How Did Bosschaert's Venus Mourning The Death Of Adonis?
1026 Words5 Pages
Thomas was born in the Southern Netherlands to a wealthy Catholic family and at a young age moved to Antwerp where he received artistic training and eight years later in 1636 he was accepted into the Guild of St. Luke. Antwerp, which the Spanish controlled at this time, was the primary commercial and trading center of the Low Countries. In the mid 1500s dissatisfaction with Phillip II, the king of Spain, causes a civil war to breakout during which Iconoclasts destroyed religious images, Catholic art and church décor and as a result even after Spain regained its control of Flanders churches are still empty at the beginning of the 17th century. This generated a high demand for artists and craftsmen who could create new works of religious art…show more content… In his Venus Mourning the Death of Adonis, Bosschaert’s formulaic execution of the subject matter, emotional narrative, and human form serve to characterize him as an early 17th century Flemish painter, involved with the Guild of St. Luke in Antwerp, and highly influenced by and even compelled to imitate his contemporaries, Peter Paul Rubens and Anthony Van Dyck. It is evidently and understandably common that the subject matter of works of art both religious and secular were often repeated - The Crucifixion, The Annunciation, Cupid and Psyche, etc. - , however in comparing Thomas’ Mourning of the Death of Adonis and Ruben’s The Death of Adonis the paintings share features in a way that goes beyond simply a common subject matter, but betrays a formulaic execution of the myth. The two artists had collaborated on the Torre de la Parada project, for which Rubens was commissioned sixty mythological paintings. Ruben’s Death of Adonis was painted in 1614 and would have been seen by Thomas’ who clearly used the work as a model for his own painting. The only obvious difference is that Rubens includes the three graces who mourn…show more content… Although indeed Rubenesque, the rounded and weighty forms of the figures in VMDA more greatly evoke the figures of van Dyck than of Rubens. There is a fleshiness and luminosity to the skin of the figures. Although when compared to each other Thomas’ Venus especially seems to be emitting a soft light where Adonis’ has a pallor, details which serve to highlight the contrast between life and death and support the narrative of the moment by highlighting the contrast between the dead form of Adonis and the live Venus. Venus’ face is classic depiction of standard beauty at this time, soft rounded cheeks and a plump chin - a standard created by Rubens and perpetuated by the Flemish art school. However, Thomas’ figures lack the voluptuousness of Rubens’. They’re more streamlined yet unmistakably Rubenesque at the core and with an unmistakable affinity to Van Dyck’s forms. Moreover, there is evidence that Van Dyck more than influenced Thomas’ who directly copied the artist’s work for another of his paintings: “Around 1646 Thomas Willeboirts Bosschaert used a reverse freehand copy of figures in the Van Dyck painting [The Virgin and Child with Angel Musicians] for his own composition: The Apotheosis of the Virgin.” Again there is this