cole_doorways 17c dutch painting

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


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


3/19


4/19


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


5/19


Fig1:JacobOchtervelt,StreetMusiciansattheDoor,1665,oiloncanvas,TheSt.LouisArtMuseum,St.Louis

Fig2 :NicolaesMaes,TheMilkSeller,c.1657,oiloncanvas,ApsleyHouse,London

22


6/19


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


7/19


8/19


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


9/19


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


10/19


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


11/19


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


12/19


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


13/19


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


14/19


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


15/19


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


16/19


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


17/19


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


18/19


19/19


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

cole_doorways 17c dutch painting

Documents