Heuer Ruysdael a It

8/14/2019 Heuer Ruysdael a It

1/14

Art in Translation,Volume 4, Issue 2, pp. 149162

DOI: 10.2752/175613112X13309377913007

Reprints available directly from the Publishers.

Photocopying permitted by licence only.

2012 Berg.

Jacob vanRuisdaelAbstract

In his monographic essay on Jacob van Ruisdael, first published in

1902, Alois Riegl engages not only Ruisdaels landscapes, but also

explores theoretical questions concerning the relation between beholder

and image on the basis of the formal analysis of key works. This carries

moral and ethical implications for the act of viewing, which should,

argues Riegl, be both selfless and disinterested. In seventeenth-century

Dutch landscape painting, as developed not only by Ruisdael but by

such countrymen as Rembrandt, Seghers, and Van Goyen, Riegl identi-

fies atmosphere as an entityas an all-encompassing atmospheric tone

Alois Riegl

Translated by

Christopher P. Heuer

First published in German as

Jakob van Ruysdael,

Die Graphischen Knste,

XXV, 1902, pp. 1120.


2/14

150 Alois Riegl

spread across the entire surfacerather than as a series of individual

colorations derived from the individual objects depicted in the land-

scape. The response of the beholder to the totality of the work is thus

framed by Riegl in terms of contemporary theories of empathy.

KEYWORDS: art theory, Dutch art, landscape painting, nature in art,

Ruisdael, Rembrandt, Van Goyen, beholder, attentiveness, Stimmung

Introductionby Christopher P. Heuer

(Princeton University)

The writings of art historian and curator Alois Riegl (18581905) are

fundamental to the discipline of art history, not only because of theirincipient rigor regarding form. They matter in more recent decades for

their attention to the viewing act, the aesthetics of reception. The

Ruisdael essay is a set piece in such thinking, particularly central to

Riegls work on Aufmerksamkeitattention. It has all the more import

today as virtual modes of visual experience and communication instate

and disruptnew conditions under which artworks are encountered.

Alois Riegl wrote very little about landscape; what he did has been

assailed as mystical and oblique. The same might be said for his writing

on the elusive and well-worn concept of Aufmerksamkeit.Evocative

comments on space, nature, and genre weave throughout Riegls lecturenotes and unpublished oeuvre, but nowhere are they as systematically,

potently (and cryptically) wielded toward an entire reconceptualiza-

tion of art historys relation to a subject as in the little-known 1902

essay on the Dutch landscapist Jacob van Ruisdael. Originally a lec-

ture, the sixteen-page essay has no footnotes, and is wandering, scantly

illustrated, and even magical in its formal analysis. Riegl threads his

observations through multiple (and often contradictory) understandings

of Stimmung(mood, or atmosphere), which he takes as a quasi-spatial

entity circulating amidst pictorial elements. At the same time, Stimmung

figures for Riegl as something spilling out of the painting and permeat-ing the beholderpicture encounter. What results is an unconventional

and difficult update of Romantic notions of poetic communication.1It

hardly seems surprising that, when Riegls essay has been read, it has

been berated for inaccuracies and outright disregard of fact. And yet

the piece dazzlingly displays an unexpected take on landscape painting

in f in de sicleVienna, which Riegl does not so much link to an older

painting idiom as wield dialectically to activate then-current notions of

Einfhlungfor Dutch art.

If Riegl returned to fashion in the 1980s as a champion of neglected

and transitional art forms, regions, and epochs, the Ruisdael article isunique within his corpus for seizing upon a single well-known artist


3/14

Jacob van Ruisdael 151

and a conventional old master genrethe easel landscape painting

yet using a lens which disavows historicism entirely. It is a distillation

of all the thoughts on Dutch painting that the hollndische Gruppen-

portrt, published the same year (1902), explored.2And yet, the small

essay is more than that. Launching from the now-familiar conviction

that any construction of original context was folly, it asked, for one

of the first times in art history, how non-figural art might establish

a conceptual relationship with a beholder. Riegl, however, never as-

sumes that this relationship bynecessity must even exist. He presents

attention as always in conf lict with distraction, as something more

anguished than a passive looking. This is a move which foreshad-

ows Riegls revival within the Struktranalyseof the 1930s. Presaged,

then, in the Ruisdael essay is a reconfigured idea of art history as an

aesthetic act itself.Riegls emphasis upon the viewers often irrational role in the inter-

pretation of Dutch compositions within the museum setting, bears seri-

ous implications for the history of art in general, and should appeal to

art historians interested in nineteenth-century thought as well as seven-

teenth-century painting. The essay offers a rethinking of artviewer

relations which is worth consideration for all subfields.

Jacob van Ruisdael

Alois Riegl

Modern art historical research teaches that real landscape painting

appears for the first time in arts history in the work of seventeenth-

century Dutch painters. Even granting the modern tendency to judge

the art of earlier periods, objections to this doctrine are unconvincing.

Todays landscape painting strives to unite all individual things on and

above the ground into a unified whole, by means of the atmosphere

between the individual things; it shapes the landscape throughthe at-mosphere. The Dutch of the baroque period were the first who strove

for this in a clear and conscious way, in fact. With them, a unifying

effect was attempted not by coordinating the tactile edges of things, or

via the local colors that filled those edges, as it had in earlier stylistic

periods. Rather, the Dutch strove for such an effect through a harmony

of color based on purely optical sensations. Their atmospherewhich

now had to be painted nextto the individual thingsis thus not to be

apprehended through the organs of the tactile sense. Therefore, it is

reproducible only in one way: individual things have to give up their

tactile, tangible, and objective-physical character to reveal themselvesonly as optical stimuli. They are flecks of color that can be reassembled


4/14

152 Alois Riegl

as individual things, only in the mind of the beholder. And this takes

place through an activation of that beholders sensory experience.

To a much higher degree than tactile stimuli, optical stimuli are

dependent on subjective variations, even if the former (and this is

unavoidable in painting) can only be triggered by the visual sense.

A subjective concept of individual thingsrather than the objective

concept that reigned in antiquity and partly still in the Renaissanceis

therefore crucial to both Dutch and modern landscape painting. For

both, orientation is no longer drawn from things, but from the behold-

ing subjectand this orientation finds its particular expression in linear

and aerial perspective, constructed from one specific point of view.

In all these respects, the difference between Dutch and modern land-

scape paintings must be characterized simply as a quantitative one. We

are much more sensitive today to errors in drawing, or defects in light,flaws present even in the most celebrated Dutch masters. The point at

which Dutch and modern landscape fundamentally part company from

each other, however, is in the perception of atmosphere, and in the way

this atmosphere is correspondingly depicted.

The seventeenth-century Dutch painters regarded atmosphere as an

independent entity, something that had no connection with the individ-

ual things between which it circulated. The atmosphere thus positioned

itself like a colored veil in front of and between things. It received its

colored appearance only from light in its various forms, in all possible

degrees of intensity, down to the deepest shadows, as sunlight or arti-ficial flame. The moderns, by contrast, with their tendency to combine

such elements within a picture, go a step further. They set the individual

things in interaction with each other withinthe atmosphere. This occurs

in such a way that the normally colorless atmosphere receives its color-

ing from the reflections of individual things: the tone of the air is no lon-

ger, in essence, simply light, but the result of the color reflected from the

individual elements assembled within the picture. In modern painting,

such elements demand much more attention than in Dutch painting,

where single things were repressed by an independently colored atmos-

phere. It is easy to see that of all Dutch landscape painters, the one whowould inevitably find the highest appreciation from the moderns was

the one who paid comparatively moreregard to the individual color-

ation of things, rather than to an all-encompassing atmospheric tone.

This painter was none other than Jacob van Ruisdael; he represents

both the highest and the most mature stage of development in seven-

teenth-century Dutch landscape painting.

That development had, in fact, three stages. The earliest is repre-

sented by a group of tonal painters around Jan van Goyen (Figure 1).

These painters rendered the atmosphere in a monotone-colored light,

one that ranged from straw yellow to gray-green, tinting over the localcolors of individual elements. The coloristic effect of these paintings was

so unnatural and mannered, that it was thought necessary to excuse it


5/14


by reference to the misty atmosphere of the Netherlands. The individual

things themselves areas one saysinadequately observed, which is to

say that opticalappearance of detail does not emerge vividly enough to

nourish the organ of sight adequately. The sensory entreaty to completethe picture is never actively aroused. We still discern things largely in

general contours, as in earlier periods of art. On the other hand, these

masters still try to introduce into the picture motifs that are thematically

interesting and amusing; namely the work of humans. No longer depict-

ing grand or stately activities, the pictures instead reveal the daily busi-

ness beside the rivers and in the villages in its stark simplicity. Even if, as

mentioned above, the mind of the beholder is not sufficiently engaged

by the colors, it is greatly stimulated by the contentjust as it is with

the less atmospheric art of antiquity and the Renaissance.

The second stage of the development is represented by Rembrandt andhis circle. He overcomes monotone with a chiaroscuro that creates nothing

but a spatial darkness. With his chiaroscuro, he breaks the limited, tactile

effect of local colors and contours. Rembrandt does understand, how-

ever, how to renderwith certitudethe specifics of things that are opti-

cally effective. He understands how to contain space within measurable

confines rather than stretching it into a lulling boundlessness, and how

to suppress material interest in the individual object. Despite this, we do

not today count Rembrandts works among the greatest achievements of

Dutch landscape painting. And rightfully so, even if they are only spoken

of with the greatest respect. For, nowadays, we no more see nature asbrownly as Rembrandt painted it than we see it as straw-colored as it

appears in Salomon van Ruisdaels works. For that reason, Rembrandts

Figure 1

Jan van Goyen, View of the

Merwede before Dordrecht,

c.1660. Rijksmuseum,

Amsterdam, Netherlands.


6/14

154 Alois Riegl

etched landscapes seem to us more convincing, since they dispense with

the localized colors that made up his tan chiaroscuro.

Rembrandt, the history painter, was never fully able to overcome the

impulse toward subordination. His tendency to accentuate particular

areas through the most intense light, while casting other parts as glow-

ering in the shadows, is at odds with the total, unified, equality of such

things demanded by a strictly atmospheric landscape. We should not,

therefore, be surprised that the broad preoccupation of Rembrandts

landscape painting is the human form. It is the interest in man that

inescapably captures the observer. It does notaccord with the idea of

an extreme modern subjectivism and a total subordination of man to

nature. And yet, this last point does not always prove true for Rem-

brandt. In his work, humans canclaim their place in natureit might

be that Rembrandt came up with the exactdegree to which humansmay be permitted to enter a landscape, without, however, jeopardizing

that landscapes atmospheric effect.

All the deficiencies that modern subjectivity still feels obliged to com-

plain about in Rembrandts landscape painting were corrected by Jacob

van Ruisdael, or at least in those instances where he could manage to

work with completely illuminated space as a connective medium, and

not with an atmosphere colored only by the reflection of things. It is a

resolute tone that reigns in his landscapes, a tone greenish or brownish,

but never so monochrome that it decolorizes the individual things in an

unnatural wayas occurs in van Goyen or Rembrandt, or in the willfulcolor values of certain modern landscape painters. That is the reason

that the conservative, but in general modern-thinking art lover is willing

to prize Jacob van Ruisdael above all modern painters. Ruisdael never

loses himself to the ambiguous or indeterminate, neither in the extension

of space nor in the details of individual things. For him, sky and earth

are completely equivalent. Fromentins assertion that Jacob van Ruis-

dael introduced the observation of the clouded sky into landscape paint-

ing is, therefore, incorrect, for it could lead to the opinion that the early

Dutch painters understood the area above the ground only as a neutral

relief-ground, as it was in antiquity. Van Goyen and Rembrandt did notsimply do what had been quite customary since the fifteenth century,

namely to treat this area as space and animate it with clouds. They also

gradated the connecting function that they recognized inthe sky: van

Goyen through tonality, Rembrandt through dark/light contrast (with a

predilection for the mood of the thunderstorm). In Jacob van Ruisdaels

landscapes, individual things are always coordinated. No single one is

emphasized at the expense of another. Where this rule appears to have

been broken, namely in the pictures from his late period, this can be

ascribed to certain moments of his development, as we will see. Ulti-

mately, Ruisdael allows the human figure to sink into in the ensembleof natural things, in particular, things vegetal. Wherever he needs staff-

age to clarify distances and proportions, he asks others to paint it. This

was sometimes naively regarded as an inability on his part; as though a


7/14


master who was able to render convincinglywith just a few strokes

the optic appearance of a tree found it difficult to delineate the strokes

needed for modest human staffage. Ruisdael thought of his landscapes

as uninhabited. As soon as his artistic conception was realized in the

picture, he left the necessary evils of staffage to his colleagues, to more

figure-minded painters who probably delighted in the welcome change.

Although Jacob van Ruisdael did not live much beyond fifty years (he

was born sometime in the late 1620s and died in 1682), he left behind a

remarkable number of pictures. Since we have secure information about

the poor prices that were paid for his pictures, and since we can assume

that this hard-working man would have made more money in almost

every other occupation, we gain the image of an ideal painter, whose

entire existence was driven by the urge to give expression to his inner

visions. Such a rich production could not have occurred without agradual development, and we can in fact outline this development with

some certainty on the basis of Ruisdaels dated works. Ruisdaels de-

velopment followed the same direction that Dutch seventeenth-century

painting tookfrom a relative objectivity toward an ever more austere

subjectivism of views, culminating in a reversal to the opposite extreme,

almost coincidental with the original point of departure. This condition

is observable in the masters last period.

The earliest, the Haarlem period, dating from around the mid-1640s,

is represented in compositions like the Forest Village Behind Dunesin

the Dresden gallery. Here the convenient device of the tonal paintersis applied: the more important motifs are pushed so far back into the

picture space that the tactility, the narrowness, and the impenetrability

of these very motifs is somehow lost, so that the distant view remains

the more reliable one. But the endless distance of the tonal painters,

which allowed the horizon to disappear in a blur, is gone. Instead, the

terrain ascends from the unprepossessing grass in the open foreground

toward the background, so that the most important motifshouses and

treescan be set on the highest ridge of the area, as silhouettes against

the horizon. The trees no longer appear as a uniform wall; rather, they

seem to arrange themselves in a row of individual treetops, in such away that no one seems to be claiming more significance than the other.

A house with a gabled front looks into a valley, as does a windmill with

crossed vanes and a church tower with a broken window. Two to three

human figures serve as measures for distance; one would be sad not to

have them in the vicinity of the village. Above lie clouds in the sky, in-

dividualized in both form and movement. If something here is missing,

in which the modern beholder might entirely immerse himself in a dis-

interested gaze, it is due to the distance and smallness of the motifs, the

relative absence of connection among them, the resulting objectivity

namely of house, windmill, and churchand, finally, the highly agitatedlines in the picture, which are not restrained by dominant orthogonals.

A second stage is marked by the Village in A Forest Valley(Figure 2)

in the Berlin gallery. What we see here is already much more enclosed,


8/14

156 Alois Riegl

moved much nearer to the observer, and held together in a calm way by

numerous verticals and horizontals. In the foreground, the foundation

of the picture is a quiet stretch of water that does not stretch into the

infinite distance, but rather bends to the right and disappears behind afantasy-provoking thicket. On the bank one can find two fishermena

motif appropriate to the basic tendency in seventeenth-century Dutch

painting to suppress any actions that stimulate the tactile senses, arous-

ing the optical-mental impulses instead. In Rembrandts landscape paint-

ings, too, we often see the fisherman, whose activity is predicated on

the most attentive viewing combined with absolute physical quiet. The

houses in this village, almost without exception, turn to the beholder

with their gabled fronts, shot through with windows, which seem to

gaze at the beholder quietly. The background is terminated by a hill,

whose trees are differentiated from each other right up to their indi-vidual treetops. A small tower looks backward toward the imagined

continuation of the valley.

This picture appeared at a time when most well-known landscape

painters were occupied with the problem of how to represent broad

surfaces; broad surfaces in which single elements emerge with com-

plete clarity and terrain is shown preciselyand yet both remain in

an undisturbed unity. Hercules Seghers led the way in this; but it was

Rembrandt, undoubtedly aware of Segherss successes, who found the

solution in his etching The Goldweighers Field, which bears the date

1652. This sheet certainly represents the greatest leap attempted inthis direction by all Dutchmen of that time; the magnitude of the task

and of Rembrandts success certainly reveals the nature of the master.

Figure 2

Jacob Isaacsz van Ruisdael,

Village at the Woods Edge,

c.1651. Gemldegalerie,

Staatliche Museum zu Berlin,

Preuischer Kulturbesitz,

Germany. Photo: Jrg P. Anders.


9/14


As is so often the case with Rembrandt, his creations bearnext to

their touching intimacya character of the grandiose, the absolute,

and the eternal. In such an admixture Jacob van Ruisdael, however,

would have seen a threat to the quiet intimacy of his purely subjective

atmosphere and never, therefore, imbued his landscape paintings with

such attenuated dimensions. The furthest he was inclined to go in this

direction is represented in the often repeated (and therefore, obviously,

often commissioned) views of his hometown of Haarlem, seen from

the Dunes of Overveen. The exemplar can be found in the Berlin gal-

lery (catalog no. 885 c), while others appear in the collections of the

Amsterdam Rijksmuseum and the Mauritshuis in The Hague. Here the

background depth is not cut short by a mountain or high trees. Rather,

the houses and towers of the citywhich is situated on level land

mark the boundaries of the horizon. Barely one-third of the pictureheighthow little!constitutes the noteworthy content of the picture:

the Earth with its products and the activities of man. In contrast, two-

thirds of the entire height of the picture here is claimed by the cloudy

sky, whose heavy force seems entirely appropriate as a counterbalance

to the disruptive activities of humanity on the ground. Across the width

of the picture, striations of light and shadow alternate, and by this means,

the deep space is given a clear gradation. But the shadows never attain

that darkness in which Rembrandts details shimmer, thus putting our

capacity for intellectual completion to such a hard test that our mood

of disinterested observation is disturbed, and the artists ambitionsthwarted. Many recognizable gables emerge from the sea of houses;

the Groote Kerk, which dominates everything in height and width,

is nothing but a primus inter paressuperior in size, not in artistic

significanceas the eye is drawn away from the church along a row of

houses to the foreground. Their optical scale is much the same as that of

the church. As a result, the significance of the church within the overall

picture is effectively reduced. The church tower striving vertically away

from the horizon, along with the side lines crossing the foreground re-

veal how muchin contrast to Ruisdaels earlier work, especially that

in Dresdenhe is by now aware of the externally calming effect suchlines impart. A similar tendency to restore the impression a unified

planerather than that of individual objects set at various depthsis

at the same time observable in Rembrandt.

The third and, to our modern taste, most agreeable developmen-

tal phase appears in the Great Beech Forestin the imperial gallery in

Vienna (Figure 3). This coincides with the masters time in Amsterdam,

around 1660. Here all human activity is removed; one perceives almost

nothing but trees, but each of them comes forward as an individual, and

as a totality they lure us irresistibly into their shadows.

Anyone who still needs to understand how a direct view of na-ture never yields a full and unadulterated atmosphere can learn from

this picture. None of the trees has that insistent tactile dimensionas


10/14

158 Alois Riegl

experienced on every walk in a forestthat transfixes the eye, taking

up the entire visual field and thus never graspable at once. And yet,

between the trees, the bright sky looks at the beholder with hundredsof eyes. Traces of human activity appear only in the path with ruddy

ruts; such ruts are not winding about as they were in earlier pictures,

searching into the depths, but now disappear vertically around a cor-

ner. In front, the path is crossed horizontally by a shallow stream,

with standing water of that mysterious darkness that characterizes

Ruisdaels landscapes. As staffage, we see a sitting wanderer resting

contemplatively, and further back, in the shade of the giant trees, a

striding couple, over whose diminutive forms the waves of a sea of

foliage crash engulfingly.

The developmental process thus observed across Jacob van Ruisdaelswork was essentially a process of reduction, a purification; all motifs that

awaken the interest of the beholder in some subject matter, and which

could distract from the contemplation of the whole, are progressively

removed. Ultimately the pure enjoyment of looking is all that remains.

Within the Great Beech Forestsuch a specifically Dutch tendency attains

its apotheosis. Any remnant of action as an expression of will has been

done away with; what the artist represents and the beholder experiences

is now pure sensation. This sensation, however, is notpassive. The be-

holder still actively confronts the external things, which he perceives by

means of his optical sense, in that he approaches them attentively.Except for its last phase, the entirety of Dutch painting can be described

most concisely as a painting of attention. In this last phase, however,

Figure 3


The Large Forest, c.16551660.

Kunsthistorisches Museum,

Vienna, Austria.


11/14


a turning point is reached at which sensation is no longer acuteit

becomes, indeed, passive. This turning point was an ineluctable result

of a constant increase in subjectivism. As long as artists and beholders

simply confront external things through a mode of attentiveness, these

external things retain a remnant of objectivity. Subjectivism must

ultimately aspire to an even more intimate effect of the objects upon the

subjects (beholder and artist). In such a case, attentiveness is not enough

any morean affect has to take holdthe sensationmust become pas-

sive. Thus it was an inevitable internal fate of Dutch painting of the

seventeenth century that it changedas is knownin the course from

Rembrandt to Van Dyck. This is a change that is to be deeply deplored

from the view of modern taste, but must be accepted from the viewpoint

of universal history, because it describes a progressive development.

Within Ruisdaels own development, the beginning of such a changeis marked by the emergence of new motifs, which address more than the

pure act of viewing. Where his approach was formerly a negative and

reductive one, it now becomes a positive one, in that new elements are

admitted into the landscape. What Ruisdael painted up to this point

for example the Great Beech Forestin the Haarlemmerhouthe could

easily observe in the Dutch surroundings. Little by little, however,

motifs make their entrance into the composition, which a Dutch land-

scape painter never could have seen. What seemingly happens here is

a relapse into the composed landscape of the fifteenth and sixteenth

centuries. From Ruisdaels position, the last thing he intended was tostimulate a material interest in the beholder. We modern observers,

however, who feel ourselves free of the intellectual preoccupations of

Ruisdael and his Dutch contemporaries, sense something intentional in

these motifs, which we find alienating and disturbing.

The change on Ruisdaels part which led himif we want to see it

like thisdown a descending path is already evident in his famed wood-

land pictures, in which the trees are reflected in the gloomy will-o-the-

wisp light of the eerie swamp water. The same tendency can be found

in his waterfalls, whereby the fraught question of whether Ruisdael saw

them in life or learned about them from Allaert van Everdingen appearsentirely trivial. The final extreme of Ruisdaels late, hyper-subjective

attitudewhich approaches the sentimentalis signified in theJewish

Cemeteryin the Dresden gallery (Figure 4). Here the activities of man

are again granted an important place in nature. The activities, however,

are essentially concerned with transience and are tied back to nature.

Even the graves, dedicated to the perpetuation of the fleeting individual-

ity of man, are destroyed anew by nature and taken back into her lap.

The gloomy thunderclouds and the regretful gesture of the tree at the

rightwhich one might compare with the healthily stretching trunks

of the Great Beech Forestare also elements that vigorously teach usthat a specific interest has crept into purely attentive act of looking.

This is an interest no longer called for by an objective given, but rather


12/14

160 Alois Riegl

demanded by a heightened desire for feeling on the part of the creativeand the beholding subject.

This heightening of feeling into affect is a process that strains the

most elevated mood andto the modern sensibilityturns into its

opposite, the absence of mood. It had already been announced in some

of the marine pictures and winter scenes that belong to earlier pro-

gressive periods of his development. By contrast, some pictures, whose

originson the basis of their technique and composition, must be

located in the second period, still display much of the captivating bal-

ance of atmosphere that characterizes the middle period. This is visible

in, among others, the view of the weighing-house on the Dam Square inAmsterdam [Stadtwage am Dam] in the Berlin gallery (Figure 5). This is

a city view, but a view from the inside, with any vegetal nature expelled.

Only the atmosphere and the high cloud cover accord the work real

balance. The weighing-house in the foreground looks at the beholder,

and the gable-facades of the Damrak to the right and in the narrow side

street on the leftso typical of Amsterdamcreate an attentive espal-

ier. In the foreground we see the inevitable staffage by one of the minor

painters close to Ruisdael: people standing alone or in groups, not in

a shop or engaged in vigorous business, but watching, chatting, or at-

tentively listening, a scene in which even the people appear felicitouslyattuned to the landscape.

Figure 4

Jacob Isaacsz van Ruisdael, The

Jewish Cemetery, 16551660.

Gemldegalerie Alte Meister,

Dresden, Germany.


13/14


Translators Notes

1. To which Riegl dedicated an entire essay in the same journal onlythree years earlier. See Alois Riegl, Die Stimmung als Inhalt der Mod-

ernen Kunst, Die Graphischen KnsteXXII (1899), pp. 4756.

2. See Alois Riegl, The Group Portraiture of Holland, introduction

Wolfgang Kemp, translation Evelyn M. Kain (Santa Monica: Getty

Research Institute Publications, 1999).

Figure 5


The Dam Square in Amsterdam,

c.1670. Gemldegalerie, Berlin,

Germany.


14/14

Documents

Heuer Ruysdael a It