The rise and fall of cities and their art

 

Rubens, Samson and Delilah, c1610, commissioned by Nicolas Rockox, mayor of Antwerp, for his own house

I am intrigued to learn more about cities. That very vague idea is not very helpful – a glance at bookshops for books with “city” in the title rapidly runs into hundreds. It needs to be a more precise interest. How about this? 

Some cities give the impression that they were always big: London and Paris are examples. Their history can be found, but isn’t very visible among the constant renewal and rebuilding of the centre. In contrast, former cities display much more of their history even to the casual observer. By “former”, I mean a specific group, which enables me to refine my interest in cities to something much more specific: cities that experience a dramatic change in fortune, whether growing or retracting, and ideally both. Think about it: cities that were once great, but no longer: Venice, Bruges, Dundee. In England, Norwich, Kings Lynn. Further down the scale, think of Boston, Lincolnshire, with its enormous spire as evidence of a time of wealth, and now looking down on some quite significant poverty.

So, a reading programme about why cities decline. It seems to me a good combination of reading with visiting, since the evidence on the ground will be very apparent – nobody had the money to demolish all the remains of former wealth. One problem, however, is that there always seem to be more books written about “golden ages” (which could include Amsterdam, Antwerp, Venice) but much less about the decline. I find the long slow cultural decline of Florence under the Medici a fascinating subject, even if it shows an inverse relationship between wealth and artistic quality. Or, more precisely, while the Medici remained rich, there was no longer a wide art-buying public.

Does Antwerp fit this scenario? After a couple of visits my superficial impression was the very significant presence of 17th-century buildings and culture. The Rubens House, and his vast output, is entirely 17th century. The Plantin printing and publishing operation had a monopoly of publishing liturgical texts for the Catholic Church. The Rubens House was begun 1610. The Snijders & Rockox House dates from 1603 onwards. Yet we are told the Fall of Antwerp in 1585 reduced the city to a shadow of its former self, losing 40% of its population.

Perhaps it is my contrary thinking, but it looked to me that Antwerp (and surrounds) did not appear to be suffering too much in comparison with its northern neighbour, The (northern) Netherlands. It’s not, in other words, a simple claim that Protestantism is linked with artistic quality. 

But artistic quality may have a link with economic success. At least, in the eyes of Maarten Prak, who writes (in Five Books on the Dutch Golden Age):

There is a big debate about the economic origins of the Dutch Golden Age. The debate is about whether it was the result of Antwerp merchants moving to Amsterdam, and taking Antwerp’s ‘golden age’ with them in their bags, or whether things had been happening already in the Dutch economy before 1600 that helped launch the Dutch Golden Age.

But what interests me is what of course should be obvious, that great art happens when there is economic success. Perhaps it’s just a matter of statistics: painters in the Italian Renaissance painted a lot of pictures because they were being paid well, and widely, to do so. Similarly, in the Dutch Golden Age, there was a vast market for domestic paintings (and paintings paid for by private clients for display in churches). Among those thousands of pictures, a handful will be exceptional. That happened in 15th-century Flanders, in 16th-century Antwerp, and in 17th-century Netherlands. Maarten Prak again:

A group of painters emerged, including van der Weyden and van Eyck, the best of whom were producing for courtier audiences, but still operated in urban environments, and also had an urban clientele … You see that happening in Ghent and Bruges in the 15th century, in Antwerp in the 16th century, and then in Amsterdam, and other towns in Holland, in the 17th century.

But you also see it in 17th-century Antwerp, with Rubens, Jordaens, and others. Why should this be?