No painter has remained more consistently in favour with both artists
and the public than Van Dyck. His art marks the highest achievement of
Flanders of the seventeenth century. In making this statement the
claims of Rubens have not been overlooked, although the latter has
been, and probably will always be, considered the head of the Flemish
school.
It is perhaps not too much to say that Van Dyck possessed in a greater
measure than Rubens those qualities which go to make a great artist.
We can never overlook the seniority of the latter, and to him will
always belong the credit of having evolved the style which
revolutionised the art of a nation, and there is no doubt that the
pupil owed to him much of the knowledge he so well utilised in
after-life.
======================================================================
PLATE II.--CHARLES LOUIS OF BAVARIA AND HIS BROTHER ROBERT, AFTERWARDS
DUKE OF CUMBERLAND
(In the Louvre)
As an example of direct portraiture this picture would be hard to beat.
It shows Van Dyck in one of his happiest moods dealing with a subject
which peculiarly appealed to him.
[Illustration: Plate II.]
======================================================================
In comparing those two great men it would be well, at first, to rid
ourselves of the confusion which often arises through the application
of the terms "artist" and "painter." In relation to painting they are
only too often considered synonymous, but a little consideration will
show us that a man whose technical abilities are of a high order need
not necessarily be a great artist. In fact, one of the most truthful
charges urged against the best contemporary art is that it demonstrates
an astonishing poverty of invention, a lack of message, if you will,
coupled with an extraordinarily highly developed technique. To screen
as much as possible the dilemma in which he finds himself, many a
modern painter has recourse to creating those outbursts of meaningless
eccentricity that are so familiar upon the walls of our exhibitions.
It is true that some few of the men who are living to-day are equipped
almost, if not quite, as well technically as the great majority of the
old masters. In a word, they could meet them on nearly equal terms as
painters, but they lack invention and conception in which to bring
their powers into legitimate play, and consequently they cannot rank
with them as artists.
It was in the possession of these very qualities that Van Dyck
surpassed Rubens. I do not suggest that the latter was devoid of power
of conception, for, if I did, would not the great "Coup-de-lance" at
Antwerp, or the "Fall of the Damned" at Munich (the drawing for the
latter in the National Gallery gives an even better idea than the
finished picture) be there to refute me? Van Dyck, however, though
being quite the match of Rubens in technique, even in his early
days--though still working under him--surpassed him in his middle
period. Anybody who has closely studied the noble religious pictures
at Courtrai and Malines--the latter, unfortunately, irreparably injured
by damp and neglect--can but be impressed with his stupendous power in
this direction. Granted that he does not appeal in the same measure to
our emotions from the spiritual side as do the early painters of Italy
and Flanders, he yet brings the brutal aspect of the scene before us in
an intensely human manner.
In most subject pictures Van Dyck painted before his visit to Italy it
is apparent that Rubens had been his sole guide, and he was impelled
only with a desire to emulate his master. But, after his return, the
influence of the mighty painters he had studied south of the Alps had
wrought a wondrous change in his method, and although he found himself
back again amidst his old surroundings he never quite forsook the path
he had been treading in the interval. Rubens, who had also spent some
years in Italy, did not submit to the influence of the southern masters
in the same measure, but remained a Fleming to the end. There is
little alteration to be observed, either in his historical and sacred
pictures or in his portraits, after he had studied the Italians. From
this we may assume either that Rubens was less susceptible to
extraneous influences, or that he considered his method quite the equal
to any that he had seen. Van Dyck, on the other hand, absorbed,
particularly from the Venetians, certain qualities which he employed
ceaselessly throughout the remainder of his life. It was not, however,
solely this cause which raised Van Dyck as an artist above his master.
Rather was it to be attributed to the superiority of temperament.
Thus, whilst we can still consider Rubens the head of the Flemish
school of the seventeenth century, we should accord to Van Dyck the
foremost rank as an artist.
Anthony Van Dyck was born at Antwerp on March 22nd, 1599. It was said
formerly that his father, Frans Van Dyck, was a painter on glass, but
later research has disclosed the fact that he carried on business as a
merchant. His mother practised the art of embroidery with no mean
skill, and her works appear to have been held in considerable esteem.
The young painter had, however, the misfortune of losing her when he
arrived at the age of eight. We know but little of his early years,
but he must have shown considerable aptitude for drawing, for we find
him already the pupil of Hendrik van Balen in 1609. The latter painter
had received instruction in his art from Adam van Oort, the master of
Rubens, but he utilised the instruction he had received in a very
different way from that of his fellow-pupil. He studied in Italy for
some time, and upon his return to Antwerp became one of the most
popular painters in the city. Several works still remaining there
testify that his sojourn in the South had not entirely effaced his
Flemish training. He excelled particularly in cabinet pictures, with
subjects inspired by the classics, in which the landscapes were
sometimes painted by Jan Brueghel. These are wrought with wonderful
finish, and were much admired by his contemporaries for the purity of
their colouring. At the same time, whilst being a good craftsman and
filling an honourable position in the history of the school, it cannot
be claimed that he possessed genius in an extraordinary degree.
It is probable, however, that a more suitable master for the young Van
Dyck could not have been found. In the studio of so staid and sober a
painter he would not be brought into contact with any of those
pyrotechnics which have wrought such havoc with the art of young
artists when encountered at the onset of their careers. On the other
hand, Van Balen is likely to have insisted upon great care being
exercised in drawing and in the finishing of minutest detail. Such
rigid training is excellent, for whilst it does not hinder further
developments upon other lines in the least degree, it insures that all
future progress shall be built upon a solid foundation.
At this time, however, Rubens, having returned from his wanderings in
Italy and Spain, had settled in Antwerp. His new position as Court
painter to the Archduke Albert and the Archduchess Isabella brought him
into great prominence and insured him constant occupation. Even at
this early period his art was approaching maturity, and if he had not
yet developed the dazzling brilliancy and facility of his later time,
he was still far ahead of any painter modern Flanders had produced. We
have only to contemplate the works of his contemporaries, and those who
immediately preceded him, to imagine what a profound sensation this
young man created in Antwerp. It seldom fell to the lot of an artist
who was but just over thirty to have been in the service of such an
illustrious personage as the Duke of Mantua. The latter, moreover, so
highly esteemed his talent that he wished him to return to his service
even after he had returned to Antwerp. Further, the Duke had such
confidence in Rubens' diplomatic ability that he sent him upon
important business to Philip III. in Madrid. The experience he had
gained both in Italy and in Spain, where he had seen and copied many of
the greatest works of the Italian Renaissance, served to develop a
genius which in itself was of the first order, and the fruits were
immediately visible upon his arrival in Antwerp. We can well picture
to ourselves the effect of the masculine vigour, nay, more, the bravado
of his brush-work upon the staid and homely Flemish artists. Their
minuteness of finish, delicacy, cool transparencies and silveriness of
colouring seem indeed _petit_ when pitted against the irrepressible
dash and golden palette of Rubens. In spite of this he appears not to
have created any enemies. On the contrary, his fellow-artists seem to
have recognised his superiority, and many were influenced by his
method. To estimate to the full the revolution he wrought we must
compare the masters whom we found installed in favour in Flanders with
the school he so soon created. The older painters being affected in so
visible a degree, we can quite imagine how easily one so young and
impressionable as Van Dyck would submit to the new influence. Here was
a master whose art, glowing with the full-blooded vigour of Italy, yet
retained the healthy freshness of his native country. Restrained and
held in leash as he would be in the studio of Van Balen, we can
sympathise with his yearning to migrate to that of Rubens. He speedily
joined that ever-swelling body of artists who gathered themselves round
the great master. For some years he worked side by side with Snyders
and Seghers. The progress he made during this time was considerable;
indeed, it is frequently difficult to decide whether certain pictures
produced in these years are the work of the master or the pupil, so
thoroughly had he acquired Rubens' technique.
======================================================================