We’re remarkably good at perceiving different surface textures, but find it harder to imagine them in two-dimensional images. While the overwhelming majority of paintings, at least until the twentieth century, consist of a paint layer on a flat ground, there’s nothing that requires the surface of the paint layer to be flat and smooth. But if all you look at are images of paintings, you generally won’t see their surface texture, where the artist has applied and shaped paint in thick layers of impasto, or incised into some of the layer in sgraffito. This article looks in detail at four examples where surface texture in the paint layer is important.

Arnold Böcklin’s unusual painting of Sirens from 1875 was made in tempera on canvas, with the ground and paint layers thin enough to let the texture of the canvas weave show through. This image was fortuitously taken with lighting that allows the texture to show.

Another famous tempera painting wasn’t painted on a textured ground, but is one of the earlier paintings to feature impasto as a technique.

The Wilton Diptych was painted on two small panels of oak wood in the final years of the fourteenth century. That wood was first assembled into the panels, then carved down from a thickness of about 2.5 cm (1 inch) to form an integral frame with a recessed painting surface. A smooth gesso ground was then laid on the wood before the gilded areas were laid onto it using thin sheets of gold leaf, and patterned using a range of punches.

Details of jewels and similar objects such as the white hart brooches were raised using thicker areas of lead white paint, to give the impression of enamelling. Coupled with mordant gilding, they mimic the three-dimensional form of jewels and act as point reflectors of light, sparkling as if they really were gems in the paint layer, as shown in the details above and below.

The finest strokes of paint seen here are less than 0.5 mm (1/50th of an inch) across.

From those early days of modern painting until the decline of ‘academic’ painting in the late nineteenth century, patrons, Salon juries and critics expected paint surfaces to be smooth and flat. But there were rebels.

Many of Rembrandt’s paintings from before 1650 have fairly conventional ‘finished’ surfaces, his monumental Night Watch being a good example. By about 1660, though, many of his paintings had quite rough surfaces that significantly alter their optical properties.

One of the best examples of Rembrandt’s use of texture in the paint layer is The Jewish Bride from about 1667, just a couple of years before his death. This is among his works studied by the Rembrandt Research Project.

In this detail, highlights on the sleeve and jewellery have been applied roughly, although it’s still a matter for speculation as to exactly how he achieved that. Lower down, on the red dress of the bride, the duller top layer of paint has been scraped through to reveal lighter lower layers. The end result is a painting that creates its visual effects as much by its surface textures, as by form or colour.

One of Rembrandt’s secrets that have been sought by so many since lies in how he was able to exploit surface texture in his paint. That is the ‘secret recipe’ which Maroger, Redelius, and others claimed to have discovered. Systematic analyses of Rembrandt’s paint layers by White at the National Gallery in London and the Research Project soundly rebutted the ‘secrets’ claimed. In the main, Rembrandt used linseed oil as his binder, occasionally using walnut oil as well, and just once poppy seed oil.

In some passages the oil had been thickened by heat treatment, but this was by no means widespread. Traces of pine resin found in some samples may have been introduced during retouching, and don’t appear to be a feature of Rembrandt’s impasto work; neither is there any evidence that he added wax to his oil paint to give it body, as some had asserted.

As you might expect, JMW Turner was another such rebel.

For example, in his Seapiece with Fishing Boats off a Wooden Pier, a Gale Coming In, possibly from as early as 1801, Turner made extensive use of sgraffito, made using a knife, brush handle, or even his fingernails for all we know.

Later that century, Vincent van Gogh developed a more radical approach, in his initial version of Wheat Field with Cypresses from 1889, the year before his death.

It’s possible that he completed this painting in a single sitting, as this seems to have been intended as an oil sketch for a more finished version which he painted later that summer.

The detail above shows the tops of the wheat towards the lower left of the field, in the foreground. Over his initial thin layers of paint, van Gogh laid thick gestural strokes of highly chromatic paint, orientating those strokes according to the object they show. In the golden yellow of the wheat there are blues and greens, mostly showing through from his underpainting, with superimposed impasto of pale straw, ochre, and pale greens.

This detail, taken from the edge of the wheatfield at the lower right corner of the painting, shows three distinct areas of brushwork: the diagonal strokes forming the standing wheat, swirling loops to form the grasses and weeds below, and shorter marks forming a more random pattern for the heads of the wheat in the upper section.

At the centre of the canvas, from where this detail is taken, impasto blue and white have mixed with the green and yellow of the fields below. This shows that much of the painting was painted wet on wet, either in the same session or on consecutive days. Some of the darker green at the right may have been painted later, onto paint that had by then become touch dry.

An X-ray image of the whole painting shows in white those passages likely to contain the most lead white, and some other pigments which are most radio-opaque. This also reveals the pattern of brushstrokes well.

With the introduction of acrylic paints in the latter half of the twentieth century, painters have been able to apply even heavier impasto, and some have used this to paint what are in effect reliefs.

This is why so many paintings have to be seen in the flesh, up close, and in the right light for their full appreciation.

As organised occupational groups, guilds have ancient origins, and in Roman times were known as collegia. Although they were an important part of Renaissance society, few if any appear to have commissioned group portraits, which were largely confined to families at that time. This changed in the Dutch Golden Age, and some of its best-known paintings depict occupational and other groups.

In 1617, Michiel van Mierevelt and his son Pieter, specialists in portraiture, painted The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Willem van der Meer, one of the earliest portraits of a social group from the Dutch Golden Age. Members of this group are all ignoring the cadaver in front of them, preferring to look at the painter, and are thought to be members of the Surgeons’ Guild of the city of Delft, who commissioned this work.

Rembrandt painted his Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp in 1632, as an early commission soon after his arrival in Amsterdam. It’s a group portrait of distinguished members of the Surgeons’ Guild in their working environment. Most remarkable is the fact that its principal, Dr Tulp, and most of his colleagues aren’t looking at the dissected forearm.

As cities developed in the Dutch Republic, guilds and associations flourished. This wasn’t a period of peace, and most towns and cities required adult males to be members of the local civic militia or schutterij for mutual defence. These were operated using the guild model, with local men appointed to military rank for their command. Their roles included helping defend the town or city in the event of attack or revolt, and manning a night watch, in which members took turns to patrol the streets.

One of the earlier of these group portraits is Frans Hals’ Banquet of the Officers of the Calivermen Civic Guard from 1627. Contemporary records have enabled their identification as (from the left) Willem Claesz. Vooght, Johan Damius, Willem Warmont, Johan Schatter, Gilles de Wildt, Nicolaes van Napels, Outgert Akersloot, Matthijs Haeswindius, Adriaen Matham, Lot Schout, Pieter Ramp, and Willem Ruychaver at the right.

The cost of these group portraits was relatively modest, as it was normally shared between those depicted. In most cases shares weren’t equal, but determined by the member’s rank in the organisation.

Hendrik Gerritsz Pot used the novel technique of putting indigo layers over underpainting, without the protection of glazes, in his Portrait of the St Adrian Civic Guard, Haarlem from 1630. As a result of fading of the indigo, what were originally bright blue sashes have become almost white, as shown in the detail below.

Frans Hals’ Officers and Sergeants of the St Adrian Civic Guard (1633) not only shows the same group of men, but has suffered exactly the same fate with their formerly blue sashes.

Hals’ Militia Company of District XI under the Command of Captain Reynier Reael (1633-37) shows a group known as the Meagre Company. He was commissioned to paint this in 1633, but three years later it remained unfinished, and the commission was transferred to Codde to complete the right side of the canvas and many of the hands and faces a year later.

Painted a decade later, Rembrandt’s vast group portrait of The Night Watch (1642) is perhaps the most famous of them all, although it’s more correctly titled Militia Company of District II under the Command of Captain Frans Banninck Cocq. It features the commander and seventeen members of his civic guard company in Amsterdam, and took the artist three years to complete from his first commission to paint this for display in the great hall of the guards.

Captain Frans Banninck Cocq (in black with a red sash), followed by his lieutenant Willem van Ruytenburch (in yellow with a white sash) are leading out this militia company, their colours borne by the ensign Jan Visscher Cornelissen. The small girl to the left of them is carrying a dead chicken as a symbol of arquebusiers, the type of weapon several are carrying (detail below).

Some of these militia group portraits commemorated events of greater significance than social occasions. On 15 May 1648, peace between Philip IV of Spain and the Lords States General of the Dutch Republic was finally ratified to end the Eighty Years’ War, and on 18 June this was marked by The Celebration of the Peace of Münster, 18 June 1648, in the Headquarters of the Crossbowmen’s Civic Guard (St George Guard), Amsterdam, painted here by Bartholomeus van der Helst with Jan Vos.

At the right with a silver horn is Captain Cornelis Jansz. Witsen, who is shaking the hand of Lieutenant Johan Oetgens van Waveren. In the centre, seated behind the drum with a flag draped over him, is Reserve Officer Candidate Jacob Banning, and around him are Sergeants Dirck Claesz. Thoveling and Thomas Hartog.

Neighbourhood and welfare organisations also flourished, and the latter distributed money, food, clothes and fuel to the poor. These were run by the middle classes, who formed themselves into regents for the purpose of their administration.

Johannes Cornelisz Verspronck’s Regentesses of the St. Elisabeth’s Hospital (1641) shows the group of august ladies who oversaw that charitable foundation in Haarlem. Time has shown that they too were victims of fugitive pigment, as their tablecloth was originally a rich green. Its unprotected indigo blue has faded from much of its surface, leaving most of it an odd yellow ochre hue.

The gentlemen shown in Frans Hals’ group portrait of the Regents of the Old Men’s Alms House, Haarlem from 1664 were responsible for running the alms house for poor elderly men in the city of Haarlem.

The humble domestic chicken is probably the most common and widely distributed farm animal. It originated in about 8,000 BCE in south-east Asia and spread its way steadily across every continent except Antarctica. It probably reached Europe before the Roman Empire, and since then has been commonplace. Perhaps because of its small size and frequent presence, it features in relatively few paintings.

The cruel sport of cockfighting accompanied its spread, and is depicted in Jean-Léon Gérôme’s first successful painting in 1846.

This motif had started from a relief showing two adolescent boys facing off against one another. Gérôme felt he needed to improve his figurative painting, and after Delaroche’s advice decided to develop that image by replacing one of the boys with a girl. In both Greek and English (but not French) the word cock is used for both the male genitals and a male chicken, and the youthful Gérôme must have found this combined visual and verbal pun witty and very Neo-Greek.

There’s a curious ambivalence in its reading too: two cocks are fighting in front of the young couple. Is one of the birds owned by the girl, and if so, is it the dark one on the left, which appears to be getting the better of the bird being held by the boy? Either way, it’s a lightly entertaining reflection on courtship and gender roles, and a promising debut. The Cock Fight earned Gérôme a third-class medal, and he sold the painting for a thousand francs. With the benefit of favourable reviews from critics, the following year brought him lucrative commissions, and a growing reputation.

A dead chicken plays a significant role in one of Rembrandt’s most famous group portraits.

His vast group portrait of The Night Watch (1642) is the most famous of all those of militia in the Dutch Republic. It features the commander and seventeen members of his civic guard company in Amsterdam. Captain Frans Banninck Cocq (in black with a red sash), followed by his lieutenant Willem van Ruytenburch (in yellow with a white sash) are leading out this militia company, their colours borne by the ensign Jan Visscher Cornelissen. The small girl to the left of them is carrying a dead chicken, a curious symbol of arquebusiers, the type of weapon several are carrying.

For a young child, cockerels can appear large and threatening, as used by Gaetano Chierici in a delightful visual joke.

His undated painting of A Scary State of Affairs calls on our experience of the behaviour of cockerels and geese. An infant has been left with a bowl on their lap, and their room is invaded first by cockerels, then by those even larger and more aggressive geese. The child’s eyes are wide open, their mouth at full stretch in a scream, their arms raised, and their legs are trying to fend the birds away.

Being among the most humble and everyday domestic species, chickens seldom make the limelight in religious narratives.

Murillo’s Adoration of the Shepherds from about 1650 is an exception featuring unusual additional details including the old woman carrying a basketful of eggs, and chickens in front of the kneeling shepherd.

In most paintings including chickens, though, they are just extras in the farmyard.

Paulus Potter’s Figures with Horses by a Stable (1647) includes finely painted horses, chickens, a dog, and distant cattle, with a magnificent tree in the centre and a sky containing several birds.

In Chickenfeed from 1867, Hans Thoma tackles this genre scene in a traditional and detailed realist style.

Alberto Pasini’s Market Scene from 1884 has an eclectic mixture of produce, ranging from live chickens to pots and the artist’s signature melons.

Évariste Carpentier’s undated Eating in the Farmyard, an example of the rural deprivation which sparked Naturalist art, shows two kids surrounded by animals and birds in this much-used space.

Here, Carpentier’s old woman is busy Feeding the Chickens.

Friedrich Eckenfelder’s Zollernschloss, Balingen from about 1884-5 shows a small yard just below the back of this castellated farm in Germany, with its lively flock of chickens.

Gustav Klimt had probably painted his first small landscapes between 1881-87, and returned to the genre more seriously in about 1896. This work, variously known as After the Rain, Garden with Chickens in St. Agatha, or similar, is thought to have been painted when Klimt stayed in the Goiserer Valley with the Flöge family in the summer of 1898.

Very occasionally, a chicken may come as something of a surprise.

Hieronymus Bosch’s Ship of Fools, a fragment from a larger Wayfarer triptych painted in 1500-10, is actually a small boat, into which six men and two women are packed tight. Its mast is unrealistically high, bears no sail, and has a large branch lashed to the top of it, in which is Bosch’s signature owl. Its occupants are engaged in drinking, eating what appear to be cherries from a small rectangular tabletop, and singing to the accompaniment of a lute being played by one of the women. A man has climbed a tree on the bank to try to cut down the carcass of a chicken from high up the mast.

There seems to be some confusion over what windmills are, so this weekend I show a selection of paintings of them across Europe. This article covers the period between 1500-1850, when they remained popular. From the twelfth century until the twentieth, they were a common sight on many skylines in northern Europe. Preceding the better-known vertical windmills were various horizontal designs, and windmills continued to flourish until the middle of the nineteenth century. Used wherever there was a need for driving a rotating axle, they were widely employed to grind cereals into flour, power sawmills, make paper, grind materials, and thresh corn.

Hieronymus Bosch’s uniquely imaginative paintings often featured realistic background landscapes. One recurring setting is a city based on Antwerp or his home town of ‘s-Hertogenbosch, with a windmill closest to the viewer. This appears in the centre panel of his triptych The Adoration of the Magi from about 1490-1500, for instance.

A similar windmill appears in a slightly different setting in the version of The Temptation of Saint Anthony now in Lisbon, from around 1500-10, in its right wing. This is shown in the detail below.

The Bruegels also worked amid many windmills, but none seems so prominently out of place than in Pieter Bruegel the Elder’s Procession to Calvary from 1564. Windmills were commonly built on hills, where they would benefit from the most consistent wind, but this example on a towering crag is not only geographically inappropriate, but completely impractical. It stands on a circular platform to allow the mill to rotate according to the direction of the wind, but would hardly have been above Jerusalem at the time of the Crucifixion.

More at home are the half dozen windmills clustered around the port of Dordrecht in the Netherlands, shown in Jan van Goyen’s View of Dordrecht with the Grote Kirk Across the Maas from 1644.

Rembrandt painted few non-narrative landscapes, but among them is this dramatic view of The Mill (1645-48) seen in the rich rays of twilight.

The great masters of Dutch landscape art like Jacob van Ruisdael must have painted many hundreds of windmills, of which one of the best-known is this view of The Windmill at Wijk bij Duurstede from about 1670. This small town, now a city, is on the bank of the River Rhine, an ideal location for delivering grain by barge, and shipping the resulting flour. This should have kept the mill as busy as the wind allowed, and its owner prosperous.

This view of a Landscape with Windmills near Haarlem was painted by John Constable in 1830, almost two centuries after the original made by Jacob van Ruisdael.

Windmills were also a common sight along the lower reaches of the River Thames. William Hogarth’s print from his Industry and Idleness series shows its anti-hero Idle being rowed out to join his ship at Cuckold’s Point on the River Thames, opposite what were then the West Indian docks, between Limehouse and Greenwich. Long after these windmills had gone, this section of the river was still involved with the grain trade.

There were other windmills upstream of the city of London too. In what must be Thomas Girtin’s most famous painting of The White House at Chelsea, from 1800, the artist looks upstream of the River Thames from a location close to the modern Chelsea Bridge. The landmarks shown include, from the left, Joseph Freeman’s windmill (or Red House Mill), a horizontal air mill, the white house close to where Battersea Park is now, Battersea Bridge, and Chelsea Old Church. Girtin painted this when he was twenty-five, and showing greater promise than his rival JMW Turner. Two years later Girtin died of asthma.

A few years later the topographic painter John Varley painted this close-up view of the same Red House Mill, Battersea, Surrey, looking back in the opposite direction.

Some of the well-known windmills supplying the city of Paris with its flour were those above its outskirts on Montmartre Hill. Georges Michel’s view of The Mill of Montmartre was probably painted in about 1820, by which time there were only a few left.

Richard Parkes Bonington probably painted Barges on a River in around 1825-6 when he was travelling near the French town of Nantes. The windmill seen behind the trees is reminiscent of seventeenth-century Dutch landscape painting.

During his detailed realist period early in his career, Johan Jongkind painted this View of Maassluis in Winter (1848). Following the long tradition of landscape painting in the Netherlands, he sets his horizon low and paints a wonderful winter sky.

In 1640, soon after Rembrandt and his wife Saskia had moved into their own house in a fashionable quarter of Amsterdam, she gave birth to their third child, who died shortly afterwards. The following year, their fourth was born, Titus, the only one to survive to adulthood, although even he died before Rembrandt.

His vast group portrait of The Night Watch (1642) is perhaps the most famous of all those of militia in the Dutch Republic. It’s more correctly titled Militia Company of District II under the Command of Captain Frans Banninck Cocq, and features the commander and seventeen members of his civic guard company in Amsterdam, and took the artist three years to complete from his first commission to its display in the guards’ great hall.

Captain Frans Banninck Cocq (in black with a red sash), followed by his lieutenant Willem van Ruytenburch (in yellow with a white sash) are leading out this militia company, their colours borne by the ensign Jan Visscher Cornelissen. The small girl to the left of them is carrying a dead chicken, a symbol of arquebusiers, the type of weapon several are carrying.

At the time, Saskia’s health was declining rapidly, and she died in 1642, most probably from tuberculosis, which was rife at the time. Rembrandt hired a widow, Geertje Dircx, to look after his young son Titus, and she became the artist’s lover.

Another superb example of Rembrandt’s later techniques is in his painting of David and Jonathan from 1642.

Rembrandt painted few non-narrative landscapes, but among them is his dramatic view of The Mill (1645-48) seen in the rich rays of twilight. This is a post mill, whose wooden top was turned into the wind to set its sails turning.

His relationship with Titus’ nurse broke up acrimoniously in 1649, and he first had to pay her alimony, then the cost of confining her in a house of correction when she broke her side of their agreement. As they were parting, he began a relationship with the much younger Hendrickje Stoffels, who had been his maid.

Stoffels is claimed to have been the model for A Woman Bathing in a Stream, painted in 1654, when she was expecting their first child.

She probably appears again in his masterly painting of Bathsheba with King David’s Letter from 1654, showing an imagined moment late in this Old Testament story.

Bathsheba is at her bath, this time in the privacy of her bedchamber, her feet being cared for by an old and presumably worldly-wise maid or nurse. Clutched in Bathsheba’s right hand is a letter, the title tells us from the king himself. Her eyebrows are raised in surprise, and she stares dreamily down at her attendant. We must presume that this letter is the king’s invitation to her to join with him in adultery. Rembrandt skilfully heightens the suspense in the lighting, and enhances the intimate detail with Bathsheba’s jewellery and ornamented hair. The crumpled sheets behind her make it clear that David’s invitation isn’t to a public engagement, but to a very private one.

In June 1654, Stoffels was summoned by her church accused of committing “the acts of a whore with Rembrandt the painter”, for which she was banned from receiving communion. That October, she gave birth to their daughter, but the couple were unable to marry as Rembrandt would consequently have lost access to a trust set up by Saskia. His finances continued to worsen, and in 1656 he declared his insolvency, resulting in his house being sold at auction early in 1658. He was, though, allowed to keep his studio equipment, and he was able to live on as a tenant. That year Rembrandt’s son Titus and Hendrickje Stoffels formed a company of art dealers, thus enabling the artist to continue painting.

Rembrandt’s Baucis and Philemon (1658) shows Jupiter looking decidedly Christlike, and Mercury the younger, almost juvenile, figure, sat at the table of a dark and rough cottage, lit by a lamp behind Mercury. This dramatic lighting is precursor to similar effects in his later Ahasuerus and Haman and Conspiracy of the Batavians, shown below. Philemon and Baucis are crouched, chasing the evasive goose towards Jupiter. A humble bowl of food is in the centre of the table, and there is a glass of beer. As is usual in Rembrandt’s narrative paintings, he dresses them in contemporary rather than historic costume.

Rembrandt’s Self-Portrait from 1658 is one of the most insightful of his unique series of self-portraits, showing the artist bankrupt and growing old.

He drew Ahasuerus and Haman at the Feast of Esther (1660) from an Old Testament story in the book of Esther, via the contemporary play Hester by Johannes Serwouters, first performed the previous year. The original narrative revolved around Haman, one of King Ahasuerus’ officials, who proposed to hang Mordechai as a scapegoat for the Jewish nation, as revenge for their pride. In this painting, Haman is shown in the shadows on the left, with King Ahasuerus in the centre, and Esther – Mordechai’s cousin and Ahasuerus’s wife – radiant in her intervention to save Mordechai’s life.

In 1661, Rembrandt secured a major commission for what was then the new Amsterdam City Hall, completed in 1655, now the Royal Palace. The dozen large spaces intended for paintings were going to be filled by Govert Flinck, who had started but not completed them when he died in 1660. Rembrandt sketched what he is believed to have completed in the summer of 1662.

The painting that we see today as The Conspiracy of the Batavians under Claudius Civilis (1661-2) is but a small central rectangle within the original. His entire painting was hung in place for a while, but appears to have fallen into disfavour. It was taken down and returned to the artist, who wasn’t paid, and no longer had sufficient influence to change anyone’s mind in the matter. Meanwhile Jürgen Ovens (1623–1678) completed Flinck’s version, which was hung instead of Rembrandt’s. Rembrandt was desperately short of money at this time, so cut the painting down to a more saleable size, repainted parts of it, and sold it on.

Hendrickje Stoffels died in July 1663, leaving Rembrandt with his son Titus. Despite his advancing years and continuing battles to pay his rent and bills, Rembrandt’s paintings attained new heights. Typical of these are two portraits of Lucretia ending her life following her rape by Sextus Tarquinius.

In the earlier of the two, from 1664, Lucretia is seen just about to run the dagger home into her chest. Rembrandt dresses her in fine contemporary clothes, rather than the black robes of the story, and she is richly decorated with jewellery. She faces the viewer, but her head is slightly inclined to the right, and she stares emptily at her right hand. Her face shows calm resignation to her fate, with a tinge of wistful sadness. Her arms are outstretched to the edges of the canvas. The left hand is grubby and held open, palm towards the viewer, perhaps protesting her virtue. The right grasps the handle of a dagger, which is just being brought around in an arc to impale her chest and bring her end.

Rembrandt’s later painting of 1666 is more remarkable still: Lucretia has already pierced her chest with the blade. Her fine clothing has been pulled back to reveal her simple white shift, with a broad streak of fresh, bright red blood running down from the point at which the dagger was inserted. Her arms are outstretched here too, but for very different purposes. The right hand still clutches the dagger, which has dropped to waist level already. Her left hand is dragging a beaded bell-pull, presumably to summon her family to witness her final moments on earth. It is her face, though, that makes this painting. Her eyes, moistened by welling tears, are looking away to the right of the painting, in an absent-minded stare. Her brow is tensed with subtle anxiety. She knows that she is about to die, and is preparing herself for that moment.

Rembrandt continued to develop his mark-making right up to his death. It’s often at its most florid when he painted fabrics, such as the clothing of the couple shown in The Jewish Bride of about 1665. The Dutch Republic had long been a safe harbour for Jews fleeing from oppression in other European countries, and Rembrandt had cultivated close relationships with members of the large Jewish community in Amsterdam, some of whom had modelled for his paintings of Old Testament stories.

The Return of the Prodigal Son from about 1668, the year before the artist’s death, is a more conventional treatment of this parable from the Gospels, in which the younger son, almost barefoot and in rags, kneels in front of his father. Around them are members of the household, and details that are now hard to read. As with other late works, there’s a profound feeling of tenderness and redemption, which may have had personal significance.

Rembrandt’s son Titus van Rijn died in 1668, at the age of only 26, and Rembrandt died on Friday 4 October 1669. Three years later the Dutch Republic was invaded by French forces, and its Golden Age came to an abrupt end.

Rembrandt is probably the most famous artist of the Dutch Golden Age. Although his career is by no means typical, it does illustrate some of the forces at work behind the explosive growth of art during this period, and is a good excuse to show a few of his paintings for context with other artists of the period.

He was born in the city of Leiden, then the second largest in the Dutch Republic after Amsterdam, with a population of 45,000 in 1622, and growing rapidly. Its major industry was the weaving of textiles, and through the seventeenth century it attracted many weavers to migrate from Flanders. Another flourishing local industry was printing and publishing, which was helped by the city’s university, founded in 1575, and its role as a centre of learning and scientific development.

Rembrandt was the ninth child in a prosperous family, his father being a miller. He was well educated, initially at a school in the centre of the city, then from the age of 14 at the university. He soon opted to be apprenticed as a painter, and joined the workshop of Jacob van Swanenburg in Leiden, who had trained in Italy. After three years, Rembrandt went on to work for shorter periods with Pieter Lastman, a history painter in Amsterdam, and others there.

Rembrandt’s early painting of The Operation, from his late teens in 1624-25, shows a barber-surgeon and his assistant performing surgery on the side of a man’s head.

In 1625, when he was only 19, he became a master in his own right, and opened his first studio in Leiden, shared with his former fellow-student Jan Lievens. Two years later he started taking on his own apprentices.

In 1626-27, Rembrandt painted this portrait of a Man in a Gorget and a Plumed Cap, demonstrating the strange effects that cast shadows can have on perception of the face. This also shows his early mastery of surface textures and reflected highlights.

Rembrandt’s break came in 1629, when he was discovered by a distinguished poet and composer Constantijn Huygens, who was secretary to the head of state, held influence in the Hague, and was the father of Christiaan Huygens, a leading mathematician and physicist. Huygens helped arrange commissions for Rembrandt, and introduced his work to Prince Frederik Hendrik, then head of state.

Although several of his best-known chiaroscuro paintings were made in his old age, Rembrandt had long used the technique when appropriate, here in Saint Peter in Prison (The Apostle Peter Kneeling) from 1631.

Rembrandt’s The Abduction of Proserpina (c 1631) is probably the first masterpiece to show this myth. Pluto is trying to drive his chariot away, with Proserpine inside it. She’s putting up fierce resistance, and trying to fend him off. Hanging on to the hem of Proserpine’s floral dress is a woman who should perhaps be her mother Ceres, but bears the crescent moon normally associated with Diana. Pluto’s chariot is being drawn by two black horses through an ethereal almost fluid carpet of flowers. The horses and chariot are about to disappear into a black cleft in the earth to make their descent to Hades.

In 1631, Rembrandt moved his studio to Amsterdam, the centre of trade and business for the Dutch Republic, and growing rapidly from a population of about 50,000 in 1600 to exceed 200,000 in the 1660s. He started getting commissions to paint portraits of those enjoying success in the city.

Rembrandt painted his Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp in 1632, as an early commission soon after his arrival in Amsterdam. It’s a group portrait of distinguished members of the Surgeons’ Guild in their working environment, and a good example of his lucrative work. Portraits like this would typically be paid for by subscription of those included, often in proportion to their standing.

Rembrandt’s The Abduction of Europa (1632) isn’t well known today. It conforms to Ovid’s account in his Metamorphoses, but loses dramatic effect by placing the bolting bull in a dominant and very Dutch landscape, cluttered with Europa’s carriage, large trees, and a distant port.

His Philosopher in Meditation from 1632 shows the sinuous curves of a spiral staircase seemingly defying gravity as it rises to the storey above, and is one of his early interiors.

The young prophet Daniel (of lions’ den fame) was King Cyrus the Great’s confidant, according to the book of Daniel. When Cyrus asked Daniel why he didn’t worship the Persian god Bel (Baal), Daniel responded by saying that he worshipped a living god, not a mere idol. Cyrus then claimed that Bel too was a living god, and pointed to the offerings of food and wine that were placed before his statue, and were consumed each night. Daniel remarked cautiously that bronze statues do not eat, which for a moment threw Cyrus. But Daniel had exposed the deception of Bel’s priests.

In this painting of Daniel and Cyrus before the Idol Bel of 1633, Rembrandt has captured Cyrus, standing in the centre, pointing at the food and wine placed on the altar to Bel, whose huge idol is seen rather murkily at the upper right. Behind the modest figure of Daniel are some of the priests who maintained this deception.

Rembrandt painted this portrait of Bellona in 1633, when his career was flourishing. Given that she’s holding the Aegis normally associated with Minerva (Athena), I wonder whether there has been a misunderstanding here, but there’s no mention of the possibility that this might be Minerva instead.

His self-portrait from 1631-33 shows the artist in fancy dress with a large poodle, making it clear that he had truly arrived.

In 1634, Rembrandt became properly established in Amsterdam, when he was accepted as a member of Guild of Saint Luke, and married Saskia van Uylenburgh, daughter of a respected lawyer. The following year, the couple moved into a rented property with a view of the river. That December, she gave birth to their first child, a son, who lived for only two months.

Rembrandt and Saskia in the Parable of the Prodigal Son from about 1635, when the artist was just short of being thirty years old, shows the young wife sitting on his lap as he raises a large fluted glass of beer at the viewer.

With his artistic and commercial success, Rembrandt’s income rose rapidly. Like many successful Dutch citizens of the time, much of that income was spent on gathering possessions. In his case, these included a remarkable collection of Old Masters, including several paintings by Giorgione, objets d’arts, and even suits of armour. Some of these appear as props in his paintings.

Rembrandt’s Blinding of Samson from 1636 is an explicit depiction of the destruction of his eyes, as Delilah makes off behind with his hair and a pair of shears.

His outstanding painting of Belshazzar’s Feast was made in about 1635-38, when he was developing his distinctive techniques of depicting decorative metals, as shown in the detail below.

In the summer of 1638, Saskia gave birth to their second child, who died less than a month later.

The following year he followed fashion in painting this Still Life with Two Peacocks and a Girl (c 1639).

That Spring Rembrandt and his wife moved into their own house in one of the city’s more fashionable streets, among successful artists and dealers in art. To finance this purchase, the artist had to raise a substantial mortgage, which was to come back and haunt his later life, as I’ll describe in tomorrow’s conclusion.

Between the Middle Ages and the twentieth century there have been three periods in which European painting has changed dramatically: in the Renaissance, the Dutch Golden Age, and the nineteenth century. Of those, the Renaissance is usually viewed as the most important. In this series, I make the case for paintings of the Dutch Golden Age being more revolutionary than those of the Renaissance, and bringing greatest change.

The Low Countries, covering what’s currently the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and parts of north-eastern France, had been a patchwork of small duchies and other states under the overall rule of the Holy Roman Emperor. In 1568-1579, seven of the more northerly provinces revolted to form their own Dutch Republic with the Union of Utrecht.

These are shown in red, orange and yellow in this map. Centres of art in the Dutch Republic included The Hague, its de facto capital, Utrecht, Leiden, Delft, Harlem, and Amsterdam. To the south were the lands composing the Spanish Netherlands, notably Flanders and Brabant, including the cities of Antwerp and Brussels. Thus, Peter Paul Rubens who worked from his workshop in Antwerp until his death in 1640 was Flemish, while Rembrandt who was brought up in Leiden and worked in Amsterdam until his death in 1669 was one of the leading artists of the Dutch Republic.

Although the Dutch Republic existed between 1579-1795, the period known as its Golden Age is generally agreed as ending in around 1672, with the French invasion, and its start in art is usually delayed to around 1600. During that period of seventy years the provinces flourished, with extensive colonies overseas and rich trade with them and throughout Europe. The population of 1 to 1.5 million grew prosperous, with rising disposable income.

Society was liberal, with a high degree of religious tolerance and high immigration. Religious and ethnic minorities who were being oppressed in other parts of Europe were welcomed in the Republic, and the city of Amsterdam became a centre for migrants. This encouraged an increasingly learned society, with innovative science and academic institutions, rising literacy, and flourishing arts.

Paintings became popular possessions across much of Dutch society, and were sold in the first art fairs and by dealers, rather than being commissioned through a system of patronage. Few wall paintings were made in this period, and paintings of the Dutch Golden Age are almost exclusively ‘easel’ paintings, most of them relatively small so they didn’t require a large mansion for their exhibition.

Training of painters remained based on apprenticeships in workshops, and there was no academy system to stifle creativity. Once trained, masters joined their local Guild of Saint Luke and were able to establish their own workshop. Prices remained low so paintings were affordable by almost everyone. Production was extraordinary, with estimates of more than a million paintings being produced in a twenty-year period, and possibly as many as five million in the whole period of seventy years.

This resulted in the rapid development of new genres and themes in addition to those established by the Renaissance, and this is probably the most enduring effect of the Dutch Golden Age on European painting.

Portraits extended beyond those of single patrons or their close families.

Rembrandt painted his Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp in 1632, as an early commission soon after his arrival in Amsterdam. It’s a group portrait of distinguished members of the Surgeons’ Guild in their working environment. Another novel sub-genre was the group portrait of a section of the local militia, best-known now from Rembrandt’s huge Night Watch from 1642.

Painting other humans was extended to cover their livestock and other animals.

Paulus Potter, who became a member of the Guild of Saint Luke in Delft in 1646 founded the new genre of animal painting with his nearly life-size portrait of The Bull the following year. Beyond the animals here is the church of Rijswijk, between Delft and The Hague.

The tentative landscapes that had started to appear in the Renaissance flourished into what was probably the most popular genre of all.

Dutch landscape artists quickly realised that, even if they had relatively little earth and water to depict, the heavens above could be equally interesting. Horizons fell rapidly down their paintings, as seen in Jan van Goyen’s View of Dordrecht with the Grote Kirk Across the Maas from 1644.

Some painters, including Jacob van Ruisdael, turned their canvases to make portraits of towering clouds, as in his View of Haarlem with Bleaching Fields from about 1665. The distant town of Haarlem with its monumentally large church of Saint Bavo – works of man – is dwarfed by these high cumulus clouds, the works of God. This motif proved so popular that Van Ruisdael painted many variants of the same view, making it now one of the most widespread landscapes across the galleries of Europe.

Although Adriaen van de Velde from Amsterdam went on to paint farm animals, his early beach scenes, including The Beach at Scheveningen (1658), broke new ground that a century earlier would have seemed inconceivable in a painting. Others turned their attention to the rapidly growing cities.

Gerrit Berckheyde’s view of Groote Market in Haarlem, Amsterdam from 1673 shows one the largest of the city’s marketplaces at the end of the Golden Age.

Paintings of the Flemish Renaissance had often explored the optical properties of surfaces. These continued in the development of another new genre, that of still life.

Clara Peeters trained in Antwerp, then painted an outstanding series of still lifes in the Dutch Republic. Among those is her still life with Cheeses, Almonds and Pretzels from about 1615, a celebration of the very earthly sensuous pleasures of food.

Ambrosius Bosschaert painted this Flower Still Life in oil on copper in 1614. At first its eclectic mixture of different flowers and flying insects might appear haphazard. However, the flowers include carnation, rose, tulip, forget-me-nots, lilies of the valley, cyclamen, violet and hyacinth, which could never (at that time) have been in bloom at the same time. The butterflies, bee and dragonfly are as ephemeral as the flowers around them, suggesting that this has an underlying vanitas theme.

The son a of Flemish immigrant, David Bailly, who lived and painted in Leiden, painted this Self-Portrait with Vanitas Symbols in 1651, with its multiple portraits referring to the past. The figure shows him as a much younger man, holding the maulstick he used in painting. His actual self-portrait at the time is in the painting he is holding with his left hand. Next to that is a painting of his wife, who had already died, and a ghostly image of her is projected onto the wall behind the wine glass.

Gathered in front of the artist are ephemera and other signs of vanitas: the snuffed-out candle, a glass of wine, flowers, and soap bubbles, together with a string of pearls and a skull. If that message is not clear enough, he provides the quotation on a piece of paper: vanitas vanitum et omnia vanitas, together with his signature and date.

Of all the genres that flourished in the Golden Age, it was painting everyday life, now generally referred to as genre painting, that was most novel and popular.

Long before its value in preventing scurvy was realised (in 1747), or it was carbonated even later, still cloudy lemonade had become a popular soft drink. The extensive trade links of the Dutch Republic made the drink available to the middle classes, as celebrated in Gerard ter Borch’s The Glass of Lemonade (1655-60).

A fashionably-dressed young man is helping to prepare a glass of lemonade for a young woman, who is equally open about her love of fashionable clothing. Behind her is the woman’s nurse or maid, who is having to comfort her through the excitement of the experience. They are surrounded by a contemporary Dutch interior, with the inevitable bed lurking in the dark at the right.

It’s easy to mistake Pieter de Hooch’s A Woman Drinking with Two Men from about 1658 for a Vermeer, and like the latter he decorates the far wall with a contemporary map. The Eighty Years’ War had not long ended, and the Dutch Republic was flourishing. Discarded objects are scattered on its black-and-white tiled floor. There’s a large and empty fireplace, and above it hangs a religious painting.

I hope you’ll join me in the coming weeks as I explore how painting flourished and changed in the Dutch Golden Age.