Convention, Realism, and the Interpretation of Dutch and Flemish Tempest Painting

Author(s): Lawrence O. Goedde

Source: Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art, Vol. 16, No. 2/3 (1986), pp.
139-149
Published by: Stichting voor Nederlandse Kunsthistorische Publicaties
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3780634
Accessed: 25-08-2014 15:10 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Stichting voor Nederlandse Kunsthistorische Publicaties is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Mon, 25 Aug 2014 15:10:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

I39

Convention,realism,and the interpretationof Dutch and Flemish

tempestpainting
Lawrence0. Goedde

A crucialissue in the study of Dutch seventeenth-centurylandscapepaintingis the problemof interpretation,

what such images signify and how we may grasp this
significance.Attempts to resolve these questions have
not been completelyconvincing,largelybecausethe internallyconsistentrealismof Dutch landscapeshas not
made them readily accessible to symbolic interpretation.' Such studies, mostly based on emblematicsources, have also founderedon the multipleand contradictorycharacterof thosesources.The problemof applying
emblematicinterpretationsto landscapescomesdownto
the question,"Why one meaningand not another?"
I wouldlike to offersome observationson whatseems
to me a featureof seventeenth-centurylandscapecrucial
to interpretation,thatis its conventionality.To illustrate
my points, I will discuss aspectsof my study of Dutch
andFlemishstormpaintings,2thoughI believemy conclusions apply-with suitable modifications-to the
vast majorityof Dutch land and seascapepaintings. I
should add that these commentsare not offeredas "the
answer"to the problemof interpretinglandscape,but as
one componentof a largerapproachto readingthe pictures. I should say as well that I am not concernedwith
offering specific readings of individual paintings but
with the morefundamentalissue of whetherinterpretation is possibleat all.

It is importantto considerfirst of all to what extent

these paintings are, in fact, realistic (I use the term
"realism"with its colloquialmeaningof naturalism,of
an imitationof the visible world).We do find in Dutch
storm paintings a highly naturalisticrenderingof the
forcesof natureand an accuratedepictionof ships' tactics. It is apparentfrom contemporarysources, moreover, that the seascape painter'sfaithful renderingof
naturalphenomenaand shipswas viewedas a sign of his
skill and the high qualityof an image.3And yet I have
also found, after examininghundredsof pictures, that
these paintersdepictonly verylimitedaspectsof human
experiencesof the stormysea.This realisticbut selective
vision of the world is most evident when we pay attention to the situationsin which ships and men are depicted, for out of all the possibleways men actuallyencounteredthe tempestwe see onlya few suchencounters
in Dutch and Flemish pictures.
We can gaina good sense of whatactuallife at sea was
like, for we have numerousfirsthandaccounts of seafaringwrittenby the Dutch voyagers,narrativesof the
voyagesof exploration,trade,and conquestcontemporary with our paintings.4Behind these tales lies the
enormous expansion of Dutch maritime power, both
mercantileand military,thattookplacein the veryyears
that seascapesand stormscenes beganto be produced.5

I See most notably WilfriedWiegand,Ruisdael-Studien:ein Versuchzur IkonologiederLandschaftsmalerei,

(diss.), Hamburg1971.Cf.
the commentsin Hans Kauffmann,"Jacobvan Ruisdael:'Die Miihle
von Wijk bei Duurstede',"in Festschriftfur Otto von Simson,ed. L.
Grisebachand K. Renger, Frankfurt1977, pp. 379-97, esp. p. 392,
and the penetratingremarksin R. H. Fuchs, "Overhet landschap:een
verslagnaaraanleidingvanJacobvan Ruisdael,Het Korenveld,"Tijd86 (I973), pp. 281-92.
schriftvoorGeschiedenis
2 Tempestand shipwreckin the art of the sixteenthand seventeenth
centuries:dramasof peril, disaster,and salvation,(diss.), Columbia
University I984.
3 See, for example,the poem of 1646by JoachimOudaan,"Op een

16, and ArnoldHoubraken'scommentson BonaventuraPeetersin De

vol. 2,
enschilderessen,
dernederlantsche
konstschilders
grooteschouburgh

onweer door Porcellis" in his Poezy, vol. 2, Amsterdam 1712, pp. I 15-

vol. 2, Bussum I977.

The Hague 1753, pp. 12-13.

4 On the accountsof the Dutch voyagerssee G. A. vanEs, "ReisverderNederlanvan de letterkunde

halen,"in F. Baur(ed.), Geschiedenis
den,vol. 4, s'Hertogenbosch& Antwerp1948, pp. 220-41. The stansur lesjourdardbibliographyis P.A. Tiele, Memoirebibliographique
naux des navigateursneerlandais,Amsterdam I867. Many of these
narrativeshave been reprintedin moderneditionsby the Linschoten
Vereeniging.
New York
empire, 600-800oo,
5 See C.R. Boxer, TheDutchseaborne
derNederlanden,
1965,and L. M. Akveldet al., Maritiemegeschiedenis

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Mon, 25 Aug 2014 15:10:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LAWRENCE 0. GOEDDE

140

The paintingsreflectthis backgroundand the dangers

encounteredin this vast enterprise.
When the paintings are compared with these accounts, however, it becomes apparentthat the images
rarelyillustratehistoricalincidents. Indeed few paintingscan, to my knowledge,be indisputablylinkedto an
actual storm or wreck, though some were doubtless
commissioned to commemoratesuch events.6 Even
more significantly,wherethe voyagersprovidedetailed
descriptionsof the full rangeof catastropheand suffering wreakedby storms, the paintingsavoid rendering
the greatmajorityof disastersthat could and did occur.
What seems to be involvedhere is a set of conventions
that is nowhereprescribedin writingand yet persistsin
the worksof dozensof artiststhroughmost of the seventeenth century, and persists despite major stylistic
changes.
The conventionalityof Dutch paintingin general,and
of landscapesin particular,is not a new idea.That Wolfgang Stechow could group virtuallythe entire production of Dutch landand seascapeinto thirteencategories
is in itself evidence of such conventionality.7But I
wouldproposethatthe roleof conventionis even greater
than Stechowrealized,for withinany of his categoriesa
limited numberof specificthemes and motifs, often in
similarcompositionalarrangements,recurwith striking
regularitywhile othersare rareor nonexistent.
In the case of tempest painting, nearly all seventeenth-centurypicturesof the theme can be placedinto
six categoriesin which certainfeaturesof the realworld
recur, while others, equally real, are excluded. These
featuresgive each type a particularrangeof actionand
emotionalaffectthat I would contendoffersaccess to a
level of meaningintrinsicto the worksthemselves.It is a
level of meaningthat must receive seriousattentionin
any attemptat interpretation.

6 M.S. Robinsonhas proposedthe most convincinglinks between

individualtempest paintingsand historicalevents. See David Cordingly and Westby Percival-Prescott,The art of the ran de Veldes,
London (National Maritime Museum) 1982, nrs. 1I9, I23. It is strik-

ing thatthese picturesareverynearlyindistinguishablefrompaintings

with no identifyingattributes.
7 Wolfgang Stechow, Dutch landscapepainting of the seventeenth
century,London 1968.
8 P.J.J. van Thiel et al., cat. All the paintingsof the Rijksmuseum,
Amsterdam& Maarssen1976, nr. A 1848.

To give you a sense of this conventionalityI will

characterizein some detail two of the six types of tempest scene, observingwhat is not representedas well as
what is depicted, and using the accountsof the Dutch
voyagersand paintingsof the eighteenthandnineteenth
centuriesto castthe selectivenatureof seventeenth-centurypicturesinto sharperrelief.I will considerthe other
four types more briefly and then discuss some of the
implicationsof this conventionality.
One type of storm scene depicts vessels on the open
sea withoutland in sight, as in Willemvan de Velde the
Younger's so-called Gust of wind of about I670 (fig. i),8

anda paintingby ClaesClaesz.Wou datedI627 (fig. 2).9

The shipsin Wou'spaintingarescudding,runningwith
the foresailset beforethe stormwinds,the favoredtactic
in the seventeenthcentury.'? Van de Velde's painting
depictsa tense moment,as a ship heels whileapparently
turning to avoid running down a small fishing boat at
left. The ship has beendamaged,but the vesselis still, to
some degree,able to manoeuvre;she is not totallyat the
mercyof the tempest.
The struggleto controlthe ships is, in fact, centralto
Dutch imagesof ships on the open sea, for they do not
depictvesselsin defeat,sinkingor swampingor broaching to toweringwaves. Nor are ships depictedas helpless, dismastedhulksas in the famous,now lost painting
by ClarksonStanfieldof 1856titled Theabandoned
(fig.
3). TINor do we eversee in this type the last momentsof
a ship as crew and passengerspreparefor death, or the
frantic,often vicious strugglesto get into lifeboatsas in
Turner's Wreck of a transport ship of about I81o (fig.
4), 2 or the sufferingsof castawaysin lifeboatsor rafts.

And yet vivid literarydescriptionsof sufferingsfrom

exposure,thirst, hunger,and the resortto cannibalism
were all widely availableat the time, long before Gericault'smonumentalstatementin the Raft of theMedusa

9 Attributedto Wou by John Walsh,Jan andJuliusPorcellis:Dutch

marinepainters,(diss.), ColumbiaUniversity 1971,pp. I44-45.
o1 F. Smekens,"Het schip bij PieterBruegelde Oude:een authenJaarboekvan het KoninklijkMuseumvoorSchone
ticiteitscriterium?,"
Kunsten, Antwerpen 2 (1961), pp. 5 -52.

1 P.T. van der Merwe, The spectacularcareerof ClarksonStanfield, 1793-I867: seaman,scene-painter,

RoyalAcademician,Tyne and
WearCountyCouncilMuseums 1979, nr. 308.
12 MartinButlinand EvelynJoll, Thepaintingsof . M. W. Turner,
vol. I, New Haven& London 1977, nr. 210.

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Mon, 25 Aug 2014 15:10:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The interpretation of Dutch and Flemish tempest painting

14I

?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~?~*

:".
:~,7
"qm'"~Plv: ~,.:.,:
....
- .:,,
.,,',......,,. .

b.. .~..;

3 ClarksonStanfield,Theabandoned,I856. Presentlocation
unknown

I Willemvan de Velde the Younger, Thegust of wind.Amsterdam,

Rijksmuseum

ClaesClaesz.Wou, Ships in a storm,1627. Providence,

Museumof Art, Rhode Island School of Design

4 J. M. W. Turner, Thewreckofa transportship.Lisbon, Fundacao

CalousteGulbenkian

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Mon, 25 Aug 2014 15:10:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LAWRENCE O. GOEDDE

I42

5 AdamWillaerts,Vesselsin distressof a rockycoast,I614.

Amsterdam,Rijksmuseum

6 LudolfBackhuysen,Dutchshipsin a stormysea, I667.

Washington,NationalGalleryof Art

of I8I6-I7.'3 And only rarelydo ships appearon the

open sea simply lying to, trying to ride out the storm.
This was an extremely common situation, frequently
encounteredin the voyages, and vividly described by
one voyager, Willem IJsbrandtsz.Bontekoe, as "op
Gods genadedryven"-drifting at the mercyof God. 4
Once againthis is exactly what most of these paintings
do not show. Ratherthe emphasisis on humaneffortin
the grip of ceaselessnaturalmovementto retaincontrol
and to sail onward,to persevere.
The second type of storm scene depicts shipwreck,
and againwe have a frequentlyrepeatedtheme handled
in a highlyselectivemanner.Shipwrecksin Dutch painting never occur on the high seas but only on coasts
-and then hardly ever on sandy beaches but almost
exclusivelyon rocky coasts. Adam Willaerts'spainting
of I614 (fig. 5),'5 and Ludolf Backhuysen'spaintingin
Washingtonof I667 (fig. 6) are typicalexamples.Ships
did, of course,sink and wreckon the high seas, 6 just as
they went agroundon sand bars-the shallowsoff the
Netherlandswere notoriouslydangerous.17These aspects of the realities of voyaging are, however, rarely
depicted. Instead ships breakup againstcliffs or try to

escapefrommenacingrocksbackto the open sea. These

two works illustrate, incidentally, the persistence of
basicmotifs over fortyyearsand acrossa crucialshift in
style.
In these imagesof wreckwe often see ships in various
stages of disasterand imminentdanger-a ship in tormenton the rocksoften servingas a warningto companion vesselsof theirperil, functioningin effectas a nautical mementomori.They struggleto claw off the coast to
regainthe relativesafety of the open sea, manoeuvring
close to the wind that only drives them back to the
deadlycoast.All vesselsarethusvulnerable-not all will
perish, just as not all castawaysdie, for some come
ashore-but all ships and men are desperatelyfrail in
ultimate confrontationwith naturalforces. The rocks
give the endangeredand strickenvessels and crews a
special pathos, for few of the sailors in Backhuysen's
picturewill survivethese cliffs.
In additionto the elementaryterrorof being dashed
by the stormagainsttheserocks,such iron-boundcoasts
would immediatelyhave been identifiedby Dutchmen
as foreign.Sometimesthe shoresarecompletelywild, or
populatedsolely by wild animals,a very real dangerin

13 Perhaps the most famous of such accounts is Willem IJsbrandtsz.Bontekoe'snarrativeof his voyagein an open boat afterhis
ship exploded beneath him: Journaelofte gedenckwaerdige
beschrijvinghevande oost-indischereyse, Hoorn I646, ed. G.J. Hoogewerff,
The Hague 1952(De LinschotenVereenigingnr. 54), pp. 26-38.
I4 Ibid., pp. 143-44.
I5 Van Thiel, op. cit. (note 8), nr. A I955.
i6 See, for example,the accountin Beschryvinghe
vandevoyagieom
dengeheelenwereltclootghedaendoorOliviervan Noort, Rotterdam&

Amsterdam1602,ed. J.W. IJzerman,The Hague I926 (De Linschoten Vereenigingnr. 27), pp. 15-I6, andthatby Bontekoe,op. cit. (note
I3), pp. I73-75.
I7 Sir WilliamTemple, forexample,observedthat"theentranceof
the Tessel and passageover the Zudder-Seais moredangerousthan a
voyagefrom there to Spain, lying all in blind and narrowchannels;"
Observations
uponthe UnitedProvincesof the Netherlands,ed. G.N.
Clark,Oxford1972, p. io8.

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Mon, 25 Aug 2014 15:10:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The interpretationof Dutch and Flemish tempestpainting

7 BonaventuraPeeters,Shipwreckon a northerncoast.Dieppe,
Musee Municipal

seventeenth-centuryminds (fig. 7).'8 Sometimes,as in

the Dieppe wreck scene by BonaventuraPeeters of
about I655, the Scandinaviancoast is suggested,while
in a shipwreckby Jan Abrahamsz.Beerstraten(fig. 8), a
Mediterraneanlocale is indicated by the round stone
tower,an archedgate, and a friarwith a cross ministering to the castaways.In otherimagesIndians,notorious
as cannibals,set the scene in the Americas,as in a paint9
ing by Jan Peeters,now in Vienna(fig. 9).
These indicationsof setting are not, however,accuratetopographicalstudies.Ratherthey act affectivelyto
associatethe place of mortalperil and potentialdeliverancewiththe distant,the unfamiliar,sometimesthe wild
andthe savage.Thus man is thrownon the mercyof the
unknown,vast world that the greatvoyagesof exploration had opened up to the Europeanimagination.Peeters' unlikely combinationof a Turkish galley, Dutch
ships, and Indians dressedin skins indicateshow little
concernthere was for historicalaccuracy,but how very
vividly the dangerof that distantworld had penetrated
men's consciousnessthroughseafaring.
The shipwrecktype thus depicts not all the places
wheredisasterwas possible,nor all the waysin which it
couldoccur,nor all the sufferingspossible.The resultis
a rangeof affectiveincidentdistinctlydifferentfromthe
depictionof shipson the open sea. Insteadof controland
perseverance,we encounterdesperateweakness,mortal
i8 For Peeters'paintingsee exhib. cat. Le sieclede Rubensdansles
Paris(GrandPalais)1977,p. 136,nr. 99.
collections
publiquesfranfaises,
19 Klaus Demus, cat. Gemalde,Vienna (KunsthistorischesMuseum) 1973,p. 132. For a surveyof Europeanattitudesto and images

I43

8 Jan Abrahamsz.Beerstraten,Shipwreckon a rockycoast.

Munich, BayerischeStaatsgemaldesammlungen

-...

.:::

9 Jan Peeters,Shipsin distressoff a wildcoast.Vienna,

KunsthistorischesMuseum

peril, and disaster.It is revealing,moreover,that ships

wreck and men die in Dutch pictures not because of
errors of seamanship-surely a major cause of actual
disasterat sea-but becauseof their own impotencein
the faceof the overwhelmingdestructivenessof elemental forces.
The otherfourtypesof tempestscenesimilarlydepict
a restrictedrangeof humanactionsand possessdistinct
affectivequalities. The third type depicts threatening
of AmericanIndianssee Hugh Honour, Thenewgoldenland:European
imagesof Americafrom the discoveriesto the presenttime, New York
I975, PP. 3-27, 53-85.

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Mon, 25 Aug 2014 15:10:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LAWRENCE

144

0. GOEDDE

lee shores,that is coaststowardswhich stormwinds are

blowing and from which vessels seek to escape. This
type possessesa distinctivetension,for the catastrophe,
as in a I672 pictureby Willemvande Veldethe Younger
(fig. Io),20 will occur only in the future or, as in a paint-

ing attributedto Simon de Vlieger(fig. i ), is only portended by the looming mass of rocks beaten by the
waves.These are imagesof warningratherthanaccomplisheddisaster.
A fourth, extremely rare type, exemplified by Jan
Porcellis'spaintingof I631 in the Mauritshuis,is most
unusualin depictingshipwreckon a typicalDutch beach
(fig. I2).21 That it did not become popular reveals most

io Willemvan de Velde the Younger,Englishshipsin distressof a

leeshore,1672. London, NationalMaritimeMuseum

ii Simon de Vlieger,Menacingrocksin a stormysea. Sale Zurich

(Koller), 28/29 May 1976, nr. 5397 (photo RKD)

tellingly the non-documentarycharacterof these pictures. A fifth type, the thunderstormover local waters,
does not depict a full sea stormbut roughweatherover
shallow coastal regions (fig. I3).22 The depiction of
lightningrenderedin long fluid strokesof yellow or red
is one of this type's most distinctive features,lending
these imagesa broodingemotionalsuggestiveness.Also
relativelyrare is the sixth type, the gatheringstorm,
exemplifiedhere by Jacobvan Ruisdael'sLoomingstorm
(fig. I4).23 In this type, beaconsratherthan the vessels
are often protagonistswhose function as navigational
signs, as guidesto channeland harborentrances,makes
their dramaticisolationin these paintings,just as boats
drivein to shorebeforethe storm,pregnantwith significance.
I should add that human responseto the tempest is
not the only conventionalizedaspectof these works,for
naturetoo is treatedconventionally.Dutch artistsinsist
on dialecticaltensions between man and nature, between light and dark,sea and clouds, waves and rocks.
Eachelementis givena distinctidentityandset in oppo20 This pictureby vande Veldecouldalsobe classedas a shipwreck
scene becausethe distinctionbetweenthe shipwreckand threattypes
is oftena matterof emphasisratherthana precisedemarcation.In this
case the paintingincludesa wreckbut the protagonistis the vessel in
dangerstrugglingto escaperatherthan the more distant,less prominent ship alreadybreakingup on shore. It should be emphasizedthat
this typologyis an analyticaltool of my own devisingforthe purposeof
classifyingthe variedevents depictedin the pictures,and not a set of
rigid formulas.
21 H.R. Hoetink, Illustratedgeneralcatalogue,The Hague (Mauritshuis)1977,nr. 969.
22 Hans Ulrich Beck,Jan van Goyen,I596-1656, vol. 2, Amsterdam 1973,nr. 833.
23 SeymourSlive andH.R. Hoetink,exhib.cat.JacobvanRuisdael,
The Hague (Mauritshuis)1981,nr. 27.

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Mon, 25 Aug 2014 15:10:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The interpretation of Dutch and Flemish tempest painting

I45

beach
The Hague, Mauritshuis
Jan Porcellis,Strandingoff a63...
Iz Jan Porcellis,Strandingoffa beach,I63I. The Hague, Mauritshuis

nearHaarlem,I64(7?).
13 Jan van Goyen, Thunderstorm
Richmond,VirginiaMuseum

14 Jacobvan Ruisdael,A loomingstorm.Privatecollection

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Mon, 25 Aug 2014 15:10:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LAWRENCE

146

15 J.M.W. Turner, Snow storm: steam-boat off a harbour's mouth,

1842.London, Tate Gallery

sition to the other, seemingly interpenetrating and undermining each other. We know from Turner, however,
that the storm can just as validly be rendered by a total
blurring of sea, sky, and clouds, with the signs of man
dissolving in a universal flux (fig.

15).24

While I could elaborate this survey of tempest types

and patterns of representation, I believe it is clear that
what we encounter in these paintings are at once naturalistic and conventionalized descriptions of human situations and of nature. I venture to suggest that a similar
analysis of most Dutch land and seascapes would reveal
a similar degree of conventionality.
I would like to consider now the ways these conventions offer vital access to the content of the pictures.
First, the very existence of conventions allows us to dispense with a most troublesome, indeed crippling, concept for interpretation-the idea of "pure landscape," of
images that are solely imitative in a neutral way. While
this commonplace notion testifies to the imitative prowess of Netherlands artists, the idea also reflects the widespread, traditional view that the realism of Dutch landscapes is comprehensive and objective. Selective patterns of representation, however, decisively contradict
the concept that Dutch landscape consists of a programmatic reproduction of the world. So too, this conventionality conclusively corrects the idea that Dutch land24 Butlin and Joll, op. cit. (note 12), nr. 398. The full title of this
painting is Snow storm-steam-boat off a harbour's mouth making signals in shallow water, and going by the lead. The author was in this storm
on the night the Ariel left Harwich.

25 In the light of the conventionalityand also of the dramaticex-

O. GOEDDE

scape involves a neutral,value-free or objective recording of appearances on the model of scientific observation
and description.25 From a scientific viewpoint (for example, an interest in topographical record-making) such
selectivity of representation can only be viewed as arbitrary and capricious. The pictures display every sign of
being imaginative constructs, products of the mind reworking experience and artistic tradition, rather than
map-like or veduta-like reports of appearances.
Secondly, recognizing conventions offers an important guide for interpretation, because it provides access
to a level of content intrinsic to the images themselves. It
is not an applied or exterior or concealed meaning, but a
significance readable in what the artist chose for depiction. Such patterns of selective representation are inherently interpretive, by which I do not mean to imply a
necessarily conscious awareness of the content on either
the artist's part or that of his audience. Even when followed thoughtlessly, a convention or formula communicates meaning and can be analyzed for evidence of what
contemporaries expected to see and what they found
significant and worthy of representation out of all the
multiple possibilities of existence. An analysis of such
conventions can provide entry into the content of a
broad theme in Dutch painting. In the case of stormscapes we are able to see a consistent and coherent interpretation of nature in an extreme mood, and of man's
capacity in extremis.
One example of this interpretive rendering is the depiction of men and their ships as frail and vulnerable and
yet essential to the coherence of these compositions.
Imagined without vessels, most of these paintings become inert, for the intricate lines of the vessels and the
implied motion of the ships both reinforce and counter
the diagonals and curves of the natural world. In this
connection it is striking to see that a man or a ship is
rarely alone, and even more revealing is the fact that no
tempest picture of the seventeenth century-perhaps no
finished landscape painting of the time-lacks human
presence. In contrast, such nineteenth-century artists as
Gustave Courbet, Winslow Homer (fig. I6), and Thomas Moran painted storms in which artist and viewer
ploitationof realismseen in these pictures,SvetlanaAlpers'provocative thesis that Dutch paintingis best understoodby analogywith the
new science, and Dutch landscapespecificallyby analogywith mapmaking, is fundamentally unpersuasive: The art of describing: Dutch
art in the seventeenth century, Chicago 1983, ch. 4.

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Mon, 25 Aug 2014 15:10:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The interpretationof Dutch and Flemish tempestpainting

I47

personallyconfrontthe stormfromthe beachor the deck

of a ship.26 Their pictures imply an individual consciousness standing alone before the enormousotherness of naturewith all the tensions arisingfrom man's
identificationwith and separationfrom the world outside the self.27 But the world of seventeenth-century sea

and landscape is accessible to man and proper to

him-no matterhow forbidding,furiousand perilous.
Another interpretivefeature of these images is the
renderingof naturalviolence in terms of polaroppositions reflecting for a contemporaryfundamentalpatternsof antagonismin the fourelements.28These polarities, however,also serve to make the images comprehensive, including all possibilitiesof the universe, for
the imagesare not simply negativebut tensional.They
embracethe full potentialof nature,even includingintimationsof calm and harmonyin burstsof daylightand
bluesky.29The paintingsfurthersuggestthis largercosmos in their formalstructures,which are full of restless
energybut also dynamicbalancesand echoing patterns
of land and sea in the clouds. These elementalantagonists, so opposedin movement,formand texture,in the
end possess an essential kinship and harmonydeeper
than the discordthat sends them crashingagainsteach
other.
If a study of conventions reveals such overarching
patternsof significance,it can also allow us to identify
the preoccupationsof a particularartist. In the case of
Porcellis, for example, our awarenessof conventional
patternsallowsus to recognizethat this paintereschews
the exotic, foreign and hyper-dramatic,transferring
shipwreckfromthe conventionalremoterockyshoresto
the local beach and depicting not a full storm but its
aftermath,a moremeditativeand subtlemomenttypical
of his work.Similarly,we can recognizethatJacob van
Ruisdaelcharacteristicallyavoids depicting full-blown
storms, preferringinstead brooding thunderstormsor

26 For seascapesby Courbetsee exhib. cat. GustaveCourbet(i8ig1877), Paris(GrandPalais) 1977, nrs. 88-89, 112, 117. For Winslow
Homer's Northeastersee Gordon Hendricks, The life and work of
WinslowHomer,New York 1979, nr. CI-517. On Thomas Moransee
Roger B. Stein, Seascapeand the Americanimagination,New York
1975,PP. 112, 17.
27 On the sublime and its relationto eighteenth and nineteenthcenturylandscapesee SamuelH. Monk, Thesublime,New York1935,
esp. pp. 1x-7, 203-32. See alsoAndrewWilton, Turnerandthesublime,
Toronto (Art Galleryof Ontario)I980, esp. pp. 65-I05, 145-64;and

I6 WinslowHomer,Northeaster,I895. New York,Metropolitan

Museum

ominousgatheringtempests.
Finally,identifyingthe conventionsof tempestpainting permitsus to see how closely the paintingscorrespond to and dramatizetraditionaland likewiseconventionalideasaboutstormsexpressedin a literarytradition
of narrativeandsymbolism.A full discussionof the relationshipof the paintingsto poetry,dramaand scripture
exceeds the scope of this paper, but two observations
should be made here. First, the paintingsdo not illustratetexts, althoughtheir conventionsare analogousto
the conventionsof literarytempests. These analogous
featuresincludea highly dramatizedrenderingof absolutelyopposingforcesin nature,forcesthatpush human
beings to the limits of experience;a psychologicallydynamicaddress,indeed,a rhetoricalappeal,to viewerand
reader,drawinghim into the turmoilof the storm;and a
larger, cosmic tension of storm and elemental harmony.30

Secondly,metaphoris also conventionaland integral

to this literarytradition.Of course,the presenceof conventions in the paintings does not of itself prove the

Stein, op. cit. (note 26), pp. 40-51, 11 -23.

28 Concerningthe elementsandcosmologysee S. K. Heninger,The

cosmographical
glass, San Marino (Cal.) I977, esp. pp. Io6-15, and
MarjorieHope Nicolson, Thebreakingof thecircle:studiesin theeffect
of the "New Science"uponseventeenth-century
poetry,rev. ed., New
York& London 1962,pp. 1-46.
29 Cf. the suggestivediscussionsin Fuchs, op. cit. (note I), pp. 289New Haven
92, and Lisa Vergara,Rubensandthepoeticsof landscape,
& London 1982, pp. 43-55.
30 These mattersare discussedat length in my dissertation.

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Mon, 25 Aug 2014 15:10:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LAWRENCE O. GOEDDE

I48

17 HendrickCornelisz.Vroom,Ships in a tempest.Britishprivatecollection

existenceof a correspondingsymboliccontent.Conventionality,however,manifestsa predispositionto seek in

a situationor experiencethe typicaland the general,that
which fits a pattern of meaning. This tendency of
thought is also manifestin what MarjorieHope Nicolson terms "the habit of thinkingin terms of universal
analogy"that underliessymbolicinterpretation.3This
habit of mind, which depends upon the pre-scientific
view of the world,also functionsin termsof a searchfor
significantpatternsand types in which microcosms,includingman himself, mirrorand reproducethe fullness
of a purposefulcreation.
A numberof sourcesprovidesuggestiveevidencethat
these picturescould be and were interpretedmetaphorically, but I would proposethat conventionalityof narrativeand formin itself impliesthe capacityfor bearing
metaphoricalsignificancesimilar to that found in emblemsand otherinterpretivesources.At the sametime I
would contendthat this conventionalityalso providesa
check to arbitrarysymbolicinterpretationof these pictures, because choices of subject matter, narrative
events, and their relationshipswithin the formalstruc-

tureare, as we haveseen, significant.Such featurescertainly conveyed meaningto beholdersin a culture accustomedto lookingfor and findingdetailsand patterns
that fit conventional,universalcategories.32Symbolic
readingsshould workwith both the repetitivepatterns
and the deviationsfrom the norm.
Thus it is arbitraryfor us to apply a single marine
metaphorto a single featureof a paintingwithout consideringthe conventionalroleof thatfeatureand its specific place in a given picture.HendrickVroom'sStorm
(fig. 17), for instance,if separatedfromits pairingwith a
paintingdepictingthe Battle of Cadiz, cannot be read
exclusively as the Dutch ship of state with any more
validity than as a metaphorfor an individual'slife.33
There are no corroboratingsymbolsin the imageitself.
In the light of contemporarysources it is, moreover,
necessaryto offer metaphoricalreadingsthat take into
account the implicationsof the entire scene: this includes the ship that sails onward,undaunteddespite a
storm, monsters, and the threat embodied in a dismasted, helpless companion vessel at left (probably
driftingto a sea anchor)as well as the ship smashingon

Hague 1952,pp. 1-17 and, with referenceto landandseascape,pp. 5032 The same habit of mind is evident in the representationof real 52.
historythroughtypologyand allegoryin seventeenth-centuryDutch
33 M. Russell, Visionsof thesea: HendrickVroomand the originsof
history painting. See H. van de Waal, Drie eeuwenvaderlandsche Dutchmarinepainting,Leiden 1983, pp. 154, 210-II. Russell'sassertion (p. 115) that Vroom'sstorm picturesare primarilysymbolic in
studie, vol. i, The
geschied-uitbeelding,
I500-800o: een iconologische
characterand symbolize specificallythe ship of state cannot be accepted for exactlythe reasonsgiven here.
31 Nicolson, op. cit. (note 28), p. 19.

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Mon, 25 Aug 2014 15:10:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The interpretationof Dutch and Flemish tempestpainting

I49

the rocks at right. The centralship cannot be isolated

and interpretedwithoutregardto the entirecontext.To
takeanotherexamplein this painting,isolatinga single
featuresuch as the rocksand readingthem as metaphors
of enduranceand virtue,a commonmotifin emblems,is
totallyinappropriateto theirconventionaldramaticrole
in the largercompositionwherethey functionas means
of destructionor portendmortalperil.34
The multiplicityof symbolic readingsin the sources
and the quite unexpectedcharacterof manymetaphors
also requiresthat we not make exclusive claims to the
validity of a single interpretation.Land and seascapes
werelookedat in manycontextsand for varyingperiods
of time, from a brief glance to a prolongedmeditation,
and by peopleof varyingbackgroundsand dispositions,
makingit impossibleto be dogmaticabout the signific-

ance contemporarybeholdersperceivedin these works.

Our interpretationmust be guided by the contentof an
individualpicture itself and by its relationshipto the
conventionsto which it conformsor fromwhich it deviates,and in eithercasethroughwhichit communicated.
"Mere convention," as we sometimes dismissively
termit, is thus a methodologicaltool thatoffersaccessto
a levelof intrinsiccontentin landandseascapes.It offers
one avenueinto the complexof experiencethat shaped
the pictures,and it providesa meansof experiencingthe
worldof the imaginationthat the picturesevoke.

34 The cliffsin a shipwreckscene by JacobAdriaensz.Bellevoisare

interpretedas symbolsof virtuein exhib. cat. Die SprachederBilder:

Malereides 17. JahrRealitat und Bedeutungin der niederlandischen

hunderts,Braunschweig(HerzogAntonUlrich-Museum)1978, p. 46.

MCINTIRE DEPARTMENT OF ART

UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Mon, 25 Aug 2014 15:10:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions