Cuyp or Calraet?
It is not only subsequently added signatures that can send researchers in the wrong direction, monograms of the actual artist can also sow confusion. This is the case, for example, with the initials AC, which conceal the identity of two different artists.
One monogram, two artists
Alongside Aelbert Cuyp (1620-1691), Abraham van Calraet (1642-1722) is currently recognised as one of the leading painters of cattle and horses of the seventeenth century. That was not always the case. For many years Van Calraet languished in obscurity
and the initials AC, with which several animal paintings from Dordrecht were signed, were considered to indicate the work of Aelbert Cuyp. This raised Cuyp to a remarkably productive painter, and indeed, the cattle and horse paintings of Cuyp and
Van Calraet are so similar that they might have been painted by the same artist.
Van Calraet had probably been apprenticed to Cuyp and it was from him that he had acquired the skills of the genre. Either way, around 1660 he held a prominent place at the studio and Cuyp delegated key assignments to him. When Van Calraet set up as an
independent artist he adopted the practice of signing his name with the initials AC. Since these were the same letters used by his former teacher the consequence was confusion. As a result, Van Calraet disappeared from view for a long time.
Bredius versus Hofstede de Groot
Matters began to change when the leading art expert of the early twentieth century, Dr Abraham Bredius, discovered a Still Life with Peaches signed with the full A.v.Calraet signature, currently at the Mauritshuis in The Hague. With this
as his premise and supported by extensive research in archives, Bredius managed to redefine Van Calraet’s oeuvre. He succeeded in identifying mainly still lifes, but also stable interiors, cavalry skirmishes and landscapes with horses as being by the
artist. In 1915 and 1916 a lively polemical exchange ensued in the pages of Oude Kunst magazine between Bredius and the other leading art expert of the time, Dr Cornelis Hofstede de Groot, in which the latter defended his earlier interpretation
of the monogram AC as belonging to Aelbert Cuyp. Eventually, Hofstede de Groot was forced to bow to the weight of the arguments that Bredius presented. Since then, Van Calraet has enjoyed a deserved reputation as one of the seventeenth century’s
well-known masters.
Van Calraet versus Cuyp
While it was the similarities between the two masters that used to be emphasised, now, as art-historical expertise advances, it is the differences between them that receive attention. Because Cuyp enjoyed his greatest successes with river landscapes
drenched in golden Italian sunlight, he placed his animals in similar southern-style landscapes. Moreover, he generally incorporated various figures in his settings, to give the painting a narrative character. Wealthy burghers eagerly commissioned Cuyp to
portray them with aristocratic trappings, seated on a horse in an expansive landscape, for example. Patrons such as these rarely appear in Van Calraet’s paintings, since his work was largely intended for sale on the open market. Apart from the more
pretentious paintings, such as his cavalry skirmishes and dressage schools, this is especially true of his landscapes with horses.
Typical Dutch landscape
Two Horses in a Landscape is a splendid example of this aspect of Van Calraet’s oeuvre. Beside an attractive tree trunk, which marks the edge of the pictorial plane, two horses are standing peacefully, side by side. Three ducks are resting beside
the water in the foreground. The farmer’s wife and her cows link the central plane with the background, but it is above all the oasis of light that unites the composition. The sun, which is left out of view for the observer, shines from the top left
corner and casts its light over the entire scene. Minute reflections of light lend the horses’ coats a soft, velvet touch, accentuate the duck plumage and emphasise the relief of the tree trunk. Past the horses and over the backs of the kine the eye is
led towards the horizon which lies behind the mill in an unmistakably Dutch landscape.
Noble creatures
In his Grondt der edel vry schilder-const - which first appeared in his Schilderboeck of 1604 - the artist and art theorist Karel van Mander devoted a separate chapter to the depiction of animals. He opened with a treatment of the
noblest of all creatures, describing them as ‘the aristocrats of livestock, of enormous value, these are the compliant, courageous horses: noble (I say) because horses are found to have many characteristics; like dogs they are loyal to their master and
love him; their great bravery is indomitable’ (fol. 38). From these words it is clear how much horses were valued at this time. Accurate realistic portraits of horses therefore enjoyed tremendous popularity. With their long legs and shining coats, horses
were an attractive sight which few artists left out of their depictions of the typical Dutch landscape, but above all the animal was a valued possession that provided labour, and most importantly, status.
Preliminary sketches
When painting his animal pictures Van Calraet probably used sketches made from life. This can be concluded, for example, from the inventory of his estate which mentions various portraits of horses with the names of the animals’ owners. That Van Calraet
used preparatory sketches is further suggested by the appearance of the dark-brown horse in our painting in another work by the artist. This depiction of a horse was catalogued in 1977/1978 at an exhibition presented by the Dordrechts Museum as a work by
Aelbert Cuyp. In 1999, however, the same picture was shown in Baltimore under the name Abraham van Calraet. In addition to our increasing knowledge about Van Calraet, this revised attribution was doubtless also due to the disappearance of Cuyp’s signature
when the work was restored. The authorship of the piece as noted in Baltimore is certainly correct, although Van Calraet hardly made life easy for the art historians of today by placing this single horse in an Italian landscape inspired by Cuyp.
Famous livestock painters
The Aelbert Cuyp versus Van Calraet controversy has now been largely settled. Both masters are generally easy to identify. It is only in his animal and cattle paintings that Van Calraet approaches the levels achieved by his celebrated teacher, as in the
case of the Baltimore horse. It applies to this superbly executed Two Horses in a Landscape too. Here the world of difference between Cuyp and Calraet is not one of artistic calibre. Cuyp is world famous; Calraet is a favourite of
connoisseurs.
Abraham van Calraet was born in Dordrecht in 1642. He originally trained as a sculptor, but later became a painter. From the manner of his paintings it seems clear that he was taught by his famous fellow townsman Aelbert Cuyp. And since both artists signed their work with the same initials and tended to paint the same subjects it has not always been easy to distinguish the two oeuvres.