‘Dutch art (is) not …a literal record of social experience, but …a document of beliefs.’ Do what extent to the following sources support this view with regard to the Dutch Republic in the seventeenth century? (750 words) Human expression provides a mechanism by which human behaviour can be studied by the historian, and in aesthetic expression such as art, the historian can study the beliefs which influence human behaviour. Within the alleged ‘Golden Age’ of the Dutch Republic can be found a diverse mixture of paintings, and sources 1-3 show three different genres in particular: landscape, portrait and still life. Provided that the limitations of making generalisations over these paintings are considered, they both support and contradict the above view of Simon Schama, perhaps because of – in his words – ‘the moral ambiguity of good fortune’ (source 4) which seemed to exist tantamount to social experience in the Netherlands. Source 1 is superficially a ‘literal record of social experience.’ Topographically, it can provide insight into the type of land which existed in the Northern Provinces, and the reliance on agriculture and natural wind power to reclaim land and provide nutrition. However, although Dutch painters conveyed realism in terms of the photographic nature of their work, this did not mean that their paintings were exact representations of specific landmarks. In source 1, the church and the windmill shown could be specific religious symbols, reiterating the views of sources 6 and 7 - fellow Dutch contemporaries - that the ‘hand of God’ and the ‘eternal covenant’ were imperative in the Dutch securing their freedom from Spain. The windmill – as well as conveying a social experience – is a symbol of the God given power of nature, this supported by the panoramic and naturalistic view of the painting, with the majority foc...
