A Brief Overview of the Dutch Art Market in the 17th c.

• Patronage, Competition and Diversifications
• Sales of Painting
• Artists’ Income
• Number of Artists
• Artists' Backgrounds
• The Guild of Saint Luke and Training
• Earnings of Painters Belonging to the Guild of Saint. Luke
• Categories of Painting
• Decline

It has been estimated that between five and ten million works of art had been produced during the century of the Golden Age of Dutch art. Very few of these, perhaps less than 1%, have survived. "Works of art, ranging from simple prints and copies to originals hung in almost all Dutch homes. For example, pictures of some kind or another were found in about two thirds of Delft households."¹

"After the end of the 80 year war with Spain in 1648, the Netherlands had emerged as a vital new political, economic and cultural force. One of the consequences of the Republic’s independence was the change in the balance of power, power which had for the first time in modern history, passed into the hands of bourgeois. This decisive change was to have enormous repercussions on the art market. Although the birth of a capitalistic society is often cited in relation to the sudden explosion of artistic production, the abundance of money may explain why pictures, if desired, could be bought, but it does not explain either why they were so strongly desired. Perhaps the reasons for which a number of great artists suddenly flourish in any given period of time has not been understood. Just to the south, France, a much large country had far fewer painters than in the Netherlands even though the arts had been actively encouraged by Louis XIV.

One of the reasons often used to explain the Dutch desire for paintings is related to quintessential Dutch affection for their land and home. “…a considerable proportion of inhabitants of Dutch towns had more than sufficient income to provide for their fundamental needs. Many chose to spend their surplus on furnishing for their homes, including pictures. This lead to a great demand for paintings at low prices. Since they were to be hung in rooms of ordinary Dutch houses, most of them were small."²

In 1968 Johan Huizinga explained the evident Hollanders’ love for pictures in a different way calling upon their "intense enjoyment of shapes and objects, the(ir) unshakable faith in the reality and importance of all earthly things, a faith that... was the direct consequence of a deep love of life and interest in one's environment." All this was undoubtedly nurtured by a surge in pride in their newly founded country.

Opinions vary as to whether or not the lower socio-economic classes also had significant access to the art market. In response to this question, many scholars have cited the accounts of 17th-century travelers such as William Aglionby and John Evelyn, who wrote, “pictures are very common here [in the Netherlands], there being scarce an ordinary tradesman whose house is not decorated with them.”

"While Evelyn’s comment was likely based in truth, it is important to note that the pictures he mentions could have varied greatly in quality from household to household, since art objects belonging to a range of price brackets were available for purchase in 17th-century Netherlands. A cheap engraving, for example, could be had for about a third of the price of a small fish or flower still life painting—and for about a seventh of the price of a more elaborate, high-finish banketje still life. In light of these facts, Mariet Westermann’s impressions may be most accurate. While Westermann acknowledges that '[the Dutch art] market catered [to] various interests and levels of income and social status,' she rejects accounts such as Evelyn’s as overly-enthusiastic, firmly asserting that '…laborers and small peasants surely could not afford more than a few mediocre prints, if that.” ³

In any case, “for the Dutch in the seventeenth century, art functioned as a social cement, reinforcing the shared beliefs and aspirations that helped unite communal concerns. In the works of most artists. both style and content reflected taste not of the wealthy and sophisticated, but of people in moderate circumstances. For this, international fashion could be largely ignored. This allowed the full development of native artistic species.”⁴ In regards, it is curious to note that neither Rembrandt, Hals, Ruisdael or Vermeer had ever traveled to Italy but seemed to content to develop their own particular style of painting in their homeland.

Patronage, Competition and Diversification

The church and monarchy, which had been traditionally the most powerful patrons of the arts, were substituted in the Netherlands's by a newly formed and wide based middle class. After the iconoclasm of the Calvinists in the 1560s the church had all but ceased to provide commissions for painters. The Reformed Church allowed money to be spent only for the decoration of church organs. “ Compared with the rulers of other European countries, the House of Orange was relatively modest patrons of the arts, especially in regard to Dutch painters who rarely received commissions from them." 5

History painting, which once dominated the pictorial arts, gradually became a minority art even though it would be continued to be produced for the upper classes and the aristocracy. In the place of history painting, new categories quickly evolved. Portraits, landscapes, seascapes, still-lives, flower painting and genre themes, which had once existed primarily as descriptive elements within history painting, became independent in the early 16th c,. were in high demand surpassing the more traditional categories.

Each category of painting was subdivided into even more specific categories. Landscape painters, for example, produced naturalistic views of the Dutch countryside, cityscapes, winterscapes, imaginary landscape, seascapes, Italianate and nocturnal landscapes. The multiplicity of categories in Dutch seventeenth-century paintings was fostered by the fact that instead of painting to the order the few wealthy and powerful, painters were (for the first time in the history of Western art) producing wares commercially to individual buyers of different economic and cultural backgrounds receptive to pictures of all kinds of subject matter and a wide range of styles. Since it took a very long time to become proficient in any one area only, painters usually concentrated their efforts to one area. Vermeer and Rembrandt were among the few painters who were able to work successfully in different categories.

"Vermeer, who begun to produce his genre paintings in the late 1650s, could not have embarked upon a career in this specialty at a more auspicious moment. The Dutch economy virtually exploded with the cessation of hostilities with Spain in 1648; indeed, the nation's economy would reach its apogee within a few short years after that event."

⁵

Sales of Painting

In the 17th c. Netherlands, paintings were sold in a wide variety of styles, prices and places. Paintings could be bought directly from artists in their studios or from art dealers who had become the most important buyers of art. Each category of dealers bought and sold works of different origins and at different prices. Some dealers commissioned works of important painters for their clients and some bolstered their stock by employing copyists or painters who produced any kind of painting that was asked of them. Some dealers sent printed catalogues to potential clients.

Paintings which had previously been bought and hung in houses found their way again into the open market through estate auctions which were attended by dealers. Innkeepers, such as Vermeer’s own father, often dealt in paintings. And then, paintings were also sold fairs and at lotteries which were organized for the benefit of charitable organizations.

Prices were generally low for undistinguished works since competition was fierce. On the other hand painters who had been trained in the Guild of Saint Luke had better chances of earning a respectable living. On the lower range paintings could be bought for a few guilders and on the upper range for 500 guilders, approximately the price of an average house or more.

Artists’ Income

The average artist's income who were registered with the guild exceeded that of other craftsman. In order to survive each painter had to secure himself a particular style to differentiate his work from others already available. However, a number of the more noted artist were able to earn great sums of money (especially through portraiture) and elevate themselves to higher cultural levels within Dutch society. Guild restrictions were intended to ease the excess of competition by limiting the sales of works of art by painters who were not registered in the Guild of Saint Luke of that municipality in which the artist wished to sell his works, but abuses of this restrictions were widely reported. Painters were generally considered artisans. By guild definition, both house-painters and artists were considered painters since they both used brushes, whatever their size. In the middle of the 17th c. in a few cities, painters broke off and formed their own trade organizations called brotherhoods. Brotherhoods were founded in Dortrecht in 1642 , in Hoorn in 1651 and in the Hague in 1656, which was called Pictura. In Delft, where Vermeer resided, fine artists, rather than artisans, controlled the guild to such a point that there was nothing to be gained by breaking into a separate organization.

Success was guaranteed by the production of art which matched the buyers' expectations. Many painters depended on secondary sources of income to survive. Vermeer was known to have dealt in works of other painters but it is not known how much success he may have had. However, even though in his early years he had secured a patron, the well-to-do Delft burger Pieter van Ruijven, who bought approximately half of his artistic production, in the later part of his career he was not able to support his numerous family with his own dealings due to his unusually large family and the ruinous war with France which had suddenly and gravely damaged the then flourishing art market. Ironically, the advantage of having a fixed client/artist relationship with Van Ruijven was later to have hinder the spread of the artist’s fame outside his native Delft since almost all his works were in the hands of few clients. Vermeer depended largely on the generosity of his well-to-do mother-in-law in those difficult years.

Number of Artists

To meet demand for works of art, an extraordinary number of artists provided an equally extraordinary number of paintings. According to the scholarly research, in the 1650s, painters in the Netherlands belonging to the Guild of St. Luke numbered about 650 - 700, or about one painter for every 2,000 - 3,000 inhabitants, a ratio which far exceeded that of Italy, one of the most artistically productive areas of Europe. However, aside from the painters who were registered with the St. Luke's Guild, it is likely that there were many anonymous artists who worked for art dealers from dawn to dusk producing any picture which was required. John Evelyn, a contemporary English diarist, while traveling to Holland in 1641 explained the abundance of paintings in a famous passage: "The reason for the store of pictures and their cheapness (,) proceed (s) from their want of land, to employ their stock, so as 'tis an ordinary thing to find a common farmer to lay out tow or three thousand pounds for this commodity, their houses are full of them, and they vend them at their Kermeases to very great gains." Paintings could not only be found in Dutch homes, but in breweries, lawyers' offices, town halls, guild an militia clubrooms and almshouses.

Artists' Backgrounds

"Although Dutch painters were generally believed to have come from lower social classes it has been shown that their background was solidly middle-class."⁷ "For example, twenty six of twenty seven Delft painters whose origins are known about and who were registered with the guild between 1613 and 1679, were sons or wards of painters, art dealers, engravers or glass makers who themselves were members of the Guild of St. Luke or elsewhere."⁸ Vermeer's own father was registered on the St. Luke's Guild of Delft as an art dealer. The level of literacy among painters seems to have been very high. Although Vermeer's mother was illiterate, his father signed an witnessed a number of legal documents.

The Guild of Saint Luke and Training

Dutch painters of the 17th. c., along with faience-makers, printers, bookbinders, glassmakers, embroiderers, art-dealers, sculptors were bound together in local trade organizations called the Guild of Saint Luke. These organizations dated back to the middle ages. The guilds' principle function was to regulate commerce of artists and artisans and to control the education of young artists and painters. Local art markets were protected from external artistic production by imposing fines. However, "in the long term, the guilds were not able to act as a cartel in the local market, despite the fact that all the guilds' statutes contained paragraphs forbidding foreigners and non-guild members from selling their art."⁹ Roughly a third of the guild's income was devoted to the needs of poor members and their families.

Training was expensive. The aspiring young painter who wished to become an accepted member of the St. Luke's guild had to undergo a period of apprenticeship that lasted from four to six years with a recognized master painter of the guild. On the average, the family of a young apprentice who lived with his parents paid between 20 and 50 guilders per year. Without board and lodging, up to 100 guilder were needed to study with more famous artists such as Rembrandt and Gerrit Dou. If we consider that school education generally cost two to six guilders a year and that apprenticeship generally lasted between four and six years, the financial burden of educating a young artist was considerable. Moreover, during the apprenticeship, the parents had to do without their son's potential earnings since during this period the apprentice could not sign and sell his own paintings rather, all the works he produced became property of that master. Evidently, the lure of significant future earnings must have existed.

Boys customarily became apprentices at the age of ten or twelve, through the signing of a detailed contract by the father of the apprentice, who paid specific fees, and the master to whom the boy would study. Artistic training started with the copying of drawings and prints. Next, the student would learn to draw from plaster casts, some of which were fragments of human figures, including classical sculpture. Successively, the student was permitted to draw from the live model. A number of interesting paintings portray groups of apprentices attentively drawing from a live model while the master patiently looks on. Only when the apprentice had acquired skill in drawing was he permitted to paint copies of other artist's work. These copies were frequently sold in order to increase the earnings of the apprentice's master. The student might also copy the works by his master and lastly he painted directly from the live model.

The apprentices obligations were many. Menial chores were required of him such as cleaning the studio, grinding pigments, stretching canvases, placing paint on the masters palette each day. As he advanced in his ability, he was permitted to work on the areas of his master’s canvases of lesser importance such as the foliage in the painting's background or some of the less evident draperies. Usually, after six years of training he could try and apply for membership in the guild by submitting a painting, called the masterpiece. If approved, he began to pay his dues and was allowed to paint, sign and sell his own work and take on apprentices of his own.

Earnings of Painters Belonging to the Guild of Saint. Luke

It has been shown that artists who had received formal training and belonged to the St. Luke's Guild earned on the average between 1,150 and 1,400 guilders a year. This sum was between two and three times as much as a master carpenter earned in the same period. However, if an artist "was in tune with he taste of affluent members of the public he could rise to be a member of the leading artistic group or even the city's upper-class. ⁹ A few painters like Rembrandt, Honthorst and Dou were so popular that their studios we more similar to large firms rather than the humble studios which were represented in many Dutch genre paintings of the time.

A single portrait by Rembrandt could bring as much as 500 guilders while a small genre piece by Dou could be sold between 500- 1,000 guilders. It is interesting to note that most elevated prices were paid for works by celebrated Renaissance Italian ranged from 2,000 and 3,000 guilders in the later part of the 16th c. "An incredible number of artists were successful and prosperous in their careers but became impoverished later on."¹¹ A side from these particular cases, "an average artist's income exceeded that of most other craftsman."¹²

Generally speaking, 20 guilders was a good price for a painting when wages for a Delft cloth-worker were less than one guilder a day. "Some artists like Jan Steen and Gerard Houckgeest had income from breweries. Jan van de Capelle owned a cloth-dying works.

Philips Koninck bought a canal shipping business. many painters were happy to take up other better-paying jobs or to marry well. Meyndert Hobbema seems to have become a part-time painter in 1668 when he married the maid of an Amsterdam burgomaster and was given a well-rewarded post as a wine gauger, a sort of weights-and-measure inspector. Ferdinand Bol and Aelbert Cuyp both married wealthy women and could afford to paint less. Yet many artists, even the greatest, found it hard to sell their work for enough money and went through the ordeal of insolvency: among them were Jan van Goyen, who died in 16565; Frans Hals, who died in 1666; and Rembrandt, who died in 1669. Some, like Brouwer, Hals and de Witte turned to drink. Hals was usual "filled up to his neck with drink every night", Houbraken tells us. De Witte, dreadfully poor at the last, was found drowned in an Amsterdam canal, and presumed a suicide."¹³ Vermeer died presumably from a stroke brought on by his inability to provide for his numerous family brought on by the ruinous war with France which had virtually destroyed the art market.

Categories of Painting

In the seventeenth-century, painting was divided into roughly five categories: histories, including subjects from the Bible, history, mythology and allegories; landscapes, including seascapes and a variety of marine paintings; still-lives; genre painting; portraits. Although histories had been traditionally held as the most praiseworthy of all painting categories, the other four had gained considerable popularity from the early years of the century. In the beginning of the 17th c., histories had comprised about half of the half of those paintings listed while landscapes about one fifth.

By the end of the century, landscape had increased to slightly less that half while histories had decreased to about only ten meager ten percent. Paintings with historical, mythological or allegorical content were significantly found only in the more valuable inventories, that is, in wealthy and, presumably, educated families. However, the persistent increase in the number of landscapes was accompanied by the lowering of price. Landscapes had become so popular and the competition so fierce that artist were always at odds as how to keep up with market's demand. Industrious Dutch painters experimented innovative techniques and considerably shortened the time necessary to finish a landscape. Consequentially they became cheaper. Descriptive detail gave way to a more “painterly” style in which artists had learned to suggest an infinite variety of lighting conditions with only few carefully chosen tones. The landscapes of Van Goyen, who had been one of the most prolific painters of his time (he painted more than 1,000 picture), were widely copied.

The third most popular category was portraits, followed by still-life and genre. By the end of the century, the lure of having oneself portrayed seems to have waned, perhaps in consequence of a society who had grown less confident of itself.

By the end of the 17th c., the painting market had considerable declined although the older and more expensive masters were still sought after.

One of the last developments in painting styles was the increase of genre painting, or representations of everyday life. The term genre, which reassumed paintings of bordellos, tavern brawls, peasant life and quite upper-class interiors such as those of Vermeer, each had its own denomination.

Decline

While the production of paintings in the first half of the 17th c. century rose, it leveled off for a few years and then plummeted after the war with England of 1665-67 and trickled to nothing after the so-called rampjaar (year of disaster) in 1672. Some cities in the Netherlands were more vulnerable than others to the decline in the art market. Utchrect's art community stopped growing about 1650 while the number of painters in Delft increased for another decade. Marten Jan Bok has argued that "the market for paintings was vulnerable to cyclical trends in the economy, since art is not one of life's primary necessities. Moreover the durability of paintings was such that living masters were increasingly forced to compete with their deceased colleagues, whose work reappeared on the market every tine an estate was put up for sale. At some point in the 1650s oversupply began negatively to affect prices, and many artists were forced to declare bankruptcy or to seek other employment. The war with France 1672-1674 dealt the final blow."¹³

Vermeer's own financial situation had been gravely effected by the collapse of the art market. After Vermeer's sudden death in 1675, his wife declared to her creditors that following the French invasion, her husband had no longer been able to sell his own paintings or those of other painters he dealt in. And "as a result and owing to the great burden of his children, having no means of his own, he had lapsed into such decay and decadence, which he had so taken to heart that, as if he had fallen into a frenzy, in a day or day and a half had gone from being healthy to being dead."

"A contemporary observer named Van der Saan compared the late seventeenth century trade in paintings with that in tulips. As a result of the economic decline, he said, 'many no longer desired to buy paintings or to plant flowers. Then many scarcely earned in one year what in former times they had recklessly spent in one hour. ' "¹⁴