阿尔伯特·库普是荷兰画家，生于1620年10月20日，卒于1691年11月15日。阿尔伯特·库普是一位17世纪荷兰黄金时期的杰出的风景画家，著名画家雅各布·格瑞兹之子，作品具有极大的影响力。
Aelbert Cuyp出生在多德雷赫特1620年10月20日,1691年11月15日,并死在那里。被称为荷兰相当于克劳德Lorrain,这风景画家继承了一大笔。他的家人都是艺术家,他的叔叔便雅悯和祖父Gerrit被彩色玻璃卡通设计师。雅各Gerritsz Cuyp,他的父亲是一个肖像画家.
的传记信息Aelbert Cuyp是非常有限的。著名历史学家甚至阿诺德Houbraken荷兰黄金时代的绘画和唯一权威Cuyp去世之后的几百年里,描绘了一幅非常薄的传记。他的活动作为一个画家是传统的局限于二十年1639年至1660年间,直接安装在普遍接受的范围内荷兰黄金时代最重要的时期,1640 - 1665。大家都知道他已经结婚在1658年科妮莉亚Bosman日期一致,所以直接与他的生产力作为一个画家,它已被接受,他的婚姻扮演了某种角色在他的艺术生涯的结束。后的一年,他的婚姻Cuyp成为归正教会的执事。甚至Houbraken回忆说,Cuyp是个虔诚的加尔文主义的事实,当他死后,没有发现的其他艺术家画在他的家里。
的马斯河多德雷赫特
Aelbert Cuyp——管道牧人(大都会艺术博物馆)
发展Aelbert Cuyp,训练有素的风景画家,可以大致勾勒出三个阶段的基础上,画家在这段时间对他影响最大,随后在他的画作艺术特征明显。一般来说,Cuyp学会非常多产的基调Jan van列为,光1月两从他的父亲,并形成雅各Gerritsz Cuyp。
Cuyp“van列为阶段”可以放置大约在1640年代早期。Cuyp可能第一次遇到一幅范列为当时范列为1640年,斯蒂芬•瑞斯指出“在[他]权力的高度。”[6]这是明显的对比两个Cuyp山水画镌刻1639,没有适当的风格形成明显的景观背景两年后他画父亲的两个组明显van Goyenesque肖像。Cuyp从范列为淡黄色和浅棕色的色调,非常明显的在他的沙丘(1629)和破碎的刷技术还很明显,同样的工作。这种技术,印象派的前兆,以简短的笔触的颜色不一定是混合顺利。Cuyp河的场景,两人交谈(1641)这两种货车Goyen-influenced风格元素是明显的
下一阶段的发展Cuyp日益融合的风格的影响是由于1月。在1640年代中期,一个本地居民乌得勒支,刚刚回到家乡去罗马。在这同时,Cuyp的风格根本改变。在罗马,都开发了一种新型的组合,至少在某种程度上,他与克劳德Lorrain交互。这新风格集中在改变光的方向在绘画。的光而不是放置在直角的视线,开始它的对角位置的照片。在这种新形式的照明,艺术家和观众的绘画或多或少contre-jour面对太阳。,随后Cuyp,使用这种新的照明风格改变的优势的深度感和光度可能在一幅画。这些新功能通知,使用由细长的影子。Cuyp是第一个荷兰画家欣赏这个新飞跃在风格和自己的同时也期很短(限制在1640年代中期),比其他任何当代荷兰艺术家,最大化的完整半音音阶的日落和日出。
Cuyp第三文体阶段(这发生在他的整个职业生涯)是基于他父亲的影响。而假设年轻Cuyp工作与他的父亲最初开发初级人才,Aelbert变得更加关注山水画虽然雅各布是一个肖像画家的职业。正如已经提到如下深入解释,有块Aelbert提供景观背景为他父亲的画像。是什么意思说Aelbert形式从他父亲得知,他最终从一个特别风景画家的参与前台数据是由于他与他父亲雅各。Aelbert的进化的证据前景图画家是生产一些画作1645 - 50有前景的动物不符合雅各布的风格。[7]添加的混乱,Aelbert文体发展和归因的问题当然是雅各的风格并不是停滞不前的。他们融合的风格很难完全理解都有影响,尽管它是足够清晰说Aelbert开始代表大规模形式(他之前没有做),将动物作为他的画的焦点的时候(这是特定于他)。
群绵羊牧场,1650年,Stadelsches Kunstinstitut
阳光在他的画中耙在面板中,强调细节的小块金色的光。在大型、大气农村的全景照片,突显出一片草甸草地上,宁静的马的鬃毛,奶牛的角斜倚的流,或一个农民的帽子的都是黄赭色的光线在洗澡。丰富的涂漆的介质折射的光线像宝石溶解成无数的釉层。Cuyp的风景是基于现实和自己发明一个迷人的景观应该是什么。
Cuyp的图纸显示他是一个绘图员卓越的品质。来自佛罗里达的洗金黄色的墨水描述一个遥远的城市多德雷赫特或乌特勒支。Cuyp图看起来像他预期完成的艺术作品,但它可能是回工作室,为他的画作为参考。通常可以找到相同部分的草图在几个不同的图片。
Cuyp签署了很多他的作品,但很少约会,这样他职业生涯的年表没有令人满意地重组。数量惊人的绘画被归结为他,其中一些可能会被其他大师的黄金景观,如亚伯拉罕Calraet(1642 - 1722),其首字母交流可能被误认为是Cuyp。
然而,并不是所有人都赞赏他的作品和河流景观(1660),尽管被广泛认为是他最好的作品之一,被称为“巧克力盒子温柔”。
牛在一条河附近,绘画的模仿者Cuyp(疑似18世纪)。
除了很少的记录和确认的传记Cuyp的生活,甚至比从他的三个主要影响他的合并方式,还有其他因素导致张冠李戴和混乱在Aelbert Cuyp数百年的作品。他高度的影响风格,结合意大利风格的灯光从1月,打破刷技术和无调性Jan van列为发展和他的风格从他父亲雅各Gerritsz Cuyp敏锐地研究了他最著名的追随者,亚伯拉罕·Calraet。Calraet模仿Cuyp的风格,将相同的方面,和产生相似的风景的后者。这使得它很难告诉他画的。增加两者之间的混乱是类似的首字母和绘画的签字不一致产生的Cuyp的工作室。
虽然Aelbert Cuyp签署了他的许多画作一个脚本“a . Cuyp”徽章,许多作品都离开无符号(更不用说未标明日期的)画后,添加了一个类似的签名之后,想必收藏家谁继承或发现。此外,许多可能Cuyp绘画没有签署而是字母“a . C。”指的是他的名字。然而,亚伯拉罕van Calraet也可以使用相同的首字母来表示一幅画。虽然这是不可能的(如Calraet可能签署了他的画作“风险。”),这就产生了问题签署了绘画的所有权。最原始Cuyp绘画是由他签署,脚本的方式上刻着他的名字。这将表示,这幅画是几乎完全由他完成的。相反,画出来的他的车间被Cuyp不一定身体工作只是由他技术上,都与交流来表明这是他指导了绘画作品的完成。Cuyp的学生和助手经常工作在他的工作室画,所以大部分工作的一幅画没有Cuyp碰画布,而只是批准它的结尾。因此,追杀铭文,而不是一个签名。
普遍的贴错了标签,作品都把Cuyp的作品的原因发现:缺乏传记和年代学的他的作品很难辨别时画了(很难确定一个艺术家);有争议的签名添加到历史学家困惑谁实际上画作品;协作和影响不同画家很难证明,一幅画是真正的Aelbert Cuyp;最后,准确识别是极其困难的,同样的风格被前任复制(而不是准确)。事实证明,即使是历史学家和专家研究人员一直在愚弄和被迫重新评估他们的结论“Cuyp”绘画。
Aelbert Cuyp was born in Dordrecht on October 20, 1620, and also died there on November 15, 1691. Known as the Dutch equivalent of Claude Lorrain, this landscape artist went on to inherit a considerable fortune. His family were all artists, with his uncle Benjamin and grandfather Gerrit being stained glass cartoon designers. Jacob Gerritsz Cuyp, his father, was a portraitist.
The amount of biographical information regarding Aelbert Cuyp is tremendously limited. Even Arnold Houbraken, a noted historian of Dutch Golden Age paintings and the sole authority on Cuyp for the hundred years following his death, paints a very thin biographical picture.[3] His period of activity as a painter is traditionally limited to the two decades between 1639 and 1660, fitting directly within the generally accepted limits of the Dutch Golden Age's most significant period, 1640-1665. He is known to have been married to Cornelia Bosman in 1658, a date coinciding so directly with the end of his productivity as a painter that it has been accepted that his marriage played some sort of role in the end of his artistic career.[4] The year after his marriage Cuyp became the deacon of the reformed church. Even Houbraken recalled that Cuyp was a devout Calvinist and the fact that when he died, there were no paintings of other artists found in his home.
The development of Aelbert Cuyp, who was trained as a landscape painter, may be roughly sketched in three phases based on the painters who most influenced him during that time and the subsequent artistic characteristics that are apparent in his paintings. Generally, Cuyp learned tone from the exceptionally prolific Jan van Goyen, light from Jan Both and form from his father, Jacob Gerritsz Cuyp.[6]
Cuyp's "van Goyen phase" can be placed approximately in the early 1640s. Cuyp probably first encountered a painting by van Goyen in 1640 when van Goyen was, as Stephen Reiss points out "at the height of [his] powers."[6] This is noticeable in the comparison between two of Cuyp's landscape paintings inscribed 1639 where no properly formed style is apparent and the landscape backgrounds he painted two years later for two of his father's group portraits that are distinctly van Goyenesque. Cuyp took from van Goyen the straw yellow and light brown tones that are so apparent in his Dunes (1629) and the broken brush technique also very noticeable in that same work. This technique, a precursor to impressionism, is noted for the short brush strokes where the colors are not necessarily blended smoothly. In Cuyp's River Scene, Two Men Conversing (1641) both of these van Goyen-influenced stylistic elements are noticeable
The next phase in the development of Cuyp's increasingly amalgamated style is due to the influence of Jan Both. In the mid-1640s Both, a native and resident of Utrecht, had just returned to his hometown from a trip to Rome. It is around this same time that Cuyp's style changed fundamentally. In Rome, Both had developed a new style of composition due, at least in part, to his interaction with Claude Lorrain. This new style was focused on changing the direction of light in the painting. Instead of the light being placed at right angles in relation to the line of vision, Both started moving it to a diagonal position from the back of the picture.[6] In this new form of lighting, the artist (and viewer of the painting) faced the sun more or less contre-jour. Both, and subsequently Cuyp, used the advantages of this new lighting style to alter the sense of depth and luminosity possible in a painting. To make notice of these new capabilities, much use was made of elongated shadows. Cuyp was one of the first Dutch painters to appreciate this new leap forward in style and while his own Both-inspired phase was quite short (limited to the mid-1640s) he did, more than any other contemporary Dutch artist, maximize the full chromatic scale for sunsets and sunrises.
Cuyp's third stylistic phase (which occurred throughout his career) is based on the influence of his father. While it is assumed that the younger Cuyp did work with his father initially to develop rudimentary talents, Aelbert became more focused on landscape paintings while Jacob was a portrait painter by profession. As has been mentioned and as will be explained in depth below, there are pieces where Aelbert provided the landscape background for his father's portraits. What is meant by stating that Aelbert learned form from his father is that his eventual transition from a specifically landscape painter to the involvement of foreground figures is attributed to his interaction with his father Jacob. The evidence for Aelbert's evolution to foreground figure painter is in the production of some paintings from 1645-50 featuring foreground animals that do not fit with Jacob's style.[7] Adding to the confusion that is, Aelbert's stylistic development and the problem of attribution is of course the fact that Jacob's style was not stagnant either. Their converging styles make it difficult to exactly understand the influences each had on the other, although it is clear enough to say that Aelbert started representing large scale forms (something he had not done previously) and placing animals as the focus of his paintings (something that was specific to him).
Sunlight in his paintings rakes across the panel, accentuating small bits of detail in the golden light. In large, atmospheric panoramas of the countryside, the highlights on a blade of meadow grass, the mane of a tranquil horse, the horn of a dairy cow reclining by a stream, or the tip of a peasant's hat are all caught in a bath of yellow ocher light. The richly varnished medium refracts the rays of light like a jewel as it dissolves into numerous glazed layers. Cuyp's landscapes were based on reality and on his own invention of what an enchanting landscape should be.
Cuyp's drawings reveal him to be a draftsman of superior quality. Light-drenched washes of golden brown ink depict a distant view of the city of Dordrecht or Utrecht. A Cuyp drawing may look like he intended it to be a finished work of art, but it was most likely taken back to the studio and used as a reference for his paintings. Often the same section of a sketch can be found in several different pictures.
Cuyp signed many of his works but rarely dated them, so that a chronology of his career has not been satisfactorily reassembled. A phenomenal number of paintings are ascribed to him, some of which are likely to be by other masters of the golden landscape, such asAbraham Calraet (1642–1722), whose initials A.C. may be mistaken for Cuyp's.
However, not everyone appreciates his work and River Landscape (1660), despite being widely regarded as amongst his best work, has been described as having "chocolate boxblandness".[8]
In addition to the scarcely documented and confirmed biography of Cuyp's life, and even more so than his amalgamated style from his three main influences, there are yet other factors that have led to the misattribution and confusion over Aelbert Cuyp's works for hundreds of years. His highly influenced style which incorporated Italianate lighting from Jan Both, broken brush technique and atonality from Jan van Goyen, and his ever-developing style from his father Jacob Gerritsz Cuyp was studied acutely by his most prominent follower, Abraham van Calraet. Calraet mimicked Cuyp's style, incorporating the same aspects, and produced similar landscapes to that of the latter. This made it quite difficult to tell whose paintings where whose. Adding to the confusion is the similar initials between the two and the inconsistent signing of paintings which were produced by Cuyp's studio.
Although Aelbert Cuyp signed many of his paintings with a script "A. Cuyp" insignia, many paintings were left unsigned (not to mention undated) after being painted, and so a similar signature was added later on, presumably by collectors who inherited or discovered the works. Furthermore, many possible Cuyp paintings were not signed but rather initialed "A. C." referring to his name. However, Abraham van Calraet could also have used the same initials to denote a painting. Although this is unlikely (as Calraet would likely have signed his paintings "A. v.C."), this brings up the question of how paintings were signed to show ownership. Most original Cuyp paintings were signed by him, and in the script manner in which his name was inscribed. This would denote that the painting was done almost entirely by him. Conversely, paintings which came out of his workshop that were not necessarily physically worked on by Cuyp but merely overseen by him technically, were marked with A.C. to show that it was his instruction which saw the paintings' completion. Cuyp's pupils and assistants often worked on paintings in his studio, and so most of the work of a painting could be done without Cuyp ever touching the canvas, but merely approving its finality. Hence, the initialed inscription rather than a signature.
Common among the mislabeled works are all of the reasons identified for misattributing Cuyp's works: the lack of biography and chronology of his works made it difficult to discern when paintings were created (making it difficult to pinpoint an artist); contentious signatures added to historians' confusion as to who actually painted the works; and the collaborations and influences by different painters makes it hard to justify that a painting is genuinely that of Aelbert Cuyp; and finally, accurate identification is made extremely difficult by the fact that this same style was copied (rather accurately) by his predecessor. As it turns out, even the historians and expert researchers have been fooled and forced to reassess their conclusions over "Cuyp's" paintings over the years.
1、本站美术网信息均来自于美术家自己或其朋友、网络等方式，本站无法确定每条信息或事件的真伪，仅做浏览者参考。
2、只要用户使用本站则意味着该用户以同意《本站注册及使用协议》，否则请勿使用本站任何服务。
3、信息删除不收任何费用，VIP会员修改信息终身免费(VIP会员点此了解)。
4、未经本站书面同意，请勿转载本站信息，谢谢配合！
.jpg)
