.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
This magnificently broad landscape represents a view from the dune Het Kopje near Haarlem. In the middle ground, surrounded by trees and some scattered farm buildings, we can see the large main house of the Saxenburg Estate, with its square tower and a tall spire with a weather vane. The estate was the property of Christoffel Thijsz, one of the two owners of Rembrandt’s house in Sint Antoniesbreestraat, which he had bought on credit in 1639. Rembrandt’s inability to pay his debt in regular instalments would eventually lead to his bankruptcy in 1656. Perhaps this etching was done to appease his creditor, or it might just be the result of one of the frequent journeys there to make his repayments.
As was his usual practice, Rembrandt did not reverse the scenery as he brought it onto the plate. As a result, impressions from this plate would show the panorama the 'wrong way' around (see fig. 1). In the present counterproof - a print transferred from a freshly printed impression onto a second sheet of paper - this is corrected, as the image is reversed once again. Artistic liberties aside, the print presented here therefore shows the landscape as it would have looked from this viewpoint, with the view of Haarlem and the massive church of Saint Bavo in the far distance at right.
Counterproofs are generally thought to have been printed for the purpose of helping the etcher plot revisions to the plate. The Panorama near Bloemendael showing the Saxenburg Estate however only exists in a single state, which means that Rembrandt never made any subsequent changes. A total number of six counterproofs are known, which is a considerable number - too many for them to be mere 'working proofs'. Counterproofs can look a bit thin and sloppy, but the present example, and also the one at the British Museum (inv. no. F,5.215), are remarkably strong and carefully printed; another indication that they were not mere 'side products', but indented for the market - perhaps in particular for collectors who knew the area and wanted to see it the right way round.
Whether as an etching or a counterproof, this rather sparse landscape is one of the finest panoramas in Dutch 17th century art. Fields, trees, grasses and buildings are reduced to their most basic forms and yet imbued with a wonderful sense of movement and understanding of the underlying structure of the land. (See Schneider, 1990, p. 260) It resembles Rembrandt's drawing style more than any other of his landscape etchings. His precision and economy of means is breathtaking, as is his use of blank paper to suggest distance and atmosphere. The representation is so accurate as to have prompted the idea that he sketched it onto the plate in situ.
The lack of any buildings, trees or other ‘points of interest’ in the foreground makes the flat open Low Countries landscape and the enormous sky above it the main subject of the print. It is a joy to let the eye wander calmly across this vast plain and to observe little signs of life, such as the tiny figure with a scythe, another carrying a huge load along a path and the group of people crouching on a field to gather crops further to the left– or the rather impressive duck house at right.
The traditional title, introduced by Gersaint, the author of the first catalogue of Rembrandt’s prints of 1751, is misleading, as he wrongly thought the estate depicted belonged to the Amsterdam tax collector Jan Uytenbogaert, whose portrait Rembrandt had etched in 1639 (B. 281; New Holl. 172).
As was his usual practice, Rembrandt did not reverse the scenery as he brought it onto the plate. As a result, impressions from this plate would show the panorama the 'wrong way' around (see fig. 1). In the present counterproof - a print transferred from a freshly printed impression onto a second sheet of paper - this is corrected, as the image is reversed once again. Artistic liberties aside, the print presented here therefore shows the landscape as it would have looked from this viewpoint, with the view of Haarlem and the massive church of Saint Bavo in the far distance at right.
Counterproofs are generally thought to have been printed for the purpose of helping the etcher plot revisions to the plate. The Panorama near Bloemendael showing the Saxenburg Estate however only exists in a single state, which means that Rembrandt never made any subsequent changes. A total number of six counterproofs are known, which is a considerable number - too many for them to be mere 'working proofs'. Counterproofs can look a bit thin and sloppy, but the present example, and also the one at the British Museum (inv. no. F,5.215), are remarkably strong and carefully printed; another indication that they were not mere 'side products', but indented for the market - perhaps in particular for collectors who knew the area and wanted to see it the right way round.
Whether as an etching or a counterproof, this rather sparse landscape is one of the finest panoramas in Dutch 17th century art. Fields, trees, grasses and buildings are reduced to their most basic forms and yet imbued with a wonderful sense of movement and understanding of the underlying structure of the land. (See Schneider, 1990, p. 260) It resembles Rembrandt's drawing style more than any other of his landscape etchings. His precision and economy of means is breathtaking, as is his use of blank paper to suggest distance and atmosphere. The representation is so accurate as to have prompted the idea that he sketched it onto the plate in situ.
The lack of any buildings, trees or other ‘points of interest’ in the foreground makes the flat open Low Countries landscape and the enormous sky above it the main subject of the print. It is a joy to let the eye wander calmly across this vast plain and to observe little signs of life, such as the tiny figure with a scythe, another carrying a huge load along a path and the group of people crouching on a field to gather crops further to the left– or the rather impressive duck house at right.
The traditional title, introduced by Gersaint, the author of the first catalogue of Rembrandt’s prints of 1751, is misleading, as he wrongly thought the estate depicted belonged to the Amsterdam tax collector Jan Uytenbogaert, whose portrait Rembrandt had etched in 1639 (B. 281; New Holl. 172).