Friday Arts Diary

Our cultural picks for the week ahead.

Art

Moniker Art Fair, Village Underground, EC2A 3PQ, 11-14 October

Now in its third year, Moniker Art Fair has become a highlight of London's autumnal art week. This year, it has attracted some of the contemporary scene’s most accomplished and renowned artists, including legendary Pop Surrealist Luke Chueh, fresh works from Pam Glew, and the work of Surrealist up-and-comer Nancy Fout

Music

Ether Festival: John Cale. Royal Festival Hall, Sat October 13

A founding member of one of the most defining bands of a generation, the Velvet Underground, John Cale’s return to the Royal Festival Hall coincides with the release of his cryptically titled Shifty Adventures in Nookie Wood, which is out this week.  His experimentalist verve and willingness to explore new artistic frontiers ensures that he remains an unstoppable force on the contemporary scene.

Literature

Durham Book Festival, 13-30 October

Durham Book Festival returns for another edition this month. It is jointly produced by New Writing North with Durham Country Council and Durham University. From prose to poetry, the festival programme includes events spanning a wide spectrum of topics at various locations in County Durham and at iconic venues in the city itself. The festival boasts a host of newly commissioned work from the likes of Michael Smith and Carol Ann Duffy.

Festival

Inside Out Festival, London (various venues), 22-28 October

In association with The Times Higher Education and the New Statesman, the Culture Capital Exchange delivers the third instalment of the Inside Out Festival. The programme includes 50 eclectic events taking place across the capital over the course of the week, ranging from talks, panel debates, performances and exhibitions. The festival offers the chance to experience in person some of the city’s most celebrated thinkers, including Will Self, Michael Morpurgo and Bidisha. Most events free, but require booking.

Theatre

All That Fall, Jermyn Street Theatre, until 3 November

Originally commissioned by the BBC as a radio play in 1957, Samuel Beckett’s All that Falls charts the journey of Maddy Rooney, a 70-something unwieldy woman as she trudges across country back roads to meet her blind husband. All that Falls is a bawdy comedy with a life affirming charm, full of superb one-liners, even if they are somewhat spiked by intimations of mortality. Although not originally conceived for stage, All that Falls offers a rare opportunity to experience a superlative cast – including Michael Gambon and the excellent Eileen Atkins – in an intimate, 70-seater setting. 

Michael Gambon and Eileen Atkins in Samuel Beckett's All That Fall. Photo: Alastair Muir
©HOLBURNE MUSEUM. THE FITZWILLIAM MUSEUM, CAMBRIDGE.
Show Hide image

A sketchy legacy? How Pieter's sons kept Brand Bruegel going

For all his business acumen, Pieter the Younger was no original and his skill was weedy compared to the robustness of his father’s.

One of the many complications that make the Bruegels the most confusing clan in art is the letter H. Pieter Bruegel the Elder, the founder of the dynasty and its greatest artist, was the painter of such celebrated works as The Hunters in the Snow (1565) and The Tower of Babel (1563). Contrary to the elegance and elevating tenets of the Italian Renaissance, he made the peasant life of the Low Countries his subject, in all its scatological, rambunctious and therefore human detail. In 1559 he dropped the H in his surname and started signing in Roman capital letters – Brueghel becoming the rather more stately Bruegel.

Bruegel had two sons, Pieter and Jan, aged four and one at the time of his death in 1569. Both became painters, too, and as their careers took off Pieter the Younger reinstated the H his father had discarded (though in later life, to add to the disorder, he reversed the order of the U and E) and it remained the moniker of the innumerable painting Brueghels who followed. Rather more confusing than this alphabet jiggery-pokery, though, is the sheer number of painters in the dynasty – some 15 blood relations over the course of 150 years, before a plethora of apprentices, collaborators and intermarriages is factored in.

It is partly to unknot this family tree that the Holburne Museum is running “Bruegel: Defining a Dynasty”, a small but choice exhibition of about thirty pictures that show the distinctiveness of the leading family members. What makes the ­early-generation Bruegels worth looking at in detail is that each was significant in a different way.

The geographer Abraham Ortelius wrote of Pieter the Elder: “That he was the most perfect painter of his age, no one – unless jealous, envious or ignorant of his art – could ever deny.” For all the earthiness of his peasant subjects and their rural pastimes, he was collected by the richest of Antwerp’s merchants, by the Spanish governor general of the Netherlands, Archduke Ernst, and by the Holy Roman emperor himself, Rudolf II in Prague. His patrons recognised that he was no mere Hieronymus Bosch derivative but a highly innovative artist (candlelit interiors, snow scenes, landscapes) whose depictions of human folly mixed the comedic with the serious, but nevertheless contained the belief that wisdom and virtue were the means for redemption.

When Bruegel died, his two sons were trained in painting by their maternal grandmother, Mayken Verhulst, an accomplished miniaturist in her own right, and came of age at a time of Bruegel mania, when there just weren’t enough of their father’s pictures left to go round. There are only three Bruegel the Elders in the whole of Britain, and the National Gallery has lent its Adoration of the Kings (1564) to the show, the first time in a century it has left Trafalgar Square.

Pieter the Younger set out to milk the market and painted large quantities of copies of his father’s most popular works by using the original preparatory cartoons – scale drawings with holes pricked around the figures, which, when dusted with charcoal, would transfer the outlines to a panel beneath. The resulting pictures were very saleable Bruegels by Brueghel: he painted 45 versions of his father’s Winter Landscape with a Bird Trap, 25 of The Peasant Lawyer, and 31 of the 100 existing versions of the riotous Wedding Dance in the Open Air. There’s a lot of Pieter the Younger about.

For all his business acumen, Pieter the Younger was no original and his skill was weedy compared to the robustness of his father’s. It was the second son, Jan “Velvet” Brueghel, who was an artistic pioneer. Nature was his topic and although he, too, repurposed his father’s peasant scenes in his work, as in A Flemish Fair (1600), he shrank the goings-on to make them merely an incident within a diaphanous landscape, rather than the main subject.

Jan painted works of great refinement in oil on copper rather than wood, and also developed the genre of pictures of vases of flowers of kaleidoscopic colour that then became such a popular strand of 17th-century Dutch art. He also frequently worked with collaborators, usually figure painters such as Rubens (who was godfather to at least one of his children), realising that a joint Brueghel-Rubens painting was worth more than one by himself alone.

To add to the mix, one of Jan’s daughters, Anna, married the Golden Age genre painter David Teniers, while another, Paschasia, married into the van Kessel family – their offspring becoming popular for their miniature paintings of insects and plants.

What emerges from this tangled genealogy is that though talent ran in the family, it did so unevenly: Pieter the Younger was a pretty competent painter, Jan a good one, but Pieter the Elder had a genius his descen­dants never got close to matching.

Runs until 4 June. More details: holburne.org

Michael Prodger is an Assistant Editor at the New Statesman. He is an art historian, Senior Research Fellow at the University of Buckingham, and a former literary editor.

This article first appeared in the 16 February 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The New Times