Van Dyck and Britain
by mercuriuspoliticus
I finally got round to visiting Tate Britain for its Van Dyck and Britain exhibition on Friday. It’s a very well put together collection. The exhibition starts with a look at English portraiture before Van Dyck’s arrival in London, leading through into portraits of Charles I and his family and of Charles’s court. As well as the familiar portraits – Charles on horseback, Henrietta Maria in all her finery, the young Charles II in armour – it has some less well-known works like this amazing portrait of Lucy Percy, Countess of Carlisle:
It then moves from the public to the private to focus on Van Dyck’s personal life. The highlight here is undoubtedly the famous double portrait of Van Dyck and his friend Endymion Porter:
For me one of the best parts of the exhbition was the section on the impact of Van Dyck. I was really pleased that the Tate had got hold of engravings by Pierre Lombart inspired by Van Dyck’s portrait of Charles I on horseback. Here is the first, showing Oliver Cromwell as Lord Protector and produced at some point after 1655:
AN150548001, © The Trustees of the British Museum
It is a straight lift from Van Dyck’s portrait of Charles I on horseback with M. de St Antoine:
Alongside the Cromwell engraving, the Tate had a subsequent impression of the plate, this time with Cromwell’s head scratched out and Charles I’s head put in:
AN150545001, © The Trustees of the British Museum
But I thought the Tate missed a trick by not showing the intermediate plate, which has become known as the Headless Horseman:
AN150541001, © The Trustees of the British Museum
There was also a wonderful portrait by John Singer Sergeant of the Earl of Dalhousie, which owes a debt to Van Dyck’s portrait of Lord John Stuart and his brother Lord Bernard:
Talking to a few other visitors, it seems that most people there on Friday afternoon were struck by how well Van Dyck captured the fashions of the 1630s: the flowing hair, the sumptuous fabrics. But walking out of the Tate, I realised that what had inspired me most wasn’t the emblems and accessories in the portraits – flawlessly executed as they are – but the simpler portraits, where the sitter’s expression is what conveys their power. The picture I kept coming back to, above all others, was Van Dyck’s portrait of the earl of Strafford with Sir Philip Mainwaring.
As a painting this is sparsely detailed compared to many of the martially- or mythologically-inspired grand portraits of Charles’s court. But Van Dyck has captured Strafford’s mix of charisma and utter ruthlessness perfectly. Walking out onto Millbank it was Strafford’s steely gaze that I took away with me.
How I would love to see that exhibition! However it’s a leetle bit far away … me being in Australia.
I smiled a bit to see this: “Talking to a few other visitors, it seems that most people there on Friday afternoon were struck by how well Van Dyck captured the fashions of the 1630s: the flowing hair, the sumptuous fabrics.”
Actually Van Dyck “classicised” a lot of his English portraits. The portrait of Lady Carlisle is a good example. There’s very little reference to contemporary fashion in this one; a timeless, Arcadian look was sought, tying in, I think, with the neo-Platonic ideas at court, particularly in the Queen’s circle. For an idea of what the real clothes looked like, Daniel Mytens and Cornelis Johnson are good sources – at least before they started copying Van Dyck’s style!
It’s fascinating to see the few remaining garments from the time. They were a lot easier and more comfortable than the late Elizabethan clothes the King’s generation wore as youngsters – but they weren’t the free-flowing satins of Van Dyck’s sumptous art, either. Canvas interlining and heavy cardboard stiffening (not to mention corsets for the women) do not a lightweight garment make!
Some good references if anyone is interested:
A Visual History of Costume – the Seventeenth Century (Valerie Cumming)
The Development of Costume (Naomi Tarrant)
Costume in Detail – 17th and 18th Centuries (Avril Hart and Susan North)
[…] To get you thinking about Van Dyke and his work see this study of Van Dyke’s portrait of Archbiship Laud at Mercurius Politicus. Who has also been to the exhibition. You can see his review https://mercuriuspoliticus.wordpress.com/2009/03/15/van-dyck-and-britain/. […]
[…] saw “The Headless Horseman”, an engraving by Pierre Lombart which underwent some drastic […]
Hate to be a busybody, but dear sir, Mr John Singer Sargent is the correct spelling of his name. Wether or not he was a sergeant in his days is unknown to me but I admire and enjoy his works tremendously as is also the case with Van Dyke. Envy you your visit to the Tate…
[…] or False: A Dutch-trained painter revolutionized British portraiture in the early 17th […]
I’ll see your mis-spelled Sergeant and raise you one mis-spelled Van Dyke… 🙂
It was a very good exhibition though!
[…] Review of Tate Britain’s Van Dyck exhibition. […]
I’m confused! It seems there were two paintings, one by van Dyck and one by Henry Stone after van Dyck. The first claims to be a portrait of Strafford with George Radcliffe, the other of Strafford with Philip Mainwaring. And yet the face is the same in both paintings!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/sir-thomas-wentworth-15931641-1st-earl-of-strafford-dictat62659
http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/sir-thomas-wentworth-15931641-earl-of-strafford-and-sir-ph69407
Do you have any ideas about how to find out whether it is Radcliffe or Mainwaring portrayed alongside Strafford? I’m asking on behalf of someone who has a family connection to Radcliffe and would like to know if this is an ancestral family portrait or not.
[…] or False: A Dutch-trained painter revolutionized British portraiture in the early 17th […]