Depictions of elegant country houses came into vogue in the latter half of the seventeenth century as increasing numbers of wealthy Dutch merchants built homes along the river Vecht and in other picturesque locations in the Netherlands. Artists who specialized in architectural painting, among them Jan van der Heyden (Dutch, 1637 - 1712), depicted the houses and gardens in great detail. Surprisingly, however, not all of these seemingly accurate representations portray actual structures; sometimes the scenes were purely imaginary, intended to project an ideal of country existence rather than its actuality (see Van der Heyden’s An Architectural Fantasy). Ruisdael, who painted views of country houses only rarely during his long career, was not an artist who felt constrained to convey a precise record of an actual site, and it seems probable that this view of a country estate is an imaginative reconstruction of one he had seen.
The elegant classicist villa standing beyond the informal, almost wilderness garden in this painting contains architectural elements characteristic of country houses from the period. The façade of the yellow two-story structure in the National Gallery of Art’s painting is articulated by pilasters, a stringcourse, and a balustrade. A triangular pediment, flanked by vases and small dormers, crowns the central bay. While no known structure in the Netherlands or in the western part of Germany is identical, the façade that most resembles this villa is Vredenburgh, designed by Pieter Jansz Post (Netherlandish, 1608 - 1669) and constructed on Frederick Alewijn’s estate in the Purmer polder near Westwijk in 1652. Long since destroyed and known today only through a contemporary engraving, the façade of Vredenburgh differs in that it has giant pilasters rising the whole height of the building and no stringcourse or balustrade.
Far more important for the composition than the villa, however, is the garden. The tall Norwegian spruces that soar above the other trees would have been seen by Ruisdael’s contemporaries as exotic specimens imported from Scandinavia. They have been somewhat randomly placed within a form of pleasure garden, whose natural and artificial components are enjoyed by the various groups of people that meander through the grounds. On the far right figures gather near the entrance of a large vaulted pavilion covered with foliage. On the opposite side of the garden three figures gaze at an elaborate fountain, which is surmounted by a small sculpted figure of a manneken pis (peeing boy). An even more dramatic fountain is situated in the right center. Balanced in the waterspout high above the base is a small ball. Just beyond this fountain two figures gesture in surprise as they are suddenly caught within a trick fountain spurting up around them.
Although the form of the pavilion and trick fountains were garden elements that existed by the late seventeenth century, Ruisdael does not seem to have based his scene on any particular site. It would be most unusual for formal garden elements, such as pavilions and fountains, to be placed within such a wilderness garden. Wilderness gardens, moreover, were generally not placed adjacent to classicist villas where formal gardens, geometrically designed and meticulously groomed, were to be found at both the front and back of the house. Indeed, given the existence of the broken pine lying in the left foreground and the architectural fragment, perhaps a broken cornice, lying in the lower right, it would seem that Ruisdael’s intent was more didactic than topographic. These two elements, symbolic of the passage of time and the transience of existence, serve as a framework against which to measure the frivolous activities of the pleasure garden.
In part because the painting lacks the heroic drama of Ruisdael’s scenes from the middle of his career and in part because the brushwork is quite restrained, scholars have always placed Country House in a Park at the end of Ruisdael’s career. The restoration of the painting in 1993, however, has revealed that the brushwork and color tonalities are far more vibrant than had been believed, which suggests that the painting may date from the mid-1670s rather than around 1680 as had previously been thought. The style of the costumes worn by the staffage figures would also be possible for the mid-1670s. The painting, in any event, certainly predates two related, but weaker, late works by Ruisdael, Country House in a Park in Berlin [fig. 1]
[fig. 1] Jacob van Ruisdael, Country House in a Park, late 1670s, oil on canvas, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Gemäldegalerie. Photo: bpk, Berlin / Staatliche Museen, Berlin / Jörg P. Anders / Art Resource, NY and Chateau in the Park (Fisher Gallery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles).
Ruisdael often collaborated with artists who executed staffage figures in his compositions, particularly at the end of his life. Similar figures in other paintings by Ruisdael from the 1670s appear to have been executed by the Rotterdam artist Gerrit van Battem (c. 1636–1684). The figures in this work, however, lack the solidity characteristic of Van Battem’s style. Indeed, there is neither technical nor stylistic evidence to indicate that anyone other than Ruisdael executed them.
Arthur K. Wheelock Jr.
April 24, 2014
