Peters, Emily J., and Laura Ritter, eds. Tales of the City: Drawing in the Netherlands from Bosch to Bruegel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the paintings, prints, and more recently sculptures produced in the Low Countries in the early modern period have been the subject of scholarly investigation, the drawings of this period have remained comparatively overlooked.Moreover, scholarship has only recently re-evaluated the sixteenth century, which has been less well studied than the Netherlandish art of the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries.The Cleveland Museum of Art and the Albertina Museum have organized an exhibition and accompanying catalogue to shed light on the significance of drawings in the sixteenth century, situated amid recent turns in scholarship to the material, social, religious, and urban contexts of artworks.The catalogue, edited by Emily Peters and Laura Ritter, brings together four thematic essays and catalogue entries, to explore the production, use, and reception of this medium across the Low Countries.Drawing is here understood as critical for the development of the arts in this period, as both a means of observing the world and expressing imaginative invention.Emerging from the rich collections of the Albertina, alongside a few selections from the Cleveland Museum of Art, the catalogue evokes the richness of the arts in the Low Countries in the sixteenth century.In her introduction, Emily Peters sets the social and religious scene: the Low Countries were home to rich, diverse, trading cities.Applying a civic lens, the catalogue aims to create a conceptual framework for understanding drawings.Both artists and their works were key to the development of cities: drawing was "a technique and a practice, and a product of the intersection of the various urban constituencies" (5).First, Koenraad Jonckheere studies how the feverish image debates in the sixteenth century, which emerged from ongoing religious tensions, are linked to artistic production.Writers in the Low Countries did not compose specialized texts about artistic practice, in contrast to those created in the Italian Peninsula at this time.This essay argues that the understanding of art can instead be found embedded in the religious debates of the period, which called into question the very status of the image.Mathieu de Launoy and Henry Pennetier's Calvinist treatise against images, and its response by Lambert Daneau exemplify the link
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".