A leading art historian is challenging the widely accepted identity of one of Johannes Vermeer's most celebrated paintings, suggesting that "The Art of Painting" displayed at Vienna's Kunsthistorisches Museum may not be the work described in historical documents from the 17th century. This controversial theory could mean that a true Vermeer masterpiece remains lost to history.
Vermeer's "The Art of Painting," created between 1666 and 1668, has long been considered the Dutch master's greatest achievement and currently serves as a centerpiece of Vienna's prestigious art museum. The artist kept this impressive work in his possession throughout the final years of his life, leading art historians to believe he used it as a showcase piece to demonstrate his extraordinary skills to potential clients and patrons.
The painting gained additional historical significance through its connection to Vermeer's financial troubles after his death in 1675. When the artist's widow, Catharina, was declared bankrupt shortly after her husband's passing, she desperately fought to retain ownership of this particular work. In her attempts to protect the painting from creditors, Catharina unsuccessfully tried to transfer ownership to her mother, Maria, hoping this legal maneuver would prevent the artwork from being seized to pay off debts.
The controversy stems from a 1676 legal document that specifically references "a picture wherein is depicted the Art of Painting," written in Dutch as "de schilderconst." Paul Taylor, a respected specialist in 17th-century Dutch art and curator at London's prestigious Warburg Institute, argues that this historical term had a very specific meaning that differs from how the Vienna painting is currently understood.
Taylor's extensive research has revealed that the term "de schilderconst" was traditionally used to describe allegorical representations of painting rather than realistic studio scenes. While art experts widely accept that the woman playing a trumpet in Vermeer's composition represents Clio, the allegorical muse of history, Taylor believes this supports his argument about the painting's true allegorical nature.
Through meticulous historical investigation, Taylor has identified 25 different descriptions of Dutch paintings from the same period that claim to depict "de schilderconst." Remarkably, all of these works are described as simple allegorical personifications of the art of painting, rather than detailed scenes showing actual artists working in their studios. This pattern suggests a consistent understanding of the term that differs from modern interpretations.
Taylor's research, published in the Rijksmuseum's scholarly work "Closer to Vermeer," includes evidence from prominent Dutch writers and artists of Vermeer's era. He cites Karel van Mander, Philips Angel, Samuel van Hoogstraten, Gerard de Lairesse, and Arnold Houbraken, all of whom used the term "de schilderconst" in ways that support his allegorical interpretation.
Based on this compelling evidence, Taylor has reached the startling conclusion that Catharina's 1676 legal document actually refers to an entirely different Vermeer painting that has been lost to history. This lost work, if it exists, would represent a significant gap in our understanding of Vermeer's complete artistic output. Taylor suggests there remains a remote but tantalizing possibility that this mysterious painting could still be discovered, perhaps hanging unrecognized in a private collection or museum where it has not been properly identified as a Vermeer original.
The significance of Taylor's theory was highlighted when the Rijksmuseum initially planned to honor "The Art of Painting" with its own dedicated exhibition room during their major 2023 Vermeer retrospective. However, these plans were ultimately abandoned when the Kunsthistorisches Museum determined that the 17th-century masterpiece was too fragile and valuable to risk the journey from Vienna to Amsterdam, keeping the painting safely in its current home while the debate about its true identity continues.
