Why is Vermeer so Popular?
The pen is mightier than the brush
In February 2023, The Rijksmuseum, in Amsterdam, opened the ‘biggest Vermeer exhibition ever’, selling nearly half a million tickets. The initial offering sold out in just a few days. In 2015, on my last visit to the museum I was struck by the crowds jostling before the painting of ‘The Milkmaid’. Why such interest? The Dutch Republic produced plenty of interesting paintings. Vermeer was just one of many. What has lifted him to prominence? His paintings are small and similar to so many other works from the Golden Age of Dutch interiors.
Vermeer was considered good in his day. He lived 1632 to 1675, in Delft, well known and respected by his contemporaries. Voted ‘headman’ of the local painter’s guild twice,[1] he was renowned enough to be used as an expert witness in an authenticity dispute over Italian works, which holds some irony since his work has offered no end of work opportunities to generations of experts. He sold many works, and is likely to have had one substantial patron, Pieter van Ruijven. Vermeer certainly doesn’t fit the popular motif of ignored genius like Van Gogh. Vermeer’s works held reasonable value for the time. In 1696 the estate of Jacob Dissius auctioned 21 Vermeers raising 1503[2] Guilders (€17500 today[3]). Jacob had married the daughter of Pieter van Ruijven, receiving bequests and probably buying his own works.
The 18th Century was a much quieter era for Dutch artists because the Netherlands became a pawn, economically squeezed between France and Great Britain, but Vermeer remained well known at least in Holland. He also started to be recognized outside of his native country. Toward the end of the 18th Century, French painter and art seller Jean Baptist Pierre Le Brun was aware of him. Le Brun made multiple visits to Holland, comparing Vermeer to other Dutch artists like Gerrit Dou and, Gabriel Metsu. A large Dou painting sold for the equivalent of €150000 in 1716[4] so the comparison was very complimentary. In 1822 Holland’s Willem I bought ‘View of Delft’ for the National collection in the Hague.[5]
English Art Dealers commented on the Hague Vermeer, and it was this painting, in 1858, that interested French critic Théophile Thoré-Bürger, who is incorrectly credited with rediscovering Vermeer. Rather, it was Thoré who discovered a marketing strategy, attaching the label ‘Sphinx of Delft,’ thereby creating a tale of mystery and intrigue. Art lovers and Art dealers were one and the same at this time. Finding an ‘unknown’ and creating demand is an art form in itself.
Was Vermeer better than his contemporaries like Metsu, Frans van Mieris, the truly mysterious Jocobus Vrel,[6] or Pieter de Hooch?
He certainly was not as valuable as any of these artists in the 18th and 19th Centuries.
One of Vermeer’s works ‘The Art of Painting’ had been graced with Pieter de Hooch’s signature to increase its value.
George III paid Ê150[7] (€31000) for ‘Music Lesson’ in 1762, as part of a collection, but it was then attributed to van Mieris.
To become more popular, Vermeer needed a marketing story which Thoré was happy to provide. He was selling articles and catalogs about Dutch painting, motivated by a desire to achieve preeminence in the trade and move stock.
Collectors are just as interested in the story of the artist as they are in the art. For sellers, promoting unknown artists was also profitable, because works could be bought cheaply. For example, in 1881 ‘Girl with a Pearl Earring’ sold for the equivalent of €40[8]. Thoré started buying Dutch Art in the 1860s. ‘A Lady Seated at a Virginal’ (1675) was purchased by Thoré for 2,000 francs (€8500) in 1867.[9] At his death, in 1892, an auction of 11 works attributed to Vermeer, produced nearly 163000 Fr, (€800000). The most valuable being ‘A Lady Seated at a Virginal’, later gifted to the National Gallery, London. Thoré did very well from Vermeer, identifying over 70 of his works, which is a testament to his enthusiasm, and double the number recognized today. He offered another work to the National Gallery for Ê157 (€17000)[10] described as an ‘Old woman with a reel.’ It is unknown to the Vermeer catalog today.
By the early 20th Century, a Vermeer was part of any Dutch Painting exhibition, but not the main attraction. The market jumped when wealthy American collectors joined the fray. Vermeer was the mysterious ‘Sphinx of Delft’ which made him a good candidate for rediscovery. Newly found Vermeer paintings were touted by art dealer/connoisseurs. Expert/authenticators received fees for their certification forming a very cozy business operation. The Russian Revolution and the Great Depression provided tales of aristocrats selling the family collections, and Vermeers were a regular sensation. For example, ‘The Smiling Girl’ was sold in the US for equivalent of €750000 in 1925.[11]
The Delft painter reached new heights when he received his first solo exhibition in 1935 in Rotterdam. Art historians were confident that more Vermeers would be found. Over 40 had been authenticated. The Nazi era offered up even more displaced and stolen works including the widely hailed masterpiece ‘The Supper at Emmaus’ sold to a Dutch museum for the equivalent of €3 500 000. This was a premium price, partly to stop the Nazi acquisition of Dutch National treasures.
All were forgeries. At least seven were done by the unpleasant narcissist, Han Van Meegeren, who was just as adept at creating a story as any art connoisseur. In 1940 he purchased a hunting scene done by Dutch painter, A Hondius (1638–1691), and cleaned off the paint, being particularly careful to remove the white lead that would be visible to X-ray. Old pigments, including Vermeer’s favorite ultramarine, were mixed into a hard bakelite resin with various oils. He then created the ‘Supper’ in six months, coating it in varnish and rolling it repeatedly to create cracks which he tinted with ink to produce typical crazing. It truly was a masterpiece and would have remained so (as would the ‘Smiling Girl’) if Van Meegeren hadn’t been scooped up in the anti-collaboration sweeps of 1945. Charged with selling Dutch heritage to Herman Goering he sensationally proved his innocence by painting a Vermeer in his prison.[12] Worldwide newspaper headlines about the forgery raised the Vermeer profile further. However, the point about the forgeries is that what sold them was the story created by the forger. Art experts had speculated on the influences of Vermeer, and Van Meegeren played to their expectations. Once he convinced the connoisseurs the auction was fast and furious.
Understandably, the art world was wary of Vermeers for a while and the arguments about authenticity continue to this day. It took fifty years from Van Megeerens’ performance before Vermeer had another solo show and the 1995 exhibition included some contested works. It was a blockbuster on both sides of the Atlantic, repatriating Vermeer in the public gaze. The novel ‘Girl with a Pearl Earring’ followed in 1999, and the movie of the same name in 2003 which grossed over €3000000 worldwide. This popular story helped Vermeer become the modern superstar we encounter today.
His contemporaries would be surprised. His small pieces were considered just that.
Vermeer is a master painter but as Van Meegeren knew you need more than a brush to make a masterpiece. You need a story.
[1] The Great Artists Marshall Cavendish p1732
[2] The so-called Dissius Auction http://www.essentialvermeer.com/clients_patrons/dissius_auction.html
[3] International Institute of Social History https://iisg.amsterdam/en/research/projects/hpw/calculate.php
[4] The so-called Dissius Auction http://www.essentialvermeer.com/clients_patrons/dissius_auction.html
[5] Wester Peter ‘A mere pre-discovery or a meaningful découverte?”: The early discovery of Johannes Vermeer by Jean-Baptiste Pierre Le Brun’ August 2015 http://www.essentialvermeer.com/history/le_brun.html#_ftn24
[6] https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2021/09/20/did-this-mysterious-dutch-painter-inspire-vermeer
[7] The Australasian 1/12/1945 p37
[8] Lopez J ‘The Man Who Made Vermeers’ Mariner Books, Boston 2009 p53
[9] Dictionary of Art Historians quoted in Thoré-Bürger and the Rediscovery of Johannes Vermeer (essentialvermeer.com)
[10] The Australasian 1/12/1945 p 37
[11] Lopez J ‘The Man Who Made Vermeers’ Mariner Books, Boston 2009 p64
[12] Coremans PB ‘Van Meegerens Faked Vermeers and De Hooghs’ Cassell and Co London 1949
