cole_doorways 17c dutch painting
Post on 03-Jun-2018
219 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/12/2019 COLE_Doorways 17C Dutch Painting
1/19
WaveringBetweenTwoWorlds
TheDoorwayinSeventeenthCenturyDutchGenrePainting
GeorginaCole
Doors and doorways orchestrate and arrange ourmovements in the urban
world.Theyaretheinstrumentsofanarchitecturalpatterningin,out,entrance,
exitthatshapesandcontainsboththehumanandthesocialbody.Aslimina,or
thresholds,doorsdemarcateanddelimit,butalsoallowtheconjoiningof,different
spaces.Theymediatebetween insideandoutside,homeandworld,privateand
public, forming permeable boundaries between heterogeneous zones of
experience.Perhaps
because
of
their
pervading
presence,
doors
have
long
been
appropriatedasasiteofsymbolicormetaphoricalmeaning.1Withinthehistoryof
western representation, the door crystallises an image of ambivalence or
movement between states, signalling either a physical or metaphysical
transformation.2 It is,however, inDutch genrepainting of themidseventeenth
century, that thisvisual fascination in thedoorappears to reachanapogee,and
doorsachieveacuriousubiquitywithinartisticrepresentation.
Indeed, the interestofDutchgenrepaintings (scenesofeveryday life) in the
representational
possibilities
of
the
door
appears
almost
obsessive.
Figures
stand
at
itorinit,huddleasidetoletitgapeopenatthebackofaroom,orworknearitin
thelightreflectedfromthestreetoutside.Inthelate1640s,theturntointeriors,as
the setting of genre painting, began to focus attention on the constitutive
possibilitiesof thedoorwithinadomesticmilieu.By the1650sand60s,doors
doorways,opendoors,halfopendoors,evencloseddoorscanbe found in the
paintingsofeachprovinceandintheworkofalmosteveryknowngenrepainter.
They featureheavily inthe interiorpaintingsofartistssuchasPieterSaenredam,
Emmanuel de Witte, Nicolaes Maes, Jacob Ochtervelt, Pieter de Hooch, and
SamuelVan
Hoogstraten,
opening
out
onto
streets,
courtyards,
and
other
rooms.
Doors constitute the representational limits of the interior, and consequently
functionintheseworksasthearchitecturalmediumthroughwhichdomesticspace
is constructed and interpreted.3As adynamic architectural aperturewithin the
interior,thedooremergesinDutchpaintingasoneofthecentralrepresentational
strategiesof theperiod.Andof themodalitiesof thedoor, it is thedoorway in
particularthatappearstoengagetheseventeenthcenturyDutchimagination.4
The doorway is the framing constituent of the threshold complex. It is an
unmodulated
aperture,
the
door
itself
being
either
missing
or
wide
open.Though
similar to the open door, the doorway is a modality of entrance inclusive of
portals,doorway arches, and otherdoorless apertures.5 It alsodiffers from the
-
8/12/2019 COLE_Doorways 17C Dutch Painting
2/19
PhilamentLIMINALDecember2006
halfopen door and closed door in its configuration of a space that is openly
accessibleandconnectedwithitsadjacentareas.Doorwaysopengapsininteriors,
allowingoutsidein,andthequalityofenclosedinsidenesstoescape.Asthepoint
of intersection, or interstitial zone between culturally inscribed places, the
doorwayforms
the
site
at
which
differentiated
areas
brush
against
one
another,
and aremingled into an indistinct zone of exchange.6 Toborrow fromEdward
Caseys terminology, the doorway is a nonplace, an extraterritorial zone of
spatial experiencewithout a specific topology.7 Consequently, the space of the
doorway takesonacharacterof inbetweenness,which itborrows fromeachof
theareas it intersects. It isanareaof transition,passage,andmovement,a fluid
areacircumscribedbyastaticand immoveable frame.In thissense, thedoorway
canbe thoughtofasa liminalspace,anunstableareaof fluxbetween insideand
outside
or
one
room
and
another,
and,
unlike
the
other
modalities
of
the
door,
it
is
aspatialpositionthatcanbeoccupied.
It is revealing thatDutchgenrepainting selects this specificmodalityof the
door as its primary form of spatial inquiry, as, in so doing, it implicates the
doorwaysassociationsoffluxandtransition intoastudyofthehome.8InDutch
genre, the home is appropriated as a domain of visual and pictorial
experimentation, and in this context, doorways function to form dialectical
relationshipsbetween insideandoutsideand contribute to the spatialisationof
figures as insiders or outsiders. Within the matrix of the domestic interior,
doorwaysare
appropriated
as
an
architectural
framework
for
narrative
action,
configuringdifferentkindsofspacesandspatialsubjectpositions.Mundaneparts
ofeverydayexperience,doorwaysareelevatedinDutcharttosignsoftransition,
transgression,andterritorialisation.
It ismycontentionthatthedoorway isnotmerelyapartofDutchpaintings
setting,but,throughananalysisofitsvisualdeployment,canrevealmuchabout
the strategies and themes of seventeenthcentury representation. Firstly, the
doorway is often used in these paintings as a form of internal frame, which
generates
a
dialogue
with
the
physical
frame
around
the
representation,
both
affirming and questioning the limits of the image. In away that is particularly
evident in the illusionisticworks of Samuel vanHoogstraten, the doorway can
invite an exchange between the fictive space of painting and the field of the
beholder,producingaliminalspaceofcontactbetweenrepresentationandreality
thatdestabilisestheirdefinitiveseparation.
Secondly,as Ishallargue, thedoorway inDutchgenrecanalsodemarcatea
site of liminal subjectivity within the image. In the work of Nicolaes Maes,
doorwaysalsooperateasinternalframes,buttheplacementofafigurewithinthe
liminalspace
of
the
doorway
produces
adifferent
kind
of
narrative
identity.
Doorwaybound, this figure iskeptapart from theunfoldingofnarrativeevents
19
-
8/12/2019 COLE_Doorways 17C Dutch Painting
3/19
-
8/12/2019 COLE_Doorways 17C Dutch Painting
4/19
PhilamentLIMINALDecember2006
number ofworks that focus upon the gaps at theboundaries of domesticity
particularly the doorway as a setting for interactionsbetween the classes of
Dutchsociety.Inthefirstofthesepaintings,StreetMusiciansattheDoor,from1665
(fig.1),thedarkenedinteriorfocusestheviewersattentiononthedoorway,which
frames two roughly clad, smiling musicians. 12 A delighted child pulls the
maidservanttowardthem,creatingapyramidalfiguralgroupingwithinthespace
ofthedoorway.Thelightfloodingthethresholdunitesthefourfigureswithinits
frame,whilstmaintainingastrictseparationalongterritoriallines.Ontheexterior
sideofthedoorway,thepinkish,hazytonesofthestreetstainthemusicianswitha
ruddy light,whilst on the interior side, the limpid colours of thewomens and
childsdressesgleambrightlywithinthedarkenedroom.Thespaceandpersonae
of
the
town
are
dramatically
contrasted
with
that
of
the
home
through
these
implicitvisualsignals,without,however,allowing outside toposeany threat.13
Neitheroftheshabbymusiciansactuallytransgressestheboundarylinecreatedby
thestoop:itistheirmusic,andnottheirselves,whichisreceivedintotheinterior
of the patrician home. Indeed, none of the insiders actually look at the street
musiciansoutside,andaccordingly, themusicians themselvesseembentonlyon
entertaining the little girl,who is the focus of all of the characters gazes.As a
result, the scene appears to celebrate a happy moment that transcends class
boundaries,whilst
discreetly
affirming
them.
Though
neatly
contained
within
a
spatialandsocialhierarchy,thedoorway,however,allowsasanctionedexchange
tooccurbetween these figures fromopposedworlds,whilstspatiallyreinforcing
theclassboundariesthatseparatethem.
ThedoorwayalsodividesbuyerfromsellerintheworkofoneofRembrandts
pupils,DordrechtartistNicolaesMaes.After1660,Maesdedicatedhimselfsolely
toportraiture,butduringthe1650s,producedmanygenreworksofsignificance,
intricate imagesofDutchurban life.Onesuchpainting isTheMilkSeller,of1657
(fig.2).
Seen
from
the
street
side
of
the
domestic
divide,
an
old
woman
carefully
countsoutcoins into thehandofabrusquelookingmotheron thedoorstep, the
Dutch twopart door reinforcing their spatial and social separation. Behind the
milk sellerand child, the citygatesdemarcateanotherpointof transition that
intothetown.TheseriesofdoorsandgatesinMaespaintingmakesastudyofthe
relationship between insiders and outsiders, establishing social order through
spatial systematisation. In both Maes and Ochtervelts paintings, the social
hierarchy is laterally arranged, with the doorway deployed as the point of
transitionor
negotiation
between
each
inner
circle.
Beggars
and
vendors
are
always kept outside the door, and their contact with the domestic interior
21
-
8/12/2019 COLE_Doorways 17C Dutch Painting
5/19
PhilamentLIMINALDecember2006
Fig1:JacobOchtervelt,StreetMusiciansattheDoor,1665,oiloncanvas,TheSt.LouisArtMuseum,St.Louis
Fig2 :NicolaesMaes,TheMilkSeller,c.1657,oiloncanvas,ApsleyHouse,London
22
-
8/12/2019 COLE_Doorways 17C Dutch Painting
6/19
PhilamentLIMINALDecember2006
throughthedoorwayisstrictlygovernedbytherulesofeconomictransaction.
In Victor Turners more complex exploration of Van Genneps
conceptualisation of liminal rites, liminality pertains to an interstructural
situation.14Ifwemayinterpretthissituationasaspatialone,thenthedoorwayin
MaesandOchterveltspaintingscertainlyfunctionsasaliminal,inbetweenarea,
asitisazonethatremainsuncapturedbyeitherspatialinstitutionbeingneither
insidenoroutside,privatenorpublic,civicnordomestic,upper classnor lower
class.15Withintheseportraitsofexplicitlyidealisedclassrelations,thespaceofthe
doorway functionsasadeterritorialisedzone,anareaculturallynullifiedby the
exchangeofgoodsorservicesformoney.16BothOchterveltandMaessuggestthe
doorway to be an area in which spatiocultural coordinates are momentarily
suspended.Thereisnosubjectivetransformationofthefigures,astheyarenever
permittedtoactuallycrossthethreshold,butthedoorwayisstronglyemphasised
as an intercultural, liminal spacebetween classes and, inOchtervelts painting,
evengender.
Other genre paintings, however, do not restrict the two worlds that the
doorway conjoins to social spheres of experience. In thework of Samuel van
Hoogstraten, it also defines a point of transition between reality and
representation.17 In hisworks, the liminality of the doorway is appropriated to
questionthebeholdersrelationshiptotheartobjectitself,andisusedtoestablish
a new kind of viewing structure between the work and its beholder. Indeed,
Hoogstratensuseofillusionism,animportantaspectofDutchartpractices,when
consideredfromthisperspective,canitselfbeseenasinhabitingaspacebetween
thespectatorsworldandthatofrepresentation.
Painterlymimesis, ithasbeenproposed, allows for spectatorial recognition,
theimagematchingupwithapriorrealitythattheviewerreexperiencesintheir
beholdingof thepainting.18 Inrepresentingandreformulating theworldof the
spectatorinpaint,themimeticworkallowsidentificationwiththesubjectdepicted
to occur. In the case of illusionism, however, it would appear that that
identification is pushed into an apparent continuity between the world of the
spectatorandthedeicticrealityoftheartwork.Worldandimagearemomentarily
anddeliberatelyelided.Thiselisioncanbeinterpretedasproducingaliminalzone
thatintervenesbetweentherealworldandtherepresentedworld;amergingthat
isreinforcedbythepresenceoftheframingdoorway.19
Illusionism was a mode of representation often incorporated into the
predominantlymimetic strategies ofDutch genre painting.20VanHoogstratens
perspectiveboxes
are
an
extreme
example
of
this
particular
aspect
of
Dutch
art
making (figs 3a. and b.). The perspective box is painted on the inside like a
23
-
8/12/2019 COLE_Doorways 17C Dutch Painting
7/19
-
8/12/2019 COLE_Doorways 17C Dutch Painting
8/19
PhilamentLIMINALDecember2006
Furthermore, a folded letter (unwittingly dropped?) on the first step of the
staircase at right awakens our curiosity and the desire to
imaginatively enter the painting, and a key, hung on a nail on the right hand
doorwaypost,seeminglysuggeststhatwehavetheauthoritytodoso,thatweare
giventhe
power
to
access
the
spaces
of
the
work. 24
At
over
two
and
ahalf
Fig4:SamuelvanHoogstraten,
Viewdownacorridor,1662,oil
oncanvas,DyrhamPark,
Gloucestershire
metres high, Hoogstratens work deliberately
invites thissenseofplayful interpenetrability,
encouraging the viewer to imagine her or
himselfabletoenterthepaintingphysically.
The dimensions of the image, and the
framing doorway, gain purpose when
consideredin
relation
to
the
works
original
contextofexhibition,known tous through the
writings of Samuel Pepys, who viewed this
painting in the collection of Englishman
Thomas Povey inJanuary 1663.According to
Pepys diary, Povey kept Hoogstratens
painting, not on display, but hidden in a
cupboard.WhetherthiswasPoveysingenious
idea, or a suggestion of Hoogstratens is
unknown,but thisunusualmodeofexhibition
literallyhingeson thepaintings large framing
doorway.Pepyswasmuchimpressedwiththis
arrangement,writingonthe26thofJanuary:
Butaboveallthings,Idothemostadmirehispieceofperspectiveespecially,
heopening
me
the
closet
door
and
there
Isaw
that
there
is
nothing
but
only
aplainpicturehunguponthewall.25
As Pepys intimates, Povey showed his guests this prized possession by
opening the door of the cupboard. Attached to the paintings doorway, the
cupboarddoorbecomesapartoftherepresentation.Whenthedoorisopened,the
painted corridor is suddenly fused with the beholders reality, and appears
momentarily threedimensional, stretching out vertiginously in an illusionistic
distortionofspace.Thisinterminglingofobjectandimageoperatestodissolvethe
surface of the work, creating a third dimension through the merging of the
beholdersspaceand thediegeticrealityofthepaintedrepresentation. AsPepys
25
-
8/12/2019 COLE_Doorways 17C Dutch Painting
9/19
PhilamentLIMINALDecember2006
suggests,however, the illusionbelongs only to the instant, and indeedhis own
enjoymentseemstoarisefromhisdisillusion,indiscoveringthatitisonlyaplain
picturehunguponthewall.26
Inthisinstant,Hoogstratensdoorwaypaintingarisesasaspaceofrupturea
crack or fissure between the worlds of lived experience and representation.
Combining theobjectsofour realitywith trompe loeil illusion,ViewonaCorridor
reproduces itself as a liminal space that intercedes between reality and
representation. Significantly, it is the painted doorway that forms the hinge
between theseworlds,anduponwhich the illusionismdepends,as itcreatesan
apparent contiguity between experiential and pictorial spaces. In this way,
Hoogstratenspainting exploits the liminalaspectof thedoorway, itspervading
sense of spatial inbetweenness. It takes advantage of the way in which the
doorwaycan
open
up
an
imagined
mutual
accessibility
and
flux
between
spaces
anddimensions, in thiscase,producinga liminalcontinuitybetween imageand
world.
TheliminalitythatthedoorwayproducesinViewonacorridor,however,isnot
justrestrictedtospace.Italsoaffectstherelationshipbetweentheviewerandthe
work.Witness to the liminal space that Hoogstratens painting produces, and
subject to its trick, the viewer outside the frame can also be said to waver
betweentwoworldsbetweentheworldofobjectsandtheworldoftheimage.27
The
beholder
of
Hoogstratens
painting
occupies
the
doorway
itself,
standing
withintheliminalzoneproducedbythepaintingstrompeloeilillusion.Asaresult,
the viewer is momentarily liminised by his participation in the ritualistic
unveilingof the image.Simultaneouslybelonging toourworldand thatof the
image,thedoorway,withitsphysicaldoor,dissolvesthedistanceanddetachment
the viewer usually maintains before a painting by temporarily disguising the
fiction of the work. By liminising the spectator through trompe loeil illusion,
Hoogstratens work is rather exceptional in the Dutch genre tradition. More
commonly, thedoorways liminalityaffects thepainted figureswithin the frame.
InanotherworkbyNicolaesMaes,TheEavesdropper,of1657,thedoorwayselision
of representation and reality is transposed onto a painted figure inhabiting its
threshold,whoostensiblytakesonitsliminalimplications.
IIA seriesof sixpaintings executedbyMaesbetween1655and1675 similarly
appropriatesdomesticarchitecture for themeansofvisual experimentation.The
series, known today as the Eavesdroppers, studies domestic relationships
determinedby
the
architecture
of
the
home.28
Each
painting
in
the
group
depicts,
inaninteriorsetting,afigurestandingatthethresholdoftwospaces,listeningto
27
-
8/12/2019 COLE_Doorways 17C Dutch Painting
10/19
PhilamentLIMINALDecember2006
an illicitengagement,either theiremployeesseduction,or theiremployersrage.
Theplayfulcharmofthepaintingsresidesintheirinternalcontrastsofspacesand
behaviours,andthehumoroustonewithwhichthesemoralorsexualindiscretions
areexposedtoview.Eachworkmobilisesthedomesticinteriorasitsstructureof
narrativecontrast,andineveryone,thedoorwayisdeployedastheaperturethat
framesthescenarioopeneduptoview.
Fig5 :NicolaesMaes,TheEavesdropper,1657,oiloncanvas,DordrechtsMuseum,Dordrecht
Of the group, the most ambitious and spatially complex is Maes The
Eavesdropper,dated1657(fig.5).Thespaceofthispaintingiscomposedofaseries
ofperforatedarchitecturallayerssuperimposedononeanother,eachrevisingand
fragmentingtheotheruntilthecomposition isentirelyframedwithinthearchor
rectangle of a doorway. The doorway is the central motif among a series of
architecturalframesthatallowtheeyetoenterdeepintothespaceofthehouse.A
total of eight apertures articulate the architectural joints of the interior, and
produceaformalplaybetweenlightanddark,andinsideandoutside,creatinga
seriesofboundarylineswhichoureyesareencouragedtotransgress.
Within the dense architectonic space of the painting, contrasting groups of
figurescan
be
seen,
framed
within
the
apertures
of
the
doorways.29
On
the
left,
a
flight of stairs channels the eye upward to a genteel dinner party, the people
28
-
8/12/2019 COLE_Doorways 17C Dutch Painting
11/19
PhilamentLIMINALDecember2006
gatheredaroundthetableconspicuouslybourgeoisindressandpose.Ontheright,
adarkenedcorridorushersourgazedowntoawelldressedfellowwhoiseagerly
embracing themaidservant.Standingwithin the lefthanddoorway,butbetween
these twodiagonallyopposedgroups, isaneavesdroppinghousewife.Raisinga
fingertoherlips,sheacknowledgesourviewingpresence,andwrylymotionsus
to silence as shegestures to the sight of themaids seduction.Her gesture also
drawsattentiontoacateatingfromplatesperhapsdestinedforthepartyupstairs,
visible through anotherdoorwayat the far right; the consequenceof themaids
distraction.30Theeavesdropperfunctionstobringthedisparatenarrativeelements
ofthecompositiontogether,andherappealtoourviewingpresencecallsuponus
toconnectthemasaseriesofcausallyrelatedevents.31
Doorways function compositionally as internal frames in The Eavesdropper,
containingand
presenting
each
episode
as
an
object
of
the
spectators
gaze.
The
elevatedburgher party, the embracing couple, the opportune cat, and even the
viewoutside,areallcaughtwithintheaperturesofthepaintingsmanydoorways.
Each isthussimultaneouslyseparatedandconnectedbytheflowofarchitectural
space,andsystematicallyheldwithinthestructureofthehouse.Withinthespatial
networkofthepainting,however,theeavesdropperispositionedatthemarginsof
thearchitecturalgrid thatorganisespictorial space.32 Inmovementon the stairs,
which,inconjunctionwiththedoorway,createanarchitecturalzoneoftransition,
she
is
literally
unfixed
from
the
framed
spaces.
Rather,
the
eavesdropper
appears
tobe liminallyalignedwith the spaceof thedoorway itself.Leaningagainst the
central column, and positioned in the foreground, she is removed from the
recessed figural groups. Thus contained within the space of the doorway, the
eavesdropper appears to be extraterritorialised from the social spaces of the
painting,andconsequentlyliminisedwithinthenarrativespaceofthepainting.33
Standing at the border line of one of the internal frames that organises the
narrative structureof thework, she canbe considereda figureof the frame, a
rhetoricalpersonagewho,accordingtoarttheoristLouisMarin,isalignedwiththe
boundaries of thework, and functions to draw the viewers gaze to the events
unfoldingwithinthepainting.34Sheisbothmarginalandcrucialtoourperception
of thepaintingsnarrative,aparadoxicalrole that isreinforcedbyherplacement
withintheliminalspaceofthedoorway.
In addition to their literal usage as framing devices, the doorways in The
Eavesdropperalsooperateasa liminalsignofcontact,orconnectedness.Through
Maes use of doorways, a sense of spatial interpenetrability ismade a decisive
aspectoftheimage.Visually,thisissignalledbythewayinwhichthedoorwayat
therear
of
the
composition
punctures
the
boundary
between
inside
and
outside,
houseandstreet.Thisperforationofspatialboundaries is furtheremphasisedby
29
-
8/12/2019 COLE_Doorways 17C Dutch Painting
12/19
PhilamentLIMINALDecember2006
theopendoorattheleftoftheforeground,whichseemstoanticipatetheentrance,
orsuggest thewatchingpresence,ofanother figureyet tocome intoview.These
doorways not only openup to sight,but also to a network ofpotentialhuman
movement.Defying our sense of the home as an enclosed, private sphere, the
doorwaysbreakdown the interior intoamazeofcorridors,dispersingourgaze
across a multitude of visual pathways. 35 These pathways form channels of
communicationbetween the spacesof the interior, creatinga senseof instability
and fluxwithin thepainting. Indeed, the embracing couples insensibilityof the
presenceoftheeavesdroppinghousewifecapturesliterallytheperhapsundesired
flowofcontactandcommunicationthedoorwayopensup.
Thiscontact,ofwhichthedoorisbothsignandinstigator,alsomanifestsinthe
figureof the eavesdropper.Capturingourattentionwithboth lookandgesture,
thehousewife
makes
contact
with
the
viewer.
With
raised
finger,
she
demonstrates
howwe should look at thepainting,gesturing to themaidservants seduction,
andguiding theviewer toperceive itsclandestinequality in relation to thecivil
groupupstairs.Shesolicitsourgazethroughherownroleasabeholderwithinthe
work:only shehas thepower to see themicrocosmic structureof thepainting,
andtheabilitytotheatricallyrevealthemaidservantsseduction.36Inmeetingour
gaze and responding to our presence, she appears to transgress theboundary
between the representationand theperceptive fieldof thebeholder,establishing
an
impossible
community
with
the
other
side
of
the
frame.
This
startling
solicitation has prompted art historian Victor Stoichita to argue for the
eavesdropperssimilaritytoafigureconceptualisedbytheselfdesignatedfounder
of art theory, Leon Battista Alberti. 37 Alberti famously consolidated the
experiments in linear perspective conducted by his Italian Renaissance
contemporariesintowhatwastobecomeoneofthemostinfluentialarttreatisesin
thewestern tradition,DePictura,published in1435.Alongsidehisdiscussionsof
perspective,however,Albertialsosetout,ingreatdetail,instructionsformakinga
painting.Amongthese,hearguedthatpaintersshouldincludeacommentatoras
an instructor and guide to the paintings beholder. This rhetorical persona
communicates themessageof thepaintingbydirectingtheviewerwhere to look
andwhatvisualconnectionstomake.Albertidefinesthiscommentatingfigureas
someone
whotellsthespectatorswhatisgoingon,andeitherbeckonsthemwithhis
hand to look,orwith ferocious expressionand forbiddingglance challenges
themnottocomenear,asifhewishedtheirbusinesstobesecret,orpointsto
somedangerorremarkablethinginthepicture,orbyhisgesturesinvitesyou
tolaugh
or
weep
with
them.38
30
-
8/12/2019 COLE_Doorways 17C Dutch Painting
13/19
PhilamentLIMINALDecember2006
TheAlbertian commentator acts equally and simultaneously as protagonist
andbeholder.Afigureinthework,butnotofthework,thecommentatoractivates
adialoguebetweenthetextanditscontext.39
Theeavesdroppinghousewifehasasimilarfunction.Sheisbothaprotagonist
in thepainting,andyetanostensiblebeholder,one thatexchangesaglance,and
seemingly identifies,with the viewer outside the frame. She is liminallyplaced
betweenthedeicticrealityofthepaintingandthefieldofthebeholderafigureof
theframethatisbothlookedatandlooksback.Incontrasttothepaintingsother
figures,whogoabouttheirbusinessapparentlyunawareofthevieweroutsidethe
frame, the housewife deliberately catches our eye, initiating a playful dialogue
withtheviewerthatseemstotransgressthesurfaceofthepainting.Actingasour
pictorialambassador
within
the
work,
she
enters
into
ateasing
and
illusory
intimacywithus,mediatingourperceptionof thepainting.Maes eavesdropper
seekstoinviteusintotheworkmuchinthesamewaythatHoogstratensdoorway
opens up a space of continuity between beholder and painting. In the
eavesdropping housewife can be discerned an essentially personal or figural
interpretationof thedoorways liminality,and shehas the samepictorial role in
engineeringasenseofcontactbetweenpaintingandspectator.
In the eavesdroppers initiation of the contact usually established by the
doorway, it appears that this figure of the frame can alsobe interpreted as a
personage of the doorway.40 Participatingbothwithin andwithout the deictic
realityof thepainting, the eavesdropper enacts the liminal indeterminacyof the
doorways spatial inbetweenness. Furthermore, through her communication
with theviewer,shegenerates thecontactbetweenheterogeneouszones thatwe
have seen to be the doorways architectonic and pictorial function. And, like
Hoogstratens framingdoorway, the eavesdropper isplacedon the threshold of
representational
and
experiential
space.
Not
only
does
she
connect
the
contrasting
narrativespaceswithinthepaintingthroughherrhetoricalroleascommentator,or
figureof the frame,butalsobrings thepainting intodialoguewith theexternal
space of the spectator, establishing a radical collusion with the field of the
beholder. In this, she is doubly liminsed,bothwithin the narrative space of the
work and through her contactwith its outside. Themany doorways ofMaes
paintings,with their function of opening up the spaces of thehouse, culminate
thematicallyinthefigureoftheeavesdropper.Maespaintinghasseeminglygone
astep
further
toward
manifesting
the
doorways
thematic
and
representational
31
-
8/12/2019 COLE_Doorways 17C Dutch Painting
14/19
PhilamentLIMINALDecember2006
meanings in theworkby depicting the eavesdropper as the interlocutor of the
doorwaysliminality.
ThisappealtheEavesdroppermakestoourspectatorshipfindsanaffinitywith
themodes of viewing invitedbyHoogstratens View on aCorridor.Bothworks
combine the framing role of the doorway with a kind of witness figure; the
eavesdropper,inMaesspainting,whodirectsourgazetotheillicitscenario,bears
a strong likeness to the unveiling role of the door opener who exposes
Hoogstratensrepresentationtoitsviewers.Ineachpainting,theinteractionofthe
framingelementof thedoorwaywith thiswitnessing figureappears tomakean
aestheticstatementaboutviewing,orbeholding. Both witnessesdemonstratea
kindofviewingthattakespart intheactofrepresentation,andthis isamodeof
spectatorshipthat
is
shared
by
the
beholder
of
the
work.
Through
their
uses
of
the
doorway, both Hoogstraten and Maes stretch vision into contact through the
illusionofspatialcontinuityorfiguralcommunication.Theexperienceofviewing
theseworksisaugmentedbyasenseofpictorialpenetrability.Itisnotenough,it
appears, for thebeholder to simplyperceive thepainting,butnecessary toenter
intoadialoguewithit,topartakeinthepaintingscallingstructure.41Bothworks
createasenseofconnectednessorcontinuitybetweenpaintingandbeholder,and
ineach instance, this illusionofcontact isachieved through themanipulationof
the limits of the representation. Hoogstratens work deliberately effaces the
paintingsframebyaddingaphysicaldoorthatreinterprets itasadoorway,and
its surface as permeable. Maes eavesdropper purposely ignores it, gazing
implacablyout from thedeicticrealityof thework into theexternalworldofthe
beholder. Both techniques work to dissolve the distance the viewer usually
maintains before a painted representation, and produce a crucial confusion
betweenviewingsubjectandviewedobject.42
Consequently,
both
paintings
can
be
said
to
be
eminently
aware
of
the
apparatusesof representation thatdetermine their relationship to a viewer, and
activelymanipulateboththeexternaland internalframesoftheworktoshiftthe
positionofthespectatorintoalesscommandinganddistancedmode.43Theseare
aesthetic considerations that suggest a significant interest in the perception of
paintingsbytheiraudiences,whichcanberelatedtothepopularityofperspectival
experiments in the seventeenth century that required the viewers active
participationinthebeholdingofanimage.44Dutchartpractices,likethe curious
perspectivespopular
at
the
time,
certainly
privileged
the
viewers
engagement
withthepainting throughprimarilyvisualmeans.45Thoughexperimental,Maes
32
-
8/12/2019 COLE_Doorways 17C Dutch Painting
15/19
PhilamentLIMINALDecember2006
andHoogstratens paintings are not anomalies,but ratherbelong to amode of
representation typical of seventeenth century images, that exercised the visual
perceptionofitsviewersandplayedwiththeboundariesofpictorialfiction.
Fromthisperspective,wecanbetterappreciatethevaluablerolethedoorway
plays in seventeenthcentury Dutch painting. In the work of Maes and
Hoogstraten,thedoorwayisappropriated,anditsassociationsenacted,toopenup
therepresentation to thepresenceof thebeholder.Doorwaysaremanipulated to
extendthespaceandcommunicativeforceoftheworkbeyondtheboundariesof
the frame.Primarily,however, it isthedoorways liminality that isusedto forge
thedesiredcontactbetweenviewerandpainting.AsbothMaesandHoogstraten
demonstrate,thedoorwaysliminalityinDutchgenrepaintingsisnotamatterof
subjectivetransformation,
or
spiritual
or
social
development,
but
asign
of
flux
and
connectednesswithin the image. Each painter positions this liminalmotif, or
enactsitsassociations,intheforeground,rightatthejunctureofimageandworld,
inorder toreconfigure thesurfaceof thepaintingasopen to theentryofobjects
and bodies outside the frame. Hoogstratens and Maes works are each
characterisedby thisdesire forvisualcontactwith thespectator,andemploy the
doorwaytoachieveitthematicallyandrepresentationally.
Consequently, the importance of the doorway as an interpretive frame for
Dutchartbecomesclear.Thisseeminglymodestarchitecturalapertureprovidesa
valuable paradigm for understanding the complex viewing structures these
paintings establish. An analysis of doorways renders space eloquent in the
apprehension of issues of framing and liminality matters of meta
representationalconcernaswellasthesocialzoningofspaceswithintheimage.
As Ochtervelts StreetMusicians at the Door, and Maes The Milkseller suggest,
doorwaysalsorevealthearchitectonicconstructionofinsideandoutside,insiders
and
outsiders,
and,
in
the
case
of
Maes
Eavesdropper,
also
identify
the
figures
who
waverbetween.Doorwaysputintodialoguetheconstructionofpicturesandtheir
narrativecontent,thusenablinganintegratedinterpretationoftherepresentational
andmetarepresentationaldimensionsofseventeenthcenturyDutchart.
GeorginaColeisaPhDstudentintheDepartmentofArtHistoryandTheoryattheUniversityofSydney.
Sheiscurrentlywritingathesisentitled Paintingthethreshold:doors,spaceandrepresentationinseventeenth
andeighteenthcenturyart ,whichanalysesthestructuralandthematicaspectsofthedoorinDutch,Frenchand
Englishpaintings.
33
-
8/12/2019 COLE_Doorways 17C Dutch Painting
16/19
PhilamentLIMINALDecember2006
1Fromanarchitecturalpointofview,themetaphoricaldimensionofthedoorinRomanesquechurches
hasbeenexploredbyCalvinB.Kendall,inTheAllegoryoftheChurch:RomanesquePortalsandTheirVerse
Inscriptions(Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress,1998).Kendallarguesthatverseinscriptionsaround
RomanesqueportalsalludesymbolicallyandarchitecturallytoChristsassertionIamthedoor(see
esp.chapter
four).
2Foranexampleof thedoorshistoricsignificance invisual culture,seeBritHaarlov,TheHalfOpen
Door;aCommonSymbolicMotifinRomanSepulchralSculpture(Odense:OsloUniversityPress,1977),esp.
56and100,wherethehalfopendooristreatedspecificallybyHaarlovasasymboloftransformation.
3 For an excellent, thoughbrief allusion to themetapictorial function ofdoors in earlymodern oil
painting,seeVictorStoichita,TheSelfAwareImage:anInsightintoEarlyModernMetaPainting,MaryAnn
Glasheen,trans.(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1997),46.
4 Ithasalsobeenargued that thedoorplayedasignificant role,notjust inpainting,butalso in the
socialusesofseventeenthcenturyDutcharchitecture.HeidideMareclaimsthatthedoorbelongedtoa
domesticfrontierunderstoodbytheDutchasacrucialconceptualdividebetween insideandoutside,
homeandworld,andalsofunctionedasasiteofsocialritualbetweenhouseandstreet.Thedoorand
doorstepwere rituallycleaned,and thedoor itselfdecorated tocommunicateabirthordeath in the
family.SeeHeidideMare,ThedomesticboundaryasritualareainseventeenthcenturyHolland,in
UrbanRituals inItalyandtheNetherlands:historicalcontrasts intheuseofpublicspace,architectureand theurbanenvironment,deMareandVoseds.(Assen:VanGorcum,1993),1245.ThoughdeMaresattempt
to link this phenomenonwith the art and literature of the seventeenthcentury Dutch Republic is
commendable,therelationshipbetweenthesocialandarchitecturalusesofthedoorandisprevalence
inDutchartstillneedstobefullyanalysed.Thisisnot,however,theissueofmyessay,whichfocuses
ratheron therepresentationalstrategiesofseventeenthcenturypicturingand itsuseof thedoorasa
framingdeviceandaliminalspace.
5Themodalitiesofthedoor,asIseethem,are:doorway,opendoor,halfopendoor(whichincludesa
doorthatisajar),andcloseddoor.ThesetypesmanifestindifferentwaysinDutchpaintings, andare
oftenascribedwithdifferingassociations.Eachconfigurespictorialspaceinalternativeways.
6Inarecentlytranslatedandlittleknownarticle,criticandsociologistGeorgSimmelconsidersthedoor
tobe a significant sign and space of connection inmodern life that reveals how separating and
connectingareonlytwosidesofpreciselythesameact.SeeSimmel,BridgeandDoor,MarkRitter,
trans.,Theory,
Culture
and
Society,
11
(1994),
7.
7Casey distinguishesbetween nonplace and noplaceatall, the latter designating a sheer void.
NonplaceIhavetakentorefertoadimensionalspacewithoutlocatingcoordinatesorcharacterising
landmarks.SeeEdwardS.Casey,TheFateofPlace:APhilosophicalHistory(BerkeleyandLosAngeles:
UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1998),34.
8InmyresearchIhavebeenunabletolocateaspecificallyDutchconceptualisationofthedoorwaythat
would contradict my discussion of its features above. There is, however, evidence to suggest it
functioned strongly as a sexualmetaphor in some paintings. On this, seeNanette Salomon, Early
Netherlandish bordeeltjes and the construction of social realities, inThePublicandPrivate inDutch
CultureoftheGoldenAge,WheelockandSeeffeds.(Newark:UniversityofDelawarePress,2000),141
163.
9Liminalityisnowacommonlyusedtermfordescribingspatialeffectsinartworks.Foranapplication
ofliminalitytothestudyofearlymodernpaintings,seeClaudeGandelman,PenetratingDoors,inhis
ReadingPictures,
Viewing
Texts
(Bloomington
and
Indiana:
Indiana
University
Press,
1991),
48
53.
GandelmansummarilydiscussesthedoorasaliminalareainaestheticspaceinrelationtoVelasquezs
LasMeninas(51).HealsobrieflysuggeststhatinDutchpaintings,thedoorproducesaliminalitythatis
thesignoftheessentialliminalityoftheartisticgaze(51).Gandelmansmeaninghereisunclear,butI
havetakenitassupportfortheideathatpaintingitselfcaninhabitaliminalspacebetweenrealityand
representation.DavidR.Smithhasalsodiscussed liminality in relation toDutchgenrepainting.He
uses the term to describe the tensionbetween rhetoric and prose inDutch painting, the official
imagesoftheDutchandtheireverydaycounterpartingenrescenes. Healsoappropriatesliminalityto
describerelationsbetweenfiguresandspacewithingenrepainting,andseesdoorsaspointsofrupture
intheirvisualandnarrativeschemes.SeeDavidR.Smith,RhetoricandProse inDutchPortraiture,
DutchCrossing,41(1990),72109.
10ArnoldVanGennep,TheRitesofPassage,trans.MonikaB.VizedomandGabrielleL.Caffee(London:
RoutledgeandKeganPaul,1960).VanGennepbreaksdownthestudyofritesofpassage,orceremonies
marking the transitionbetween stages or levels of existence, into a tripartite structure. Preliminal,
liminal,and
postliminal
rites
each
constitute
astage
in
the
fully
elaborated
passage
from
one
category
tothenext.Preliminalritesarethoseofseparation,liminalritesarethoseoftransition,andpostliminal
ritesarethoseofincorporation,eachdescribingadistinctaspectofritualpassage.Forthedefinitionsof
thetriplestagesofritesofpassage,seeGennep,11.
34
-
8/12/2019 COLE_Doorways 17C Dutch Painting
17/19
PhilamentLIMINALDecember2006
11AccordingtoVanGennep,Thedoor istheboundarybetweentheforeignanddomesticworlds in
the case of an ordinary dwelling,between the profane and sacredworlds in the case of a temple.
Thereforetocrossthethresholdistouniteoneselfwithanewworld.SeeGennep,20.
12ForadiscussionofOchterveltsentrancehallscenes,seeSusanDonahueKuretsky,ThePaintingsof
JacobOchtervelt,16341682(Oxford:Phaidon,1979),3439.
13Simon
Schama
has
discussed
the
idealism
of
this
exchange
in
the
context
of
Hollands
policies
on
povertyandvagrancy.SeeSchama,TheEmbarrassmentofRiches:AnInterpretationofDutchCultureinthe
GoldenAge(HarperPerennial,2004)5702.
14SeeVictorTurner,BetwixtandBetween:the liminalperiod inRitesdePassage, inhisTheForestof
Symbols:AspectsofNdembuRitual(Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1967),93.
15My application of liminality, it shouldbe noted, is a spatial interpretation of VanGennep and
TurnersconceptualisationthatIseeappropriatetothestudyofworksofart.
16MarxhasclaimedinCapital,vol.1,thatmoneyoperateslikeacrystalprism,obliteratingdiversityinto
a single, undifferentiated stream: Just as every qualitative difference between commodities is
extinguished inmoney, somoney, on its die, like the radical leveller that it is,does awaywith all
distinctions. Cited by Christian Enzensberger in Smut:AnAnatomy of Dirt, trans. Sandra Morris
(London:CalderandBoyars,1972),81.17
Hoogstratenwas the author of an influential treatise on painting, and hisworks of trompe loeil
illusionwerewidely celebrated, earning him accolades from the English andAustrian courts.His
InleydingtotdeHoogeSchoolederSchilderkonst,andersdeZichtbaereWerelt (IntroductiontotheAcademyof
Painting;ortheVisibleWorld)waspublishedin1678.ForanexcellentaccountofHoogstratenslifeand
aninsightfulanalysisofhisart,particularlyintermsofitsillusionism,seeCelesteBrusati,Artificeand
Illusion: theArt andWriting of SamuelVanHoogstraten (Chicago and London:University of Chicago
Press,1995).
18 This is the argument proposedby ErnstGombrich. For a discussion of the relationshipbetween
making and matching, see hisArt and Illusion:AStudy in thePsychology ofPictorialRepresentation
(1960;repr.,London:PhaidonPress,1962),esp.154169.Foracritiqueofthisperceptualistaccountof
mimesis and recognition in the viewingofpaintings, see the semiotic approach ofNormanBryson,
VisionandPainting:TheLogicoftheGaze(London:Macmillan,1983),38.
19ThisideahasbeenpromptedbyGandelmanssuggestionthatrepresentationitselfcouldalsobesaid
tobeliminal.SeeGandelman,51.
20ForadiscussionoftheroleofillusionisminDutchpainting,seeCelesteBrusati,Naturalartificeand
material values inDutch still life, in Looking atSeventeenthCenturyDutchArt:RealismReconsidered,
Franitsed.(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1997)12943.
21HoogstratensmostelaborateperspectiveboxisintheNationalGallery,London.SeeNeilMcLaren
(revisedbyChristopherBrown),TheDutchSchool,16001900 (London:NationalGalleryPublications,
1991),No.3832,2046.OntheroleofperspectiveboxesinthetraditionofDutchillusionism,seeDavid
Bomford, Perspective, anamorphosis, and illusion: seventeenthcentury Dutch peep shows, in
VermeerStudies,StudiesintheHistoryofArt,55,Gaskelled.(Washington:NationalGalleryofArt, in
associationwithYaleUniversityPress,1998),125136.
22Brusatiarguesthattheboxsseductionsandpossessionsarenotavailabletoanembodiedbeholder
butonlytotheeyeplacedatthepeephole,Brusati,ArtificeandIllusion,182.
23 An earlierwork fromHoogstratens oeuvre, The Slippers, of 1658, in the Louvre, is constructed
pictorially
by
a
similar
progression
of
doorways,
but
on
a
much
smaller
scale.
24This is,ofcourse,withheldbyour inability toactually inhabit thepainting.Onthe iconographical
significanceofkeys inDutchgenrepainting,seePeterL.Donhauser,Akey toVermeer?,Artibuset
Historiae,14:27(1993),85101.25
RobertLathamandWilliamMatthewseds.,TheDiaryofSamuelPepys,vol4:1663(London:G.Belland
Sons,1971)26.26
Ibid.Thiskindofviewing is consideredbyWolfgangKemp tobeahistoricalmodeofbeholding
characteristic of the seventeenth century.He defines it as disillusion, rather than illusion, as the
practiceofviewingsuchtrompeloeilpicturesfocussedonthelevelsofrealitythatcouldbedeciphered
by itsviewers,andonanunderstandingofhow the trickwasperformed, rather thanabelief in the
illusion.SeeWolfgangKemp,Theworkofartand itsbeholder: themethodologyof theaestheticof
receptioninTheSubjectsofArtHistory:HistoricalObjectsinContemporaryPerspectives,Cheetham,Holly
andMoxeyeds.,(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1998),193.
27
Van
Gennep
uses
this
phrase
to
describe
the
status
of
someone
in
the
liminal
stage
of
a
rite
of
passage.Hewrites: Whoeverpasses from one [territory] to the other finds himself physically and
magicoreligiously inaspecialsituationforacertain lengthof time:hewaversbetweentwoworlds.
SeeVanGennep,18.
35
-
8/12/2019 COLE_Doorways 17C Dutch Painting
18/19
-
8/12/2019 COLE_Doorways 17C Dutch Painting
19/19
PhilamentLIMINALDecember2006
Fried,Absorption andTheatricality:Painting andBeholder in theAge ofDiderot (Berkeley, LosAngeles:
UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1980),esp.chapterone.
43 The distance I am alluding to is that establishedby the Albertianmode of picturingwhich is
metaphoricallyemblematisedby thewindow, throughwhich thespectator looksontoanotherworld.
SeeAlberti,54.Albertianperspectivealsorequirestheviewertostandataprescribeddistancefromthe
paintingto
perceive
it
correctly,
thus
establishing
amore
prescriptive
relationship
between
painting
andbeholder.OfAlbertian,orsinglepointperspective,thereareavastnumberofcriticalexplanations.
The simplest is probably Samuel Y. Edgerton, TheRenaissanceRediscovery ofLinearPerspective (New
York: Basic Books, 1975); and the most erudite Hubert Damisch, The Origin of Perspective, John
Goodmantrans.(Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress,1994).Bothareequallysignificant.Itshouldbenoted,
however, thatDutch artists typicallyused distancepointperspective,whichdoes not institute the
samedistanceand separationbetweenviewerandwork.On thisdistinctionand its implications for
Dutchartpractices,seeBrusati,ArtandIllusion,169217.
44 In a comparative study of literature and visual culture in seventeenthcentury England, Ernest
Gilman has described this impetus for experimentation with visual perception as the curious
perspective.ItislargelycharacterisedbyamanipulationofAlbertian,orsinglepointperspective,that
requirestheviewertodiscernadoubleimageorcorrectananamorphosiswithinthepicture.SeeErnest
B.Gilman,TheCuriousPerspective:LiteraryandPictorialWitintheSeventeenthCentury(NewHavenand
London:YaleUniversityPress,1978).Theplayfulnessoftheseexperiments,madepopularinmanuals
byJean
Dubreil
and
Jean
Francois
Niceron,
and
the
discussion
they
engender
about
their
tricks
of
perception,bearsastronggeneticresemblancetotheviewersinvolvementinthesepaintingsbyMaes
andHoogstraten.
45On the status ofDutch art as a specifically visual, rather than symbolic or emblematic, form of
picturing,seeSvetlanaAlpers,TheArtofDescribing:DutchArtintheSeventeenthCentury(Chicagoand
London:ChicagoUniversityPress,1983).
37
top related