Jump to content

Talk:Anthony van Dyck

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kerkyra22 (talk | contribs) at 14:50, 5 October 2013 (→Private collection). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Van Dyck beard

Is this van Dyck the person after whom the beard style that involves a goatee with a mustache named? If so, can someone find a citation and add it, here, possibly with a link from goatee? Thanks. -Harmil 15:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, because he was the prominent portrait painter of an age when this type of beard was very common. I don't know however. Piet | Talk 09:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are websites where this is claimed, however I do not know how reliable any of them are.--Filll 12:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship to Rubens

I've reverted to previous description of van Dyck's relationship to Rubens, using Brown's catalogue of 1999 as source. Notwithstanding the younger artist's precociousness, he was a teenager, not yet a peer of Rubens', and is described as a pupil as well as his primary assistant. Rubens referred to van Dyck as his 'best pupil' (without actually naming the younger artist) in a letter to an ambassador to the Hague, sans irony, in an attempt to sell him a painting. JNW 01:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not too sure about this; he was a free master of the guild from Feb 1618, so could not really be anyone's pupil from then on. He is described as one of R's "discipelen" in a 1620 contract though. There is a school of thought that really was a pupil of R say 1613-15, but little evidence for this. I accept the irony is wrong in relation to that letter, though I have a memory of something there, but not this one presumably. I'm happy enough as it stands, though the whole article needs going over. Nothing in my source (NG Flemish catalogue, Gregory Martin) about a workshop with Breughel btw. I should have looked at something before editing of course.

What date is the letter? Johnbod 01:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • First thing first: I'm glad you're working on this. I added some here a few months ago, but this is an entry in great need of expansion. 'Hard evidence' of collaboration with Rubens exists from 1617. You are right that van Dyck registered as an independent master on Feb. 11, 1618; yet the letter from Rubens to Sir Dudley Carleton is dated April 28, 1618, wherein Rubens refers to a painting for sale for 600 guilders, 'done by my best pupil', and retouched by R. In Brown's words 'Not only did he follow the typology of Rubens' figures, he also imitated his master's style....Van Dyck was active in Rubens' workshop both before and after he was registered as a master painter...He could not have hoped for a better master or role model'.
No doubt Rubens recognized the young painter's greatness (as did everyone else, it seems), so it is not unlikely that he may have at some time used the word 'pupil' ironically, but initially theirs must have been a master/pupil relationship...though what an interesting dynamic that must have been. In 1615 or 16 the boy set up an independent workshop with his friend and contemporary Jan Brueghel the Younger, possibly because van Dyck's father's business was failing, and he needed to earn a living (this last, nearly verbatim from Brown). JNW 02:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - That must have been a wierd dynamic as Breughel was born 1601 - Beavis & Butthead paint masterpieces heh heh! I'm clocking off for tonight but will probably return. Johnbod 02:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this his painting?

File:Shirleys.JPG. I am reading an article in TE and it implies - but is not very clear on that - that those paintings are his.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen them in the exhibition, I would think it highly unlikely. The catalogue (p. 49) says he was painted 3 times, including by Van Dyck, but that is not this one, which is "unknown artist" (and dated c 1628, when Van D was not in England). Apart from the wonderful clothes, the figures are pretty stiff. Johnbod (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Van Dyck did paint this couple, and he painted Shirley in the same ambassadorial Persian cloak. These are inferior to the Van Dycks, in my opinion, but extremely interesting. I don't think anyone knows who painted them, but most certainly not Van Dyck. qp10qp (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Do we have the vDyks paintings of them on Commons? We may want to create a Commons gallery for Shirleys... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"small and declining city of Antwerp probably" Declining by all means , but it was one or two generations earlier European number two. At the beginning of the 16th century Antwerp accounted for 40% of world trade — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elegast (talk • contribs) 11:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antwerp

"small and declining city of Antwerp" Declining by all means , but it was one or two generations earlier European number two. At the beginning of the 16th century Antwerp accounted for 40% of world trade — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elegast (talk • contribs) 11:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Private collection

I've removed the following passage: The private collection of Mr. James Stunt has a fine example of works by Van Dyck, including "The Cheeke Sisters" which is the last remaining double female portrait by Van Dyck in private hands. Mr. Stunt lends many of them to museums, including the Huntington museum in California.[1]

...as promotional in tone, partially a copyright violation or close paraphrasing of its source, and containing an unsourced claim re: its being the last privately owned double female portrait. That claim doesn't really have significance in an encyclopedic article, unless someone is attempting to use Wikipedia to publicize the collection. Also unclear is whether this private collection merits mention in a section on van Dyck devoted to major museum holdings; I'd suggest that multiple sources are needed. The account that has been re-adding this content here appears to have a COI history with regard to Mr. Stunt. Further thoughts will be welcome--if there's a consensus that a sentence about the collection belongs in the article, then it ought to be included in a neutral and well-sourced fashion. JNW (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; the tone was inappropriate, and—given the context—any mention of a private collection would need substantial support from reliable third-party sources. Ewulp (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly thank you for your comments and opinions. The reference to the painting being the last of its kind in private hands is: [2]

I can provide further references if need be.

I have written a more neutral text here, for inclusion on the Van Dyck page under the heading "Collections", please bear in mind "Collections" includes both Public and Private Collections: Works by Van Dyck also exist in international private collections. One such example is James Stunt’s personal collection of British Old Master Paintings, which, amongst other works by Sir Anthony Van Dyck, includes the late double portrait of two women, titled ‘The Cheeke Sisters’. The painting, (illustrated), is known to be the last of this subject by the artist in a private collection. [3] [4] [5]

Additionally, online references to important works of art sold on the open market (and now in private collections) are essential aides to future Art Historical Research, since there are few up-to-date records of paintings which are owned privately and therefore largely inaccessible to research. Consider the significance of this from the Researchers' perspective: stating that a work is 'Whereabouts Unknown' is unsatisfactory, incomplete information, as opposed to my intention to include this kind of information in order to make it accessible, with the full consent of the owner.

Secondly, regarding your point about promotion, please let me clarify. The purpose for including the comments about James Stunt's Art related activities is to encourage wider Philanthropy in Art, which is in itself noteworthy. The gentleman concerned in the article is a rare breed in the world of Art collecting as there are precious few persons of his young age, active in contribution to the the funding of Art Historical research, Exhibitions and promotion of Old Master Paintings, in this particular case Portraiture by one of the leading portraitists of the time. Good examples of Philanthropy in Art such as this are noteworthy and must be set in order to encourage more young people in this manner. Since Mr. Stunt's involvement in Philanthropic activities has increased i think it would be appropriate for Wikipedia to grant him his own page. I have the references and links for these philanthropic activities (such as Mr. Stunt being a major sponsor of Internationally acclaimed Exhibitions of Old Masters).

I look forward to hearing all of your comments on these points. Kerkyra22 (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Art History News, [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ [3]
  4. ^ [Hugh Belsley, Gainsborough's Cottage Doors: An Insight Into the Artist's Last Decade, Paul Holberton publishing, London, July 2013, pg. 79,95,103,105]
  5. ^ [4]
I don't think so. That the painting was de-accessioned by LACMA not long ago, & last sold (before Stunt) as "studio of..." doesn't help. Your first go was a WP:COPYVIO of the Hall Gallery link I see. The only collections mentioned are publicly accessible ones which "have splendid examples of all phases of his portrait style", and it should stay that way. It is not Wikipedia's function to act as a repository for provenance research; Getty and others do that. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Johnbod, the fact that LACMA de-accesioned it not long ago and it and that it carried a name of "Studio of" at one point has no relevance today, as the Current Art Historians of today have given it the full backing and that is what is important, otherwise known as a "rediscovery", all in the line of updated and current factual information which is crucial in the Art world. And this makes the importance of the painting and its subject even greater. Another note is that to carry the line of "have Splendid examples of all phases of his portrait style" is subjective and people should be made aware that their are other examples elsewhere, the fact that one owner of a private collection is willing to show openly that he has such works is a positive. Getty provenance does not carry updated and current provenance and "others" do not either, so you are incorrect in that statement and i am not suggesting that Wikipedia be that either. I look forward to other comments. Kerkyra22 (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the article says, there are large numbers of works in private hands, many accessible to the public. We don't even mention the famous group in the Double Cube Room at Wilton House, though perhaps we should. Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also please bear in mind Johnbod, in your reference to a Copyright Violation, you are incorrect as i went to the extent of gaining the consent and authority to use the content referenced for any use by the creators of the texts. Kerkyra22 (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod is correct, we should include the paintings in Wilton house and i am more than happy to provide this as the current Earl of Pembroke is a personal friend of mine.Kerkyra22 (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anthony_van_Dyck&oldid=575866140"