Dutch Ships in a Lively Breeze, probably 1650s

Under the billowing clouds of an expansive sky, a large three-master, carrying the Amsterdam coat of arms on its stern, sails in brisk winds through crowded shipping lanes. While no land is visible, the mixture of both large and small vessels sailing in a variety of directions suggests that the setting may be one of the broad river estuaries along the coast of the Netherlands that were so important for fostering the Dutch mercantile empire. Nevertheless, given that the ships seem to be generic in character rather than identifiable, it would appear that the scene is a fanciful construction conceived in the artist’s workshop.[1]  [1]
Margarita Russell, in a memo in the NGA curatorial files, suggests that the prominent ship in the foreground is “an East Indiaman.”

The attribution of this painting is difficult to determine, in large part because the condition is poor and the surface is heavily OverpaintOverpaint
 A layer of paint that covers original paint.ed. A more essential problem, however, is that the quality of the work is not very high, indicating that the artist was not a master of the first rank. Ships are ill-drawn and do not sit comfortably in the water, the waves are not convincingly rendered, and the composition lacks focus and a sense of cohesion.

When the painting was accepted by the National Gallery of Art in 1947 it was attributed to Abraham Storck (1644–1708), presumably on the basis of an old label that was once attached to the back of the original canvas that read: “Storck Dietsch 1696—Shipping in the Scheldt.” Storck, however, was a rather talented marine painter, whose style is quite different. Instead of the elongated, insubstantial forms of the vessels found in this painting, he gave his ships a physical presence.[2]  [2]
Margarita Russell, in a memo in the NGA curatorial files, speculates that the reference to Dietsch [Dietzsch] on the old label was to a member of a prolific eighteenth-century family of Nuremberg painters and graphic artists who produced paintings in the Dutch manner. For Johann Israel Dietzsch (1681–1754) and his family, see Ulrich Thieme, Felix Becker, Fred. C. Willis, and Hans Vollmer, Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Künstler von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, 37 vols. (Leipzig, 1907), 9:275–277; and Horst Gerson, Ausbreitung und Nachwirkung der holländischen Malerei des 17. Jahrhunderts (Haarlem, 1942), 98, 327. Russell’s hypothesis is that this painting was executed by a member of the Dietzsch family after a now lost painting by Storck that was dated 1696. Since comparative material does not exist to buttress her arguments, and since nothing in the manner of execution suggests that the painting is eighteenth century in origin, it is perhaps more prudent to conclude that the inscription on the old label is not reliable than to try to base an attribution upon it.  

The attribution to Storck was changed in 1964 after Horst Gerson suggested, on the basis of a photograph, that the painting was close to the manner of Hendrick van Anthonissen (1606–after 1660).[3]  [3]
Horst Gerson letter to Perry Cott, November 17, 1964, in NGA curatorial files. This Amsterdam marine painter, who studied with his brother-in-law Jan Porcellis (before 1584–1632), was an effective painter of naval battles, but he never developed Porcellis’ compositional sensitivity or achieved the atmospheric qualities that emanate from the older artist’s palette. Anthonissen’s less accomplished style is in many ways quite close to that found in this painting, although his mastery of ship details quite surpasses that evident here.[4]  [4]
Quite close to Van Anthonissen in style is the work of Aert Anthonisz (1580–1620), alias Aert van Antum, an Amsterdam follower of Hendrick Vroom (1566–1640) about whom little is known. For both artists, see Rupert Preston, The Seventeenth-Century Marine Painters of the Netherlands (Leigh-on-Sea, 1974), 2, 65–66; and Laurens J. Bol, Die holländische Marinemalerie des 17. Jahrhunderts (Braunschweig, 1973), 11–29, 36–40.

A closer comparison, however, can be made with the work of another retardataire marine painter, Jacob Adriaensz Bellevois (Dutch, 1620/1622 - 1676). This Rotterdam artist was influenced by Jan Porcellis’ son, Julius Porcellis (c. 1609–1645), who practiced his tonal style in that port city. Just as with Anthonissen, however, Bellevois never did develop into an effective tonal artist, in large part because he remained wedded to earlier pictorial traditions, particularly those of Hendrick Vroom (1566–1640).[5]  [5]
For the importance of Vroom for the development of Dutch marine painting, see Margarita Russell, Visions of the Sea: Hendrick C. Vroom and the Origins of Dutch Marine Painting (Leiden, 1983). Whether painting shipwrecks or vessels sailing in a brisk wind along the Dutch coast [fig. 1]  

[fig. 1] Jacob Adriaensz Bellevois, Two Warships Bringing in a Capture, 1660s, oil on panel, Walters Art Museum, Baltimore, Bellevois spread his vessels randomly along the breadth of the picture plane rather than uniting them into an integrated whole. While his palette remained largely limited to monochromes of gray and brown, he differentiated between foreground and middle ground with artificially constructed zones of shadow and sunlight rather than with the diagonal compositional schema developed by Julius Porcellis and his father. Also characteristic of his style is that he painted rather loosely, never softening details of the boats or of the riggings so that they merged atmospherically into the broader tonal character of the image. All of these mannerisms are evident in the Gallery’s painting. Also consistent with his style is the lack of weight felt in the material of the sails and, perhaps most tellingly, the distinctive staffage figures that populate the ships. The figures in Bellevois’ paintings are quite schematically rendered and almost always wear hats with wide, flat brims.

The one mitigating feature in any effort to attribute this work to Bellevois is that the quality level is perhaps lower than his standard. His whitecaps tend to be more softly rendered and integrated into the waves than they are in this work. Likewise, the three-dimensional qualities of his ships are usually more convincing than they appear here. Whether this range of quality is acceptable within his work is uncertain given our fragmentary knowledge of his life and work. Little is known of the evolution of his style, thus one cannot say whether this painting would date early or late in his career. Perhaps Bellevois had a workshop, or perhaps the problems noticed here are exacerbated by the painting’s poor condition. At this time too many unknowns exist to be able to establish a firm attribution for this work.

Arthur K. Wheelock Jr.

April 24, 2014