Nicolaes Pietersz. Berchem

Nicolaes Pietersz. Berchem was born in Haarlem some time between 1621 and 1622¹. His father was Pieter Claesz, a well-known painter who specialised in still-lifes and who had moved to Haarlem around 1620–1. For a long time it was thought that Claesz originally hailed from Burgsteinfurt, but recent scholarship has revealed that he was born in Berchem, just outside Antwerp, and it was precisely from that village that Nicolaes took the name by which he was to become famous.

Berchem was already a member of the Guild of St. Luke in 1642, which tells us that by then he had already completed the apprenticeship on which he embarked in 1634 or 1635. According to his biographer Arnold Houbraken, the artist’s first master was his father, after which he continued to train under Jan van Goyen and, possibly during an initial spell in Amsterdam, also under Claes Moeyaert. Berchem returned to Haarlem between 1637 and 1639, completing his training under Pieter de Grebber, who was to have a major impact on his style. At that time, it was common in Haarlem to paint figures in a half-bust pose, a genre much appreciated also by such successful artists as Salomon de Bray. At the start of his career, Berchem appears to have drawn inspiration from these models to build his own artistic personality.

In addition to the landscape work that was to make him famous, Berchem also turned his hand to historical painting. An exemplary work in this genre is his St. Paul and St. Barnabas in Lystra (1650) now in Saint-Étienne. In this painting, the artist uses a stepped setting to build a composition with a strong perspective capable of leading the observer’s gaze through his visual narrative.

In 1647, Nicolaes Berchem’s name was included in a list of painters selected by Jacob van Campen to decorate the Oranjezaal in the Huis ten Bosch palace. In the end, however, the commission was entrusted to other masters who had already made their name on the art scene in Haarlem, such as Pieter de Grebber, Pieter Soutman and Salomon de Bray. The reasons for Berchem’s sidelining are unknown, but the fact that he was still young and less well-known than his colleagues may have played a decisive role in his exclusion.

Aware of the strong competition that existed in the field of historical painting, which was dominated by more mature and consolidated artists, Berchem chose to steer his own output towards a genre then gaining in popularity: the idyllic, pastoral landscape. It was a less saturated area of painting, but it was rapidly gaining a foothold, thanks, among other things, to the return of Pieter van Laer to Haarlem in 1638, following a lengthy spell in Rome. His genre scenes were to play a crucial role in the artistic development of Berchem, in whose youthful work we can detect two main stylistic trends: on the one hand, bucolic, idealised landscapes, and on the other, Italianate views deeply marked by Van Laer’s influence. Berchem merged these two trends in a highly individual manner to produce a form of pastoral painting in which he combines grace of composition with a sophisticated handling of light.

Nicolaes Berchem’s success is reflected not only in his artistic output but also in his private life. His firstborn son, called Nicolaes, was born on 1 October 1647 but died young. Two years later, on 13 April 1649, to mark their second son’s birth, his parents decided to reuse the name, and the family grew even further with the birth of two daughters, Hillegont in 1652 and Margriete in 1657.

Berchem’s career continued to go from strength to strength, attaining a moment of particular importance in 1650, the year in which he produced two of his most representative works: the above-mentioned St. Paul and St. Barnabas in Lystra and an Italianate Landscape with the Ruins of Brederode Castle. A number of paintings dating to the period 1652–3, characterised by Roman ruins and Mediterranean landscapes that are remarkable for their realism, have prompted several scholars to suggest that Berchem may have travelled in the south of Italy. The two most widely accepted hypotheses point to a potential spell in Italy from 1642 to 1645 or, alternatively, from 1653 to 1655². We can rule out the first hypothesis, however, because Berchem signed apprenticeship contracts in Haarlem in 1642, and in 1645 he was already a member of the Reformed Church in the city. Moreover, his style in those years reveals the direct influence of Pieter van Laer, who returned to the Netherlands in 1638, which suggests that the artist studied such models directly on Dutch soil.

No concrete documentary evidence of a trip to Italy on Berchem’s part has emerged. He does not appear in the ledgers recording the names of the so-called Bentveughels, and the absence of topographical sketches, which the artist would have been able to draw in Rome, fleshes out the hypothesis that his Mediterranean work was the product of a direct study of art and local models in the Netherlands.

Starting in 1650, Nicolaes Berchem’s style began to undergo a significant change. His compositions became more airy and panoramic, gradually distancing themselves from the more compact, tighter structure that was such a feature of the Haarlem tradition. This change is generally attributed to the influence of such artists as Jan Both and Jan Asselijn, both of whom returned to the Netherlands after spending a considerable amount of time in Italy and both of whom advocated a landscape style permeated by a Mediterranean atmosphere.

So while Berchem is unlikely ever to have travelled to Italy himself, he nonetheless proved capable of building a deeply evocative landscape style merging idealism with realism. That style was to prove immensely successful on the art market of his day, revealing how Italy could be “reinvented” even from a distance. At the same time, however, Berchem did not completely turn his back on the Dutch tradition between 1650 and 1660. He continued to paint idyllic pastoral landscapes marked by a more intimate, northern European sensitivity, which remained part and parcel of his signature output.

In addition to cultivating artistic relations, Berchem also showed a particular interest in the dynamics of the art market. In that context, he was able to rely on the influential commercial network of his father-in-law, Johannes Wils, who put him in touch with a number of important dealers, including Johan de Renialme in Amsterdam.

The decade from 1650 to 1660 marked Berchem’s full professional and financial maturity. On 19 March 1656, he purchased a property near the Kleine Houtpoort, just outside the walls of Haarlem. He had been living in rented accommodation until then³, and so the purchase of this property sanctioned his definitive establishment in society. He took in an apprentice, Jan Gerritsen van Russen, at the end of 1657.

Berchem also achieved important recognition within the Guild of St. Luke. He was elected to the corporation’s council for the two-year period 1656/7 and became a prior of the guild in 1658/9. He was not re-elected at the end of his mandate as prior, however, most probably because he was on the point of moving to Amsterdam. This move was sparked also by professional opportunities, including the possibility of collaborating with the celebrated cartographer Nicolaes Visscher. Nicolaes Visscher had published a large map of the world in 1658, illustrated with engravings by Johannes Visscher after Berchem’s drawings. For the first time, the painter’s name appeared alongside that of the publisher and the engraver, marking the start of a long and productive cooperation⁴.

Berchem’s move to Amsterdam was probably also influenced by considerations of a financial nature. The situation in Haarlem became increasingly difficult from the 1650s onwards, and its repercussions were also felt on the art market. Thus, it is hardly surprising that Berchem decided to move to the capital, where there were far greater opportunities for work and patronage.

Nicolaes Berchem reached the peak of his career in 1661. His reputation was now so consolidated that Cornelis de Bie included him in his Gulden Cabinet, an important biographical repertoire of Flemish and Dutch artists, openly praising his talent⁵. In those years, Berchem continued to enjoy immense success with his Italianate views, in which classical ruins and shepherds mingled in an idealised landscape.

Starting in 1665, the artist starte to devote his energies with greater frequency to port views, in which human figures began to take on a primary role to the detriment of the landscape and architecture behind them. In his Port View of 1568, the landscape still dominates the scene, but we can already detect the influence of Jan Baptist Weenix, who was famous for his scenes of Mediterranean ports enlivened by elegant figures.

Berchem continued to develop this genre between 1665 and 1670, further emphasising the narrative element: his figures, often exotic or richly dressed, became the leading players in his compositions, while the landscape and the ships were relegated to a mere background role. An emblematic example of this can be seen in a painting now in Hartford, in which we can identify a revisitation of the composition of his St. Paul and St. Barnabas in Lystra adapted to a port setting.

Nicolaes Berchem returned to Haarlem in the spring of 1670, after spending a decade in Amsterdam. He was elected to the council of the Guild of St. Luke on 16 September 1670 and held the post again in 1672 and 1674, albeit without receiving any official new appointment.

In this final period in his career, Berchem successfully turned his hand to a new genre characterised by scenes of hunting and looting, an area not much frequented by his contemporaries and thus devoid of any real, direct competition.

In 1677, Berchem returned to Amsterdam, where he was to spend the last few years of his life, continuing to display enormous creative vitality and a considerable capacity for renewal even in the final moments of his career.

He died in his home on the Lauriergracht on 18 February 1683 and was buried in the Westerkerk, the city’s most important Protestant church, on 23 February.

The lofty consideration in which Berchem’s work is held in old inventories

The inventory of his assets, draughted on 19 March 1683 after the death of his first wife, offers us a direct perception of the works of art that Berchem owned. His property included a painting of his own valued at 18 florins, two works by his father, Pieter Claesz, and two small paintings by Philips Wouwerman. Another inventory, dated 5 October 1666, relating to the collection of linen merchant Ambrosius Gudden, includes a painting by Berchem valued at fully 48 florins. This was the most costly of all the 41 paintings that Gudden owned. These documents testify not only to the value assigned to his work, but also to his ability to respond with flexibility to the demands of the art market right up to the last few years in his career.

Berchem’s success was not restricted to Amsterdam, however. His work was equally appreciated in Haarlem. The confectioner Samuel van Vliet, for instance, owned a large painting with figures, probably a historical subject, while the artist’s own father-in-law, Johannes Wils, had a number of his son-in-law’s paintings in his collection, alongside work by Pieter Claesz, Jan Both, Jan Baptist Weenix, Jan Asselijn and Cornelis Poelenburgh. In the capital, too, his name ranked amongst those most eagerly sought after by collectors. An inventory of assets owned by the merchant Isac Swartepaert, draughted in 1671, included a Pomona by Berchem valued at 36 florins. By contrast, Adam Pynacker’s paintings in the same inventory were valued at between 130 and 150 florins, a difference that might reflect the more imposing dimensions of Pynacker’s work rather than any difference in quality.

A significant example of the value assigned to Nicolaes Berchem’s work is represented by the Annunciation to the Shepherds, a painting that belonged to Louis Rinaldi and that was estimated at fully 70 florins. This might be the painting currently in the Bristol Museum & Art Gallery in England. Other inventories confirm Dutch collectors’ lasting appreciation of his painting. In 1681, Ernst van Cronenburgh owned a Landscape with Waterfall valued at 50 florins, along with a Landscape with Figures valued at 24 florins. In 1693, Leonard Winnix’s collection included a large landscape view that was worth the considerable sum of 200 florins, while in 1703 Paul van Uggelen owned a Landscape with a Flock of Sheep valued at 100 florins. These figures not only testify to the ongoing presence of Berchem’s work in the most prestigious private collections, but also to their high value, which remained constant over time, well after the artist’s death.