Laurie Waters wrote: > I strongly disagree with the characterization of the model - this was > probably Vermeer's daughter, and the family lived under the patronage of the > middle class. His few buyers often dug him out of deep debt. In fact he > probably had only one real patron, Pieter Van Ruijven, and without that > support, it would have gone very badly for him. He married well, and > eventually moved into his mother-in-law's place with his 10 surviving > children.
I'm not sure what the evidence is that the model is Vermeer's daughter, but the fact that as an artist Vermeer held an ambiguous position in society, and that he was financially imprudent does not negate the fact that he and his family were part of the middle classes. Class is not equivalent ot wealth - an impoverished aristocrat is still an aristocrat. Anyway, this seems to me irrelevant. We - or the contemporary audience - look at the picture without knowing anything about who the model was and what her father's financial circumstances might be, and her dress and environs clearly place her. Here is a more pertinent question, then, for those who know about the social history of lacemaking in the Netherlands in this period. Why would a young woman of this class be making lace? Would it be to decorate her own clothing or that of her sisters (she appears to have a lace collar), or what? David - To unsubscribe send email to majord...@arachne.com containing the line: unsubscribe lace y...@address.here. For help, write to arachne.modera...@gmail.com. Photo site: http://community.webshots.com/user/arachne2003
