Crucifixion

Entry

The first study devoted entirely to the Amsterdam woodcarver Albert Jansz Vinckenbrinck (1605-1664) was published by Daniel Franken in 1887.⁶ On the basis of various archival discoveries, Franken managed to create a clear picture of the artist’s life. At the time, Vinckenbrinck’s only known work of sculpture was in fact his magnum opus, the large wood-carved pulpit in Amsterdam’s Nieuwe Kerk, which in fact scarcely represented the full scope of his actual artistic production. His present-day oeuvre consists largely of small cabinet sculptures carved in boxwood. With very few woodcarvers apparently active in this niche in the mid-seventeenth century, Vinckenbrinck was able to dominate this market with a reasonable level of success. In recent decades, insight into the sculptor’s personal life and artistic activity has increased dramatically thanks to the discovery of previously unknown archival data and the emergence of new works.⁷

Newly discovered archival data reveals that Vinckenbrinck ran a very profitable business as an artist. In 1626, he lived on the Oudezijds Achterburgwal, and in 1639, he purchased a small home on the same canal with the help of a loan from his father. He replaced this dwelling with a house three times its size. In 1643, Vinckenbrinck sold this house and subsequently moved to a canal house on the city’s prestigious Singel canal – only five houses removed from the palatial home of Amsterdam city regent and later burgomaster Joan Huydecoper, designed and built by the renowned architect Philip Vingboons in 1642.⁸ That the two men were on friendly terms is apparent from the guest list of the wedding of Huydecoper’s daughter in 1642, which also includes the woodcarver’s name.⁹ Three years after his move, Vinckenbrinck was commissioned to build the pulpit in the Nieuwe Kerk. At this time, he was also working on his monumental David and Goliath, a wood-carved group destined to become the main attraction of the public house Het Oude Doolhof.¹⁰ Works on this grand scale suggest that Vinckenbrinck initially assumed his father’s profession as a cabinet maker, though in a more sculptural form. His artistic ambition is nevertheless clearly reflected in a portrait engraving made in 1648, in which he presented himself as Alberthus Vinckenbrinck Beelthouwer der stadt Amsterdam (Alberthus Vinckenbrinck Sculptor of the city Amsterdam). The engraving and self-appointed title of municipal sculptor – though a position Vinckenbrinck never held, perhaps one to which he felt entitled after the pulpit’s completion – possibly served to increase his chances of obtaining commissions for the Amsterdam town hall soon to be built. As a member of the building commission, Vinckenbrinck’s neighbour Huydecoper was closely involved in this project.¹¹

It is quite possible and even probable that Vinckenbrinck greatly profited from Amsterdam’s urban expansion in the seventeenth century, which entailed the construction of many new buildings requiring elaborate wood-carved interiors and sculptural ornamentation. In this context, Dudok van Heel suggested that the oak-carved portico and pediment from Huydecoper’s house (BK-BFR-419) were made by Vinckenbrinck. Such large-scale projects were probably carried out in collaboration with his son. As late as 1670, Abraham (1639-1686) was still listed as a woodcarver in Amsterdam and is likely to have taken over his father’s workshop after his death.¹²

Vinckenbrinck also produced a fairly large number of cabinet sculptures carved in boxwood, mainly centring on religious (often even Roman Catholic) themes with most executed in relief. This implies the emergence of collectors’ growing demand for this kind of small-scale sculpture. More than fifteen such works have been discovered since the publication of Franken’s 1887 article. As a group, they have come to strongly define Vinckenbrinck’s artistic profile.¹³ He emerges as a talented woodcarver, whose artistic forte lay in the precise depiction of landscapes and textural expression. Vinckenbrinck’s figures, by contrast, are generally less convincing. Vinckenbrinck attached great value to these cabinet pieces, as affirmed by the monogram ‘AL VB’ consistently applied to these works. Relatively recent additions to the sculptor’s oeuvre in this category include the present relief-carved Crucifixion, remarkable for its impressive size – as one of the largest boxwood reliefs by his hand – while possibly still enclosed in its original frame. Here too the detailing of the landscape – with its rock formations, copses and Jerusalem’s city wall – and the subtle undulation of the cloud-filled sky, the stony foreground with vegetation and remnants of wooden fencing are all executed with exceptional refinement. Yet this craftsmanship stands in rather stark contrast to the unwieldy cross and Christ’s scarcely robust pose. The relief is likely the same work described in the sale of the collection of Joan de Vries, former burgomaster of Amsterdam, listed as: De Kruyciging, Jerusalem in ‘t Verschiet, met veel bywerk (The Crucifixion, Jerusalem in the Distance, with much auxiliary work) under the heading Fraey gesneden palmhout (Beautifully carved palmwood).¹⁴ The matching description of the second of two boxwood Crucifixions listed among Vinckenbrinck’s possessions found in his home at the time of his death – Noch een Christus aent Cruys met Jerusalem in ‘t verschiet (Another Christ on the Cross with Jerusalem in the distance) – possibly suggests De Vries purchased the present relief directly from the sculptor’s estate.¹⁵ Furthermore, the relief could also have been acquired by the Amsterdam dealer Pieter Locquet at the 1738 sale of De Vries’s collection. Locquet’s collection, in its turn offered for sale in 1783, lists a Crucifixion relief of essentially the same dimensions and having a description – remarkably, an almost exact reiteration of the 1738 catalogue listing – closely approximating that of the present relief.¹⁶ In fact, Locquet was also in possession of an Andromeda gekluistert aan een Rots… (Andromeda chained to a Rock) by Vinckenbrinck, a work ostensibly identical to an Andromeda from Joan de Vries’s collection.¹⁷ It therefore becomes apparent that Locquet had acquired both reliefs directly at the De Vries sale.

Frits Scholten, 2025