Judith Leyster, 17th Century Dutch master

[Alexandra Tyng]

Judith Leyster is one of my favorite painters. In fact I would go so far as to say she is one of my heroines, not because she overcame all odds, but because she was superbly talented and made her way amongst the great artists of her time and place.

Leyster was born in Haarlem in 1609. She was the 8th child of a brewer. There is no record of her artistic training, and this may be related to the fact that her father's business suffered financial woes during that time period when she would have been studying as an apprentice. She has been called a child prodigy and certainly her talent was evident at a young age. In her teens, she was mentiond as an artist in a book by Samuel Ampzing on the history of Haarlem. In 1633, at the age of 24, she was the only woman admitted to the Haarlem Guild of St. Luke, an artists' guild. Within three years, she had three male apprentices, but she sued Fran Hals for stealing one of them within a few days of his arrival. (She never got a satisfactory settlement in this case.) Interestingly, before this incident occurred, she was present at the christening of one of Hals' children.

The vast majority of her work is date between 1629 and 1635. In 1636 he married another artist, Jan Miense Molenaer, who also painted genre scenes but who was cnsidered not as talented as Judith. Only two pieces after 1636 are known to be painted by Leyster. Leyster and Molenaer had five children, two of whom reached adulthood. Judith Leyster died in 1660 at age 50.

[Christy Talbott]

That's interesting, Alexandra, thanks for sharing!

It's a shame that only two of Judith's paintings are known of after her marriage. I suppose having children ended her career. You have to wonder too if it could have been that she neglected her painting for the love of her husband who wasn't considered as talented a painter... you know, there is that male ego!

[Enzie Shahmiri]

Alexandra, I love the spontaneity of her self portrait. It looks so carefree and joyful unlike many of the very stern looking self portraits that are out there.

Christy, you are right it's too bad there is so little work left. Sometimes though male artists took the female's work and said it came out of their workshop. Didn't Artemisia Gentileschi have that happen to her?
Or the work of females gets attributed to that of a male?

[Alexandra Tyng]

Originally Posted by Christy Talbott

It's a shame that only two of Judith's paintings are known of after her marriage. I suppose having children ended her career. You have to wonder too if it could have been that she neglected her painting for the love of her husband who wasn't considered as talented a painter... you know, there is that male ego!

Christy, it's interesting that these thing happen so often today.

A third possibility--and this has been tossed around by art historians, is that she collaborated wth her husband on paintings to help him in his career, and he signed them with his name. It isn't too far-fetched, because this kind of thing was pretty common. There were in fact whole families of artists, whose sons married the daughters of famous painters, who then produced more talented children, and all worked in the studio to produce paintings under one or two names.

It would be interesting to do a study of Molenaer's work after his marriage to see if it improved!

[Alexandra Tyng]

Originally Posted by Enzie Shahmiri

Or the work of females gets attributed to that of a male?

Enzie, this has actually happened to some of Leyster's work. Several were attributed to Hals, then reattributed to her.

Here is a quote from Germaine Greer's famous book, The Obstacle Race, on female artists. She writes about Judith Leyster:

"If Judith Leyster had not been in the habit of signing her work with the monogram JL attached to a star. . .her works might never have been reattributed to her. . .As a result of the discovery that The Jolly Companions bore Leyster's monogram, the English firm which had sold the painting to Baron Schlichting in Paris as a Hals attempted to rescind their own purchase and get their money back from the dealer, Wertheimer, who had sold it to them for 4,500 pounds not only as a Hals but 'one of the finest he ever painted'. The. . .case. . .was setled in court. . .with the plaintiffs agreeing to keep the painting for 3,000 pounds plus 500 pounds costs. The gentlemen of the press made merry at the experts' expense, for all they had succeeded in doing was in destroying the value of the paintiung... . At no time did anyone throw his cap in the air and rejoice that another painter, capable of equalling Hals at his best, had been discovered."

How sad! There may be more of her paintings out here, but there is no real incentive to go through them or reattribute them.

[Alexandra Tyng]

Here are two more by Judith Leyster:

1) The Jolly Companions, which was sold by A. Wertheimer as a Hals and then reattrbuted.

2) The Proposition

I think her work is wonderful. It has a sensitivity quite different from Hals' work, and the brushstrokes are expressive but less energetic than Hals'. To me her work is very distinct from that of other artists of her time.

I found that Amazon carries a book of her work:
Judith Leyster: A Dutch Master and Her World

[Thomasin Dewhurst]

Lovely work you've shown us, Alex. I do know of Judith Leyster but hadn't looked at her paintings for a while. A nice mixture of Bruegel and Rembrandt.

(A refreshing tonic for me after looking at a highly biased collection of banal and self-consciously post-modern figurative painters. I am extricating myself from this contemporary art that has "something-to-say" or, rather, "something-to-ram-down-your-throat".

I am going to paint like a dead European!)

[Enzie Shahmiri]

Ah, why am I not too surprised! Thank you for bringing our attention to this.

[Alexandra Tyng]

Thomasin and Enzie, glad to know you share my enthusiasm. it's such a pleasure just looking through her work and deciding which ones to post!

There's an exhibit now in New York, Dutch Portraits: The Age of Rembrandt and Frans Hals. I learned about it through a portrait client who had just seen the show and was raving about it. He brought out the catalog, and I went crazy looking at all the pictures.17th Century Dutch painting is high on my list. Suddenly realized I hadn't seen any Leysters. Granted, she didn't produce much work, but then her work is ranked up there with the best. Plus, she produced several very fine portraits. I looked through the index and realized to my disappointment that she was not included in the show. Her name wasn't even mentioned in the index. It was very disappointing. I would have liked the opportunity to see some of her work in person. It also put me off from seeing the how--but I think I will have to get over it and go to NY because I just heard from another friend that it was amazing.

[Ilaria Rosselli Del Turco]

Alex, I have seen the show in London and it is truely amazing, especially in the juxtaposition of Hals' and Rembrandt's works on similar subject (guilds portraits and anatomy lesson).
The whole thing is a little sombre and dark, plenty of black coats lightened by exquisit white collars. After coming out of it one needs a little Matisse though, just to freshen the eyes.
Ilaria