Joachim Wtewael

Bio

The son of a successful artisan specializing in stained-glass, Joachim Wtewael was originally intended for his father’s trade. His mother’s father, Joachim van Schuyck (or Schayck), for whom he was named, was a painter and glass-worker, and her two brothers Ernst (II) and Cornelis, were also painters. Wtewael’s paternal family included some of the city’s most prominent citizens, one uncle was a notary, another a lawyer, while his own brother later became Burgomaster. He later invested in the flax business, and also in the Dutch East Indies Company, from which he became sufficiently wealthy to give him financial independence and enable him to take an active role in the political life of his city.

At about the age of eighteen the aspirant painter left his father’s workshop to enter the studio of Joos de Beer, a pupil of Frans Floris. In about 1587 he set off on a trip to Italy, where he spent two years, at least part of it in the company of a Breton ecclesiast, Charles de Keriagu de Bourgneuf de Cucé, whom he must have met in Rome sometime in late 1587 or 1588. In Italy he probably also met his cousin, Ernst (III) van Schayck, who was working extensively for the Church as a specialist in large altar-pieces, In 1590 Wtewael joined his Breton friend on the trip back from Rome, stopping in France where he remained for a further two years before returning to Utrecht in 1592.

Although Utrecht society was dominated by Calvinsim, it is likely that Wtewael was born and raised a Catholic. His cousin, Ernst van Schayck, must certainly have been a Catholic to have obtained ecclesiastical commissions in Italy, and Wtewael’s friendship with the Bishop of St Malo, who had been consecrated Bishop of Saint-Malo by the leading figure of the counter-Reformation, Sixtus V, would make it unlikely that he could have been a practicing Calvinist in such circumstances (he would also have been subject to possible arrest by the Inquisition). Neither would Wtewael’s ready embrace of highly erotic subjects, so contrary to the dominant Puritanism of contemporary Calvinist thinking, suggest an artist raised in the Calvinist Church. Wtewael’s use of strong, clear colors may have been affected by his initial training as a specialist in stained glass, while his painting style was influenced by Bartholomeus Spranger, whom he met in Rome and with whom he continued to correspond. A further influence, whose prints provided a direct source for several Wtewael compositions, was the Haarlem painter, Hendrick Goltzius, while the leading Utrecht painter of Wtewael’s youth, Anthonis Blocklandt, was also an important source of reference, as Anne Lowenthal has noted. In Italy, Wtewael was exposed to the work of the Florentine Jacopo Zucchi and Correggio,from whom, along with Bassano, he continued to quote throughout his career.

Lowenthal has pointed out that while he was clearly influenced by Venetian art, he did not emulate Venetian techniques. His preferred support, particularly in the small, erotic paintings, was copper, popular also with other northern painters working in Italy for the high finish that the surface made possible. After 1612, the date of the last copper in his known oeuvre and when he ceased to paint small erotic mythologies, wooden panel was his preferred choice for the medium size paintings, while throughout his career he also painted in a large scale on finely-woven canvases.

The artist’s earliest known works, painted in the early 1590s on his return from France, were large scale and strongly influenced by the Fontainebleau school that he had observed at first hand. The later works of the decade, both mythological and religious (primarily Old Testament, but including two Adorations), are more affected by the Haarlem painters Cornelis and Goltzius. What is probably his first copper dates from the 1590s, the Wedding of Peleus and Thetis, a subject to which he returned again and again over the next twenty years (Munich, Alte Pinakothek), but a recently discovered work from 1598, the Apulian Shepherd (formerly New York, Adam Williams Fine Art), enables us to date more precisely the development of the artist’s technique on this scale. Although the small intensely erotic mythologies painted between the late 1590s and 1612 represent this artist’s most important artistic achievements, the significance of his larger works, both mythological and religious, should not be under-estimated. That he ceased to paint the former and turned instead to larger works on panel from 1612 onwards, probably reflects a change of patronage, but his virtual abandonment of mythology after 1618 was probably decided by his own position in Utrecht public life as a follower of the strictly Calvinist Prince of Orange. In the latter part of his career the occasional participation of his less-talented son Peter needs to be considered when assessing the quality of some of these paintings, in comparison with those of the first twenty years of the century.

The son of a successful artisan specializing in stained-glass, Joachim Wtewael was originally intended for his father’s trade. His mother’s father, Joachim van Schuyck (or Schayck), for whom he was named, was a painter and glass-worker, and her two brothers Ernst (II) and Cornelis, were also painters. Wtewael’s paternal family included some of the city’s most prominent citizens, one uncle was a notary, another a lawyer, while his own brother later became Burgomaster. He later invested in the flax business, and also in the Dutch East Indies Company, from which he became sufficiently wealthy to give him financial independence and enable him to take an active role in the political life of his city.

At about the age of eighteen the aspirant painter left his father’s workshop to enter the studio of Joos de Beer, a pupil of Frans Floris. In about 1587 he set off on a trip to Italy, where he spent two years, at least part of it in the company of a Breton ecclesiast, Charles de Keriagu de Bourgneuf de Cucé, whom he must have met in Rome sometime in late 1587 or 1588. In Italy he probably also met his cousin, Ernst (III) van Schayck, who was working extensively for the Church as a specialist in large altar-pieces, In 1590 Wtewael joined his Breton friend on the trip back from Rome, stopping in France where he remained for a further two years before returning to Utrecht in 1592.

Although Utrecht society was dominated by Calvinsim, it is likely that Wtewael was born and raised a Catholic. His cousin, Ernst van Schayck, must certainly have been a Catholic to have obtained ecclesiastical commissions in Italy, and Wtewael’s friendship with the Bishop of St Malo, who had been consecrated Bishop of Saint-Malo by the leading figure of the counter-Reformation, Sixtus V, would make it unlikely that he could have been a practicing Calvinist in such circumstances (he would also have been subject to possible arrest by the Inquisition). Neither would Wtewael’s ready embrace of highly erotic subjects, so contrary to the dominant Puritanism of contemporary Calvinist thinking, suggest an artist raised in the Calvinist Church. Wtewael’s use of strong, clear colors may have been affected by his initial training as a specialist in stained glass, while his painting style was influenced by Bartholomeus Spranger, whom he met in Rome and with whom he continued to correspond. A further influence, whose prints provided a direct source for several Wtewael compositions, was the Haarlem painter, Hendrick Goltzius, while the leading Utrecht painter of Wtewael’s youth, Anthonis Blocklandt, was also an important source of reference, as Anne Lowenthal has noted. In Italy, Wtewael was exposed to the work of the Florentine Jacopo Zucchi and Correggio,from whom, along with Bassano, he continued to quote throughout his career.

Lowenthal has pointed out that while he was clearly influenced by Venetian art, he did not emulate Venetian techniques. His preferred support, particularly in the small, erotic paintings, was copper, popular also with other northern painters working in Italy for the high finish that the surface made possible. After 1612, the date of the last copper in his known oeuvre and when he ceased to paint small erotic mythologies, wooden panel was his preferred choice for the medium size paintings, while throughout his career he also painted in a large scale on finely-woven canvases.

The artist’s earliest known works, painted in the early 1590s on his return from France, were large scale and strongly influenced by the Fontainebleau school that he had observed at first hand. The later works of the decade, both mythological and religious (primarily Old Testament, but including two Adorations), are more affected by the Haarlem painters Cornelis and Goltzius. What is probably his first copper dates from the 1590s, the Wedding of Peleus and Thetis, a subject to which he returned again and again over the next twenty years (Munich, Alte Pinakothek), but a recently discovered work from 1598, the Apulian Shepherd (formerly New York, Adam Williams Fine Art), enables us to date more precisely the development of the artist’s technique on this scale. Although the small intensely erotic mythologies painted between the late 1590s and 1612 represent this artist’s most important artistic achievements, the significance of his larger works, both mythological and religious, should not be under-estimated. That he ceased to paint the former and turned instead to larger works on panel from 1612 onwards, probably reflects a change of patronage, but his virtual abandonment of mythology after 1618 was probably decided by his own position in Utrecht public life as a follower of the strictly Calvinist Prince of Orange. In the latter part of his career the occasional participation of his less-talented son Peter needs to be considered when assessing the quality of some of these paintings, in comparison with those of the first twenty years of the century.