not many. A painter (and in general, a man) that did not indulge in excesses, was modest, and had manners that complied with the ideals of the elite appealed to clients of the higher circles, since it was part of the eighteenth century etiquette and appeared in countless etiquette books. So, ‘’playing the part’’ as an artist and adopting a certain attitude in life was also part of the challenges a young painter had to undertake.

By that time, etiquette books had come a long way since Erasmus wrote his De civilitate morum puerilium, which was mostly focussed on table manners and the subject of hygiene. In the eighteenth century whole books appeared about how to make conversation, or make oneself pleasant when in the presence of company, the concept of sprezzatura,

behaviour of the female sex or simply how to impress those around you. Because in the Netherlands most existing etiquette books were translations of foreign samples (especially French and English ones), I shall be using examples from English etiquette books. An example is the etiquette book A Present for an Apprentice: Or a Sure Guide to Gain Both Esteem and an Estate. With Rules for his Conduct to his Master and in the World (1740) where the author writes about excess:

‘’…Excess is a pleasurable Evil, that smiles and seduces, enchants and destroys. Fly her very first appearance then: it is not safe to be within the glance of her eye, or sound of her voice. And if you once become familiar with her, you are undone […] And to all a pleasing poison that not only impairs

the body, but stupefies the mind, and makes us bankrupts of our lives, as well as our credits or estate’’.

The subject of modesty was so essential, that it was the very first chapter of another etiquette book, named Principles of Politeness and of Knowing the World (2

edition):

‘’Modesty is a polite accomplishment and generally an attendant upon merit. It is engaging to the highest degree, and wins the heart of all our acquaintance. On the contrary, none are more disgustful

in company than the impudent and presuming. ‘’

It seems Quinckhard adhered well to the ideals of the social elite. This image of a painter as a true gentleman however was not something self-evident. An example is the portrait painter George van der Mijn. In his biography by Johan van Gool is mentioned that he did not

51 Sir John Barnard, A Present for an Apprentice: Or a Sure Guide to Gain Both Esteem and an Estate. With Rules for his Conduct to his Master and in the World (London: printed for T. Cooper, 1740), first edition, pp. 6-7.

52 Lord Stanhope Chesterfield, Principles of Politeness and of knowing the World (Worcester: Isaiah Thomas,

18

century), second edition, p. 5.

particularly have a peaceful life, like Quinckhard. Van Gool mentions that Van der Mijn

‘’lived a life that often extended beyond the borders of reason’’.

In addition to this, it is mentioned that Van der Mijn never had enough money, spent what he had on extravagances and did not manage his finances wisely.

Unfortunately, George van der Mijn died at a young age, leaving a very small oeuvre of portraits behind (approximately fifteen portraits). This is exactly what is pinpointed in the etiquette book A Present for an Apprentice: a life lived in excess (in this case, excess

drinking and gambling) unavoidably leads to demise. In order for a painter to find success, he had to adhere to a certain set of social codes, acting at least with the elegance and nobility the rich patrons related themselves to. A gambling, drunk painter would probably not be deemed fit for a great commission of prosperous regents or a rich family in Amsterdam, and of course, this is where a painter could receive the best commissions from, in that time. So probably Van der Mijn’s lifestyle partly contributed to the fact that he did not produce a lot of paintings and, although he had great potential, he never managed to live up to it. It becomes even clearer his behaviour had a lot to do with his unfortunate career when one takes a look at his clients.

It seems Van der Mijn had no problems regarding networking, since his networks seem to have been just as good as those of Quinckhard and other successful portraitists.

Namely, the people Van der Mijn painted were wealthy individuals from the upper classes.

For instance, he painted several members of the aristocratic Sypesteyn family and their spouses, a family that had played a prominent role ever since the sixteenth century. Van der Mijn also painted a group portrait of the Sypesteyn children in 1763 (img.7). Two other well known pendants of his are the portraits of the wealthy art collector Cornelis Ploos van Amstel and his wife Elisabeth Troost (indeed the daughter of Cornelis Troost). In fact, another portrait was made by Van der Mijn of Ploos van Amstel and his guests in his art cabinet in 1760. Lastly, another client of his was the art collector Louis Metayer Phz and his sister. So, this example of the gifted but unfortunate life of Van der Mijn indicates that talent and even networking was not adequate in the eighteenth century if one did not manage his life wisely, and that character and charisma were just as important to attract new clients.

1.4. The issue of competition

Next to the challenge of finding the support of a patron, every painter, including Quinckhard, had to deal with the unavoidable issue of competition. In the eighteenth century, a big city

53 Van Gool, De Nieuwe Schouwburg, p. 326.