Unwavering legacy: 18th-century women artists in the RKD database

Open this article as pdf

Spotlight on young researcher

Shoulder-to-shoulder 

In shaping the early modern cultural landscape, women artists have played a vital role, making significant contributions to the Dutch artistic scene. They met market demands, fulfilled educational needs, and pursued personal creative endeavors through diverse mediums including brush, pencil, pen, needle, or scissors.1 In the seventeenth and eighteenth-century Dutch Republic, women’s social status experienced notable advancements, partly driven by the widespread circulation of prints and pamphlets. These publications not only introduced new perspectives on gender roles, sparking debates about shifting dynamics, but also fostered a remarkably progressive cultural climate for the time – one in which women themselves were (co-)producers or publishers.2 

Ongoing research continues to reveal valuable insights into the artistic practices of women during this period, shedding light on their production processes, the distribution and preservation of their works and collections, and their workshop activities, among other aspects. Nevertheless, the delay in documenting and integrating these findings into art historical databases risks losing this critical information. To address this gap, my internship project focused on updating and enriching the records of RKD Research, incorporating newly available research on a selection of Dutch eighteenth-century women artists. Additionally, I critically reviewed the existing records for accuracy, relevance, and the appropriateness of the terminology used, aligning with the RKD’s mission to serve as a globally accessible repository for art historical knowledge and resources.

Gender bias in RKD records

The perception of art is profoundly shaped by the linguistic concepts and frameworks inherited from history. Language plays a pivotal role in molding our understanding, with terms serving as the medium through which art historians and critics express their interpretations and value judgments. But as feminist art historians have examined, an analysis of the impact of language within art historiography reveals how nineteenth-century art criticism fostered a marginalization of women artists, laying the groundwork for subsequent art historical narratives. Consequently, terms like ‘artist’, ‘master’, and ‘painter’ became imbued with gendered connotations, reinforcing the entrenched notion that true artistic genius was a uniquely male attribute.3 This critical exploration recalls the groundbreaking feminist debate ignited by Linda Nochlin nearly half a century ago in her seminal essay Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists? (1971). In addressing her provocative question, Nochlin argued that the absence of recognized women artists was not due to a lack of talent but rather to the institutional and societal barriers that curtailed their opportunities for advancement. After all, according to this prevailing logic, the elusive je-ne-sais-quoi – otherwise known as ‘innate artistic genius’ – was apparently a quality reserved exclusively for the white, middle-class male artist.4 

Until recently, the RKD database reflected gender biases through terms like kunstenaarsdochter (artist's daughter) and kunstenaarsvrouw (artist's wife), while lacking male equivalents such as kunstenaarszoon (artist's son). As part of my project, these terms have been revised to challenge such restrictive depictions. Similarly, phrases like hometrained by her father, which previously appeared in the records of artists such as Barbara van Nijmegen (1713-1771) and the sisters Anna (1695-1768) and Fopje Folkema (1690-1752), reflected narratives that limited women's roles and have now been replaced to provide a more accurate representation of their contributions. As recent research has shown, early modern Dutch artistic households were collaborative spaces. Artistic production, training of younger generations, financial management, and household responsibilities were shared across family members, regardless of societal gender expectations.5 These findings call for a revision of how we describe women’s familial and professional roles. 

In light of these insights, I have replaced terms like ‘artist's wife’ in RKD records with more inclusive terms such as ‘member of artist family’ or ‘second-generation artist family.’ For instance, Susanna de la Croix (1755-1789), formerly labeled as an ‘artist's wife’ to still-life painter Jan van Os (1744-1808), was an active member of her artistic household, producing her own work while co-educating her children, including the still-life painter Maria Margaretha van Os (1779-1862). By listing her as a co-educator alongside her husband in their children's database records, rather than merely as Van Os's wife, we present a more accurate and equitable portrayal of her contribution to her family's artistic lineage. 

Extending the artist family line: Agatha van der Mijn

Integrating newly published biographical information into the RKD database enhances our understanding of the artistic paths pursued by women artists and provides a solid foundation for future research. For example, a recent study on Amsterdam-born still-life painter Agatha van der Mijn (1700-after 1777) uncovered new details about the circulation of her works, which have now been incorporated into her RKD record. Together with her artist-brother Herman van der Mijn (1684-1741) and his children, Agatha settled in London in 1723. In London, the artist-family benefited from the city's vibrant cultural scene and wide range of networking and exhibition opportunities.6 Agatha actively participated in the London art market until at least the age of 68, judging from the reference of her name in the exhibition catalogs of the Free Society of Artists in London (1764-1768).7 

In a study on the artist, my recent rediscovery of Agatha van der Mijn's name in the 1737 exhibition catalog of the Florentine Accademia dell’arte del Disegno and in the inventory of Forglen House in Scotland, then home to the prominent Ogilvy family, demonstrates how Agatha’s work circulated beyond her adopted hometown of London. This information adds an international dimension to the existing scholarship on her artistic presence in London. This newly uncovered information is now saved in the RKD database.

The artist-art patron relationship

In the eighteenth century, royal courts continued to play a central role in fostering the convergence and exchange of artistic endeavors. Within these settings, both women and men were key figures in promoting the arts and acting as patrons of artists. Despite their influence, the contributions of many women have been overlooked in the RKD databases, where records often emphasize only their male counterparts. This gap in recognition has left the impact of women patrons largely unacknowledged. My project aimed to address this issue by restoring some of these lost connections.

A key example of this restoration is the case of Anna Maria Luisa de' Medici (1667-1743), the Palatine princess and the last heir of the De' Medici family. Together with her husband, the Palatine Elector Johann Wilhelm von der Pfalz (1658-1750), Anna Maria Luisa actively preserved and expanded the family’s renowned art collection at their court in Düsseldorf. Through their shared patronage, numerous national and international artists, including the Dutch still-life painter Rachel Ruysch (1664-1750), received important commissions. After her husband's death, Anna Maria Luisa returned to her family’s estate, the Palazzo Pitti in Florence, bringing with her a significant portion of their art collection, including two works by Ruysch. While in Florence, she continued to actively engage with and connect artists to her collection. In the final years of her life, she safeguarded her family’s collection by legally ensuring its preservation within Florence after the De’ Medici lineage would end with her death.8 

Until recently, the RKD records of this project’s selected group of women artists associated with the couple’s court only referenced the name of the Palatine Elector, excluding the significant contributions of Anna Maria Luisa. One of the key outcomes of this project has been the inclusion of her name in these records, ensuring that her role as a patron is now recognized. It was through Anna Maria Luisa’s unwavering commitment to the preservation of her family’s art collection that the legacy of artists like Ruysch continues to be part of Florence's cultural heritage.

Role of women

As part of the ongoing evolution within the field of art history, it is increasingly important to document and incorporate research on the contributions of women as active participants in the socio-economic and cultural dynamics of early modern society. Building on the foundational work of previous scholars, new research questions, materials, and areas of interest are opening up opportunities for a growing number of emerging scholars. This growing body of knowledge pushes institutions to re-evaluate their data flow and ensure more inclusive and accurate representations. Through my project, I hope to have made a modest yet meaningful contribution to this ongoing effort, fostering a perspective where the role of women in the history of art and society is recognized as self-evident.