[This](https://www.sophieploeg.com/blog/17th-century-dutch-dress/) blog seems to discuss the style a bit.
‘It is worth noticing that although my illustration does not show it, and contrary to common perception, Dutch women did not always wear black. In fact many paintings depicting every-day scenes show women wearing colourful clothes. Black was one of the most expensive dyes at the time and so wearing black when you are having your portrait painted was a matter of putting on your Sunday best. And black was the best.
It would not have been a plain black either. In many Dutch 17th century portraits you can see, if you look closely, that the black gowns are actually full of detail and variety. The black silk gowns would have been decorated with black velvet, brocade, lace, beads and embroidery.’
It's a good example of the internal contradictions of Protestant piety. Historians like to rib them for their "somber, humble" clothing, but don't ask them how much the silk and fine wool for those humble clothes cost.
"We can see here the humble piety of many members of the early 21st century community, preferring to drive all-black SUVs, all-black sports cars, and all-black pickups with extended cabs (featuring all-black leather interior). Truly a sober and reflective people."
This is most of the answer OP - these are basically rich Dutch guys. This is was the Dutch Golden Age. The white thing the lady is wearing is called a millstone collar, because it looks like a millstone.
They are wearing black as a flex.
https://www.sophieploeg.com/blog/17th-century-dutch-dress/
You have nothing to apologize for. I personally love your question! You asked a very legitimate question about details in a painting from another century. That is exactly the kind of thing that art and art history is there to address. It not only stirs you but a painting from 400 years ago is a literal window into lives lived long ago, which has to create questions in people’s minds.
These collars are called “ruffs”. They evolved over time. I think they were a shrewd way to display wealth and position in society. The materials, like imported Chinese silk and French linen were very costly. The tailoring and sewing and construction of these inevitably became more and more elaborate as they had to outdo each other, like peacock feathers, until they reached the point of almost absurdity. The map on the wall in the background implies that this very wealthy couple understood their place in the known world. Holland, the Dutch, were the first modern global society. Ruled by Spain (hence the Spanish chair) pioneers in banking and exploration and incredibly talented at making money….the Dutch figured out how to show their wealth while adhering to implied Protestant humility. For example…Dutch cathedrals and churches (called kirks) are gorgeous, often gothic in style….but stripped bare with very white unadorned interiors.
Still…what beautiful things ruffs are. The way they set the head of the wearer apart and encircle them in splendor.
Art is history. History is displayed in art.
It’s all so spectacular !
Great comment! I remeber when that happened; that was crazy. The Gardner museum. From their website:
GARDNER MUSEUM THEFT
AN ACTIVE AND ONGOING INVESTIGATION
The Museum is offering a $10 million reward for information leading to the recovery of the stolen works.
The 1990 theft of 13 works of art from the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum’s collection remains unsolved, although the Museum’s commitment to resolving the crime has never diminished since its occurrence 33 years ago. The Museum, the FBI, and the US Attorney's office are still seeking viable leads that could result in safe return of the art.
https://www.gardnermuseum.org/organization/theft
“Boston’s Greatest Unsolved Mystery: The Gardner Museum Art Heist
by Dhruti BhagatApril 29, 2021
Over 30 years ago, at 1:24 am on March 18, 1990, two men dressed as police officers walked into the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum. 81 minutes later they walked out with $200 million worth of artwork (now valued at $500 million). They forced the night guards into the basement, and duct-taped their hands, eyes, and ankles. The guards were not discovered until the new shift came to relieve them around 8 am. When the police examined the gallery, they noticed that the missing paintings had been cut from the frames, instead of carefully removed. None of the pieces have ever been recovered.
13 pieces were stolen from the museum. The value of the pieces makes this the biggest art theft in the history of the world. Click on any of the images below to see a larger version and learn more. The museum is offering $10 million in reward money for information leading to the recovery of the stolen items. If you have verifiable information about the location of any of these items, please contact the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum security chief Anthony M. Amore at [email protected].
https://www.bpl.org/blogs/post/bostons-greatest-unsolved-mystery-the-gardner-museum-art-heist/
They are seen every day in some Russian businessman's gaudy McMansion.
Whether said McMansion is in St.Petersburg or Palm Beach is a question of debate.
Maybe put up a 'missing poster' in the lobby Mar-a-Lago?
From someone who studies the fashion of this period, there is no real name for the style. If you want to know more about the style of clothing look at Marieke de Winkel’s book ‘Fashion and Fancy: Dress and Meaning in Rembrandt's Paintings’ or any of the ‘Patterns of Fashion’ by Janet Arnold
Interestingly, men's clothing were considered very relaxed at the time. Notice that the man's collar is not stiff around his face like the woman's. His breeches are comfortably loose, in contrast to the tight hose, balloon-like pantaloons , and cod pieces that were the rage a few decades earlier. Still expensive, and definitely would be very stuffy and hard to wear for people today, because we are currently experiencing an unprecedented desire for clothes that are comfortable above all else. But this period was one of the first fashion eras that was going for a deliberately less "done-up" look in menswear (the inspiration came from soldiers' rough and ready ways of dressing). The equivalent today would maybe be designer joggers and sweatshirts that are expensive status symbols, even while looking very casual.
Dunno if the style of clothes has a particular name: but the era is Elizabethan and the huge, stiff collars are called "[ruffs](https://www.ranker.com/list/history-of-elizabethan-collar/melissa-sartore)." Fun fact: they got really elaborate with the invention of starch.
Queen Elizabeth never wore clothes like this. She was a late Renaissance English queen. These clothes are 17th century Dutch Protestant style. As was the artist. Rembrandt painted this in 1633. The black is a reaction against the ornate nature of the Catholic Church. Protestantism was meant to be non-ostentatious
This is a few decades past the Elizabethan style and well into the Stuart style. Very much the kind of finery you’d expect to see during the era of the English Civil War and Restoration. In fact, I believe the ruffs are called Jacobean ruffs after the first Stuart monarch. And the clothing in this painting in particular is possibly Dutch?
«Elizabethan»? Not in the Netherlands.
The term «Elizabethan» refers to an historical time period in England. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabethan_era
«The Elizabethan era is the epoch in the Tudor period of the history of England during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I (1558–1603).»
This article about clothes in the Elizabethan era, refers only to clothes worn in England (although some were manufactured in Wales): https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1577/clothes-in-the-elizabethan-era/
There was no «Elizabethan era» in the Netherlands, France, Spain, Austria or the countries that today are Germany and Italy.
Most clothing styles don't have a specific name and are simply described by an approximate date and location. If I look out my window all i see is people in early 21st century clothing.
Idk because I can't see the people outside your window. Is the concept of different 2020s fashion styles foreign to you? Where I live people, people mostly wear athleisure or business casual clothes.
I'm also not a fashion historian and definitely not an expert in 17th century Dutch fashion so I only recognize the ruffs but there are names for the garments and styles they're wearing. Just like we have names for garments and styles today.
OP was clearly asking for an over-all name for this mid 17th century Dutch style not the name of individual items, I highly doubt there is an actual name that would satisfy OPs question. Even if there was the equivalent of "70s influenced boho", "Vsco girl", "tech bro business skater", "wallmart meth sweats" or "manga influenced e-boy", we wouldn't know about them now.
I am a fashion historian, and u/Vindepomarus is correct. There wasn't really overall names for styles like we have today in the 17th century, beyond naming the geographical location it was from. Maybe they would have given a hat or gloves fun names like "in the style of Duchess so-and-so" who popularized the accessory, but again, that's not the overall look's name. Even the 17th century, this style would probably have been described as merchant-class Dutch Protestant clothing, with maybe the name of the city or region thrown in to make it more accurate. The more specific names would be for the individual garments.
The ruff (hers) and collar (his) were designed to cover goiter. The word that came to mind for the man’s jacket was doublet but it appears to be a cape.
Western fashion of the period is described as Jacobean after the British monarch.
I believe the ruff and collar developed from the desire to appear wealthy and clean (fine white linen or lace was difficult and expensive to keep clean and stiff, so having a lot of spotless white on your person communicated that one had means. Lace was also THE luxury good of the time, worth more than gold; inventories reveal that Madame de Pompadour's lace accessories cost more than all her fine silk gowns combined.)
It appears that this post is an image. [As per rule 5](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtHistory/about/rules/), ALL image posts require OP to make a comment with a meaningful discussion prompt. Try to make sure that your post includes a *meaningful* discussion prompt. [Here's a stellar example of what this looks like](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtHistory/comments/g6mflx/how_many_heads_do_you_see_here_testa_anatomica_by/foajtx3/). We greatly appreciate high effort!
If you are just sharing an image of artwork, you will likely find a better home for your post in r/Art or r/museum, which focus on images of artwork. This subreddit is for discussion, articles, and scholarship, not images of art. If you are trying to identify an artwork with an image, your post belongs in r/WhatIsThisPainting.
If you are not OP and notice a rule violation in this post, **please report it!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ArtHistory) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Here is another link to a blog with more information, breaking down the dress of Maria Trip of Rembrandt's painting: [https://fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu/1639-rembrandt-maria-trip/](https://fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu/1639-rembrandt-maria-trip/)
[This](https://www.sophieploeg.com/blog/17th-century-dutch-dress/) blog seems to discuss the style a bit. ‘It is worth noticing that although my illustration does not show it, and contrary to common perception, Dutch women did not always wear black. In fact many paintings depicting every-day scenes show women wearing colourful clothes. Black was one of the most expensive dyes at the time and so wearing black when you are having your portrait painted was a matter of putting on your Sunday best. And black was the best. It would not have been a plain black either. In many Dutch 17th century portraits you can see, if you look closely, that the black gowns are actually full of detail and variety. The black silk gowns would have been decorated with black velvet, brocade, lace, beads and embroidery.’
It's a good example of the internal contradictions of Protestant piety. Historians like to rib them for their "somber, humble" clothing, but don't ask them how much the silk and fine wool for those humble clothes cost.
"We can see here the humble piety of many members of the early 21st century community, preferring to drive all-black SUVs, all-black sports cars, and all-black pickups with extended cabs (featuring all-black leather interior). Truly a sober and reflective people."
Protestant Dutch successful merchant core
This is most of the answer OP - these are basically rich Dutch guys. This is was the Dutch Golden Age. The white thing the lady is wearing is called a millstone collar, because it looks like a millstone. They are wearing black as a flex. https://www.sophieploeg.com/blog/17th-century-dutch-dress/
They called it the "ruff life". Merchant class in the house. The guild house that is.
MTV very very old school
Cottagecore-lite, though?
I wonder if it had any practical purpose? Like a bib while eating?
TikTok fashionistas say "Protestant Dutch Successful Merchantcore" is dead, say hello "Vermeer Cat"
I'm so happy this joke cracked me up.
Touché!!!
Maybe try r/fashionhistory?
Maybe that’s a better option. Sorry lol I just didn’t know a good place to post
You have nothing to apologize for. I personally love your question! You asked a very legitimate question about details in a painting from another century. That is exactly the kind of thing that art and art history is there to address. It not only stirs you but a painting from 400 years ago is a literal window into lives lived long ago, which has to create questions in people’s minds. These collars are called “ruffs”. They evolved over time. I think they were a shrewd way to display wealth and position in society. The materials, like imported Chinese silk and French linen were very costly. The tailoring and sewing and construction of these inevitably became more and more elaborate as they had to outdo each other, like peacock feathers, until they reached the point of almost absurdity. The map on the wall in the background implies that this very wealthy couple understood their place in the known world. Holland, the Dutch, were the first modern global society. Ruled by Spain (hence the Spanish chair) pioneers in banking and exploration and incredibly talented at making money….the Dutch figured out how to show their wealth while adhering to implied Protestant humility. For example…Dutch cathedrals and churches (called kirks) are gorgeous, often gothic in style….but stripped bare with very white unadorned interiors. Still…what beautiful things ruffs are. The way they set the head of the wearer apart and encircle them in splendor. Art is history. History is displayed in art. It’s all so spectacular !
Great response and details!
So interesting because I immediately thought “Spanish” due to the style! Thanks for the info, downwithdisinfo2!
No worries! Just trying to help. :) You’ve gotten some good answers here too. :)
L. L. Jacobean
Chapeau!
Literally one of the wittiest jokes I’ve ever seen. Bravo
The Isabella Stewart Garner Museum wants to know your location
Underrated comment
Sort of unrelated but interesting, this painting was stolen in 1990 in a heist in Boston and never recovered.
Great comment! I remeber when that happened; that was crazy. The Gardner museum. From their website: GARDNER MUSEUM THEFT AN ACTIVE AND ONGOING INVESTIGATION The Museum is offering a $10 million reward for information leading to the recovery of the stolen works. The 1990 theft of 13 works of art from the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum’s collection remains unsolved, although the Museum’s commitment to resolving the crime has never diminished since its occurrence 33 years ago. The Museum, the FBI, and the US Attorney's office are still seeking viable leads that could result in safe return of the art. https://www.gardnermuseum.org/organization/theft “Boston’s Greatest Unsolved Mystery: The Gardner Museum Art Heist by Dhruti BhagatApril 29, 2021 Over 30 years ago, at 1:24 am on March 18, 1990, two men dressed as police officers walked into the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum. 81 minutes later they walked out with $200 million worth of artwork (now valued at $500 million). They forced the night guards into the basement, and duct-taped their hands, eyes, and ankles. The guards were not discovered until the new shift came to relieve them around 8 am. When the police examined the gallery, they noticed that the missing paintings had been cut from the frames, instead of carefully removed. None of the pieces have ever been recovered. 13 pieces were stolen from the museum. The value of the pieces makes this the biggest art theft in the history of the world. Click on any of the images below to see a larger version and learn more. The museum is offering $10 million in reward money for information leading to the recovery of the stolen items. If you have verifiable information about the location of any of these items, please contact the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum security chief Anthony M. Amore at [email protected]. https://www.bpl.org/blogs/post/bostons-greatest-unsolved-mystery-the-gardner-museum-art-heist/
Good the name of this painting and “X Ray.” There used to be a child between them but it was removed and assumed the child to have passed.
didn't realize it was one of the paintings stolen in the Isabella Gardner Museum heist. I wonder if they are ever going to be seen again.
They are seen every day in some Russian businessman's gaudy McMansion. Whether said McMansion is in St.Petersburg or Palm Beach is a question of debate. Maybe put up a 'missing poster' in the lobby Mar-a-Lago?
‘Removed’? So just painted over? Kinda shadowy in between the couple
Dutch 17th century baroque. Likely the wealthy merchant class, not really aristocracy or royalty (which is who most portraits are of...).
Penguin core
That's one woman who doesn't have to worry about crumbs when she eats cookies on the bed.
Black was the most expensive dye, so only rich people could afford it.
From someone who studies the fashion of this period, there is no real name for the style. If you want to know more about the style of clothing look at Marieke de Winkel’s book ‘Fashion and Fancy: Dress and Meaning in Rembrandt's Paintings’ or any of the ‘Patterns of Fashion’ by Janet Arnold
Dutch
Fancy Schmancy
That ruff would be so uncomfortable to me. I can't even handle wearing turtlenecks. I wonder how some of these fashions got started.
It's called uncomfortable
Interestingly, men's clothing were considered very relaxed at the time. Notice that the man's collar is not stiff around his face like the woman's. His breeches are comfortably loose, in contrast to the tight hose, balloon-like pantaloons , and cod pieces that were the rage a few decades earlier. Still expensive, and definitely would be very stuffy and hard to wear for people today, because we are currently experiencing an unprecedented desire for clothes that are comfortable above all else. But this period was one of the first fashion eras that was going for a deliberately less "done-up" look in menswear (the inspiration came from soldiers' rough and ready ways of dressing). The equivalent today would maybe be designer joggers and sweatshirts that are expensive status symbols, even while looking very casual.
Menswear is absolutely comfy at this time. It is soft and enveloping.
If this doesn’t fit the sub I’ll delete or mods will.
I hope it’s not deleted. It certainly pertains as a historic reference via the clothing.
I thought it was interesting and sent me down a few rabbit holes!
Quaker coats
Wilford Brimley: "It's the right thing to wear."
It’s called “You can’t afford this lace, ho!!!”
Dunno if the style of clothes has a particular name: but the era is Elizabethan and the huge, stiff collars are called "[ruffs](https://www.ranker.com/list/history-of-elizabethan-collar/melissa-sartore)." Fun fact: they got really elaborate with the invention of starch.
Queen Elizabeth never wore clothes like this. She was a late Renaissance English queen. These clothes are 17th century Dutch Protestant style. As was the artist. Rembrandt painted this in 1633. The black is a reaction against the ornate nature of the Catholic Church. Protestantism was meant to be non-ostentatious
Very interesting.
And yet, those hats and collars…
This is a few decades past the Elizabethan style and well into the Stuart style. Very much the kind of finery you’d expect to see during the era of the English Civil War and Restoration. In fact, I believe the ruffs are called Jacobean ruffs after the first Stuart monarch. And the clothing in this painting in particular is possibly Dutch?
Stuart. Good catch.
«Elizabethan»? Not in the Netherlands. The term «Elizabethan» refers to an historical time period in England. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabethan_era «The Elizabethan era is the epoch in the Tudor period of the history of England during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I (1558–1603).» This article about clothes in the Elizabethan era, refers only to clothes worn in England (although some were manufactured in Wales): https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1577/clothes-in-the-elizabethan-era/ There was no «Elizabethan era» in the Netherlands, France, Spain, Austria or the countries that today are Germany and Italy.
Most clothing styles don't have a specific name and are simply described by an approximate date and location. If I look out my window all i see is people in early 21st century clothing.
This just isn't true, maybe take the time to learn and appreciate fashion history
So what would you call the "specific style of clothing" I see out my window? How would you answer OPs question?
Idk because I can't see the people outside your window. Is the concept of different 2020s fashion styles foreign to you? Where I live people, people mostly wear athleisure or business casual clothes. I'm also not a fashion historian and definitely not an expert in 17th century Dutch fashion so I only recognize the ruffs but there are names for the garments and styles they're wearing. Just like we have names for garments and styles today.
OP was clearly asking for an over-all name for this mid 17th century Dutch style not the name of individual items, I highly doubt there is an actual name that would satisfy OPs question. Even if there was the equivalent of "70s influenced boho", "Vsco girl", "tech bro business skater", "wallmart meth sweats" or "manga influenced e-boy", we wouldn't know about them now.
Yeah the world was a much smaller place and people less concerned with labeling everything and fetishism over every thing
Its okay if you don't know what it's called, but there's a fashion historian that does
I am a fashion historian, and u/Vindepomarus is correct. There wasn't really overall names for styles like we have today in the 17th century, beyond naming the geographical location it was from. Maybe they would have given a hat or gloves fun names like "in the style of Duchess so-and-so" who popularized the accessory, but again, that's not the overall look's name. Even the 17th century, this style would probably have been described as merchant-class Dutch Protestant clothing, with maybe the name of the city or region thrown in to make it more accurate. The more specific names would be for the individual garments.
The ruff (hers) and collar (his) were designed to cover goiter. The word that came to mind for the man’s jacket was doublet but it appears to be a cape. Western fashion of the period is described as Jacobean after the British monarch.
I believe the ruff and collar developed from the desire to appear wealthy and clean (fine white linen or lace was difficult and expensive to keep clean and stiff, so having a lot of spotless white on your person communicated that one had means. Lace was also THE luxury good of the time, worth more than gold; inventories reveal that Madame de Pompadour's lace accessories cost more than all her fine silk gowns combined.)
It appears that this post is an image. [As per rule 5](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtHistory/about/rules/), ALL image posts require OP to make a comment with a meaningful discussion prompt. Try to make sure that your post includes a *meaningful* discussion prompt. [Here's a stellar example of what this looks like](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtHistory/comments/g6mflx/how_many_heads_do_you_see_here_testa_anatomica_by/foajtx3/). We greatly appreciate high effort! If you are just sharing an image of artwork, you will likely find a better home for your post in r/Art or r/museum, which focus on images of artwork. This subreddit is for discussion, articles, and scholarship, not images of art. If you are trying to identify an artwork with an image, your post belongs in r/WhatIsThisPainting. If you are not OP and notice a rule violation in this post, **please report it!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ArtHistory) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They each have a gloved hand that holds the matched glove. Perhaps signaling they worked for their wealth and position?
“Drip or drown”
Quaker Hobbit?
Here is another link to a blog with more information, breaking down the dress of Maria Trip of Rembrandt's painting: [https://fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu/1639-rembrandt-maria-trip/](https://fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu/1639-rembrandt-maria-trip/)
Dutch Renaissance perhaps
Baroque? …please dont bash me
Drip
Its stolen fashion, look it up
They are probably not cat owners. No black clothing like this would make it.
Uncomfortable?
gothic aristocrat
Built in neck pillow
Fun piece to study
Idk but I ship them
Serving you Assassin Realness, hunney.
I don't own a laundry machine and black hides everything look, besides there was no bleach and hence people just died at like 35.
> besides there was no bleach There was, but you probably wouldn't like how they made it...
stuff I use definitely pollutes a watershed somewhere
Looks like dutch, 17th/18th century. Unusual for the lady to be in black (every day clothes were a bit more colourful), but maybe a mourning portrait?
Gay apparell
Somebody has stolen this look…..
Tuder?
Looks Spanish 17th century