Creator talk:Pieter van der Borcht (I)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Date of death
[edit]The best source I've found for Borcht is Oxford Art Online (Grove): Borcht, Pieter van der
They note quite a bit of confusion over identity (several artists by this name active in the same places and times; and other databases clearly reflect this confusion), but ultimately give his death in 1608. The floruit (and active) dates thus shouldn't, as best I can tell, extend to 1611. @Vincent Steenberg: Can you chime in on how to resolve this? Is there a better source we should prefer over Grove? --Xover (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- The date of around 1611 as the date of his death is based on the Dutch Institute for Art History (see https://rkd.nl/en/explore/artists/10699) based in turn on a fairly recent publication (F. van der Jeught, 'Nieuwe biografische gegevens over Peeter van der Borcht en zijn familie, schilders van Mechelen in de 16e eeuw', Handelingen van den Koninklijken Kring voor Oudheidkunde, Letteren en Kunst van Mechelen 116 (2012), p. 115-132).
- There could be more artists with that name active in the same period, but the next Pieter van der Borcht I could find was a pupil in 1604 and died in 1662 (see https://rkd.nl/en/explore/artists/10700), so that can't be this one. You say that Oxford Art Online says he was born in 1545 and died in 1608. I think these dates refer to his (presumed) active period. This print File:The Village Fair MET DP855185.jpg attributed to Van Der Borcht is dated 1549. Born in 1545 he would have been 4 years old when he made it, which is very unlikely. His death date then. I haven't got a clue what the 1608 date or the 1611 date is based on, so I'm following the expertise of F. van der Jeught, although I haven't checked this source. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm. Is your impression that RKD is generally reliable for this kind of thing? They certainly have a lot of data, but I've seen several cases lately where their data have been contradicted by other sources that I considered more reliable. But this isn't my field so I'm loath to rely too much on my own judgement on such things. I can't find an actual date for when the entry in Oxford/Grove Art was updated, but they cite Bénézit and several other sources from the first half of the 20th century, so it does not seem unreasonable to suspect their information may be out of date. Their entry on van der Borcht is:
- Borcht, Pieter van der
- (b Mechelen, 1545; d Antwerp, 1608).
- Flemish painter, engraver and draughtsman. His identity is confused: it is known that a painter called Pieter van der Borcht worked in Mechelen for the Antwerp publisher Christoph Plantin from 1564 onwards. From 1552 until at least 1592 this artist—referred to as Pieter van der Borcht IV by Hollstein and as Pieter van der Borcht II by Bénézit—made etchings as well as woodcuts with the inscription fecit petrus van der borcht.
- In addition, there was a Pieter van der Borcht active in Mechelen, who, after 1552, made woodcuts which he signed p.b. Thus, either one artist had a steady output of woodcuts and etchings over a long career (1552–c. 1600) or there were a number of artists with the same name. The second hypothesis seems the more likely. It is supported by other facts. In 1580 a ‘Pieter Verborcht, painter’ became a master in the Guild of St Luke in Antwerp, of which he served as dean in 1591 and 1592; the ‘Pieter van der Borcht Jacopsz. of Mechelen, painter’ who became a citizen of Antwerp was probably a different artist, since according to guild regulations it is doubtful that a non-citizen could have been a master in the guild from 1580 until 1597. There were two other painters in Brussels by the name of Pieter van der Borcht in the 17th century, one of whom may be identical with the Pieter van der Borcht IV described by Bénézit as an engraver active c. 1600.
- The 16th-century Pieter van der Borcht who signed his name as the ‘inventor’ (designer) of prints contributed greatly to the spread of peasant weddings, country fairs and feasts as popular subjects. However, unlike the more sympathetic renderings of Pieter Bruegel I, those after van der Borcht’s designs follow the German precedent of depicting the peasants as loud, carousing figures whose behaviour is ridiculed in the captions (e.g. Great Flemish Fair, 1559, Hollstein, no. 467). Besides peasant scenes, this artist engraved religious and mythological subjects and historical events. Many of his prints served as book illustrations (e.g. the series of 100 pictures for Imagines et figurae bibliorum, 1582; Hollstein, nos 1–100).
- Unfortunately I can't find a copy of van der Jeught's Nieuwe biografische gegevens anywhere, so it's a bit hard to assess its relative reliability (is he for instance a local amateur historian writing for the local tourist board, rather than an actual historian; or maybe a historian that does not specialise in painters and doesn't realise there may be more than one; etc.). I will note though, that Oxford does elsewhere specify when their dates are floruit dates, so absent strong indications otherwise I would assume that when they write "born/died" they mean birth/death dates and not floruit dates. --Xover (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- yes, for Dutch and Flemish artists the RKD database is usually very reliable. They are a government organisation and its their job to be as acurate as possible. On the history of Dutch and Flemish art they are regarded very highly. For example the Rijksmuseum website usually copies its data (spelling of names, active period etc.) without alteration.
- If you ask me, the article that you copied raises more questions than it answers. For example: where do the exact dates of 1545 and 1608 come from when his birth and death seem to be undocumented? and: How come two artists (printmakers) with more or less the same name moved from Mechelen to Antwerp around the same time? The RKD suggests these are the same person, however, without explaining how he became a dean of the Antwerp painters guild without being a citizen of Antwerp. So I'm a bit lost now.
- Van der Jeught, François, is a local historian who contributed quite a bit to the history of Mechelen, see http://www.oudheidkundigekring.be/mechelen/search/node/van%20der%20Jeught. So I'll contact the Koninklijke Kring voor Oudheidkunde, Letteren en Kunst van Mechelen to see if I can get a hold of their 2012 yearbook to see what he has to say. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm, yes, confusion does appear to be an apt summary. If you find a way to check the yearbook directly that would be very helpful. However, in the mean time, and based on what you write above, it seems clear that we should generally privilege the RKD artists database over Oxford Art Online (Grove + Bénézit with some more modern additions) for artists from this area and era. --Xover (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Xover: , I received the yearbook today and yes, it answers most questions. Two documents from the Mechelen archives were investigated by this Van der Jeught. One dating from 31 December 1610, where he is mentioned in an active role, which means he was still alive then. The other dating from 25 February 1613, where his entire family is mentioned, including his father, who – in this document – is said to have died around 1532 (!). Having had 2 younger brothers, Van der Jeught concludes he must have been born before 1530. Also all of his brothers had died at that point, so Van der Jeught assumes Pieter van der Borcht was also deceased by that time. So we've got an approximate date of birth (before 1530) and death (which Van der Jeught fixes at around 1611, but which could be as late as the beginning of 1613). And having reached the relatively old age of at least 81 the first statement in the Oxford Art Online article, that he ‘had a steady output of woodcuts and etchings over a long career (1552–c. 1600)’ seems to be true. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Vincent Steenberg: Ah, excellent. That clears things up tremendously.
- I think we can then sketch out a rule of thumb: Oxford Art Online is a good general source, but it may be out of date and we now have an example where it is directly misleading. The RKD artists database is a very good specific source for artists from this area and era, and should be privileged over Oxford. I've tweaked the Wikidata entry to reflect this information as best I can, and the display here (the mix of Wikidata properties and local data) appears to be reasonable (it uses the local
|Lifespan=rather than birth/death but, ignoring the issue of maintaining such data locally, that may even be the preferable datum). We'll probably have to keep an eye on this as Template:Creator and Module:Creator changes their Wikidata support though. - PS. Apologies for the tardy response. IRL has interfered a little more than predicted lately.
- Regards, --Xover (talk) 07:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Xover: , I received the yearbook today and yes, it answers most questions. Two documents from the Mechelen archives were investigated by this Van der Jeught. One dating from 31 December 1610, where he is mentioned in an active role, which means he was still alive then. The other dating from 25 February 1613, where his entire family is mentioned, including his father, who – in this document – is said to have died around 1532 (!). Having had 2 younger brothers, Van der Jeught concludes he must have been born before 1530. Also all of his brothers had died at that point, so Van der Jeught assumes Pieter van der Borcht was also deceased by that time. So we've got an approximate date of birth (before 1530) and death (which Van der Jeught fixes at around 1611, but which could be as late as the beginning of 1613). And having reached the relatively old age of at least 81 the first statement in the Oxford Art Online article, that he ‘had a steady output of woodcuts and etchings over a long career (1552–c. 1600)’ seems to be true. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm, yes, confusion does appear to be an apt summary. If you find a way to check the yearbook directly that would be very helpful. However, in the mean time, and based on what you write above, it seems clear that we should generally privilege the RKD artists database over Oxford Art Online (Grove + Bénézit with some more modern additions) for artists from this area and era. --Xover (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm. Is your impression that RKD is generally reliable for this kind of thing? They certainly have a lot of data, but I've seen several cases lately where their data have been contradicted by other sources that I considered more reliable. But this isn't my field so I'm loath to rely too much on my own judgement on such things. I can't find an actual date for when the entry in Oxford/Grove Art was updated, but they cite Bénézit and several other sources from the first half of the 20th century, so it does not seem unreasonable to suspect their information may be out of date. Their entry on van der Borcht is:
