Why did King Charles I bring Anthony van Dyck to London as his court painter in 1632? Well, van Dyck could make you look magnificent, every inch a monarch. He'd portrayed the ruling elite in all their sumptuous finery in Rome, Genoa, Brussels and The Hague, and the results were stunning. Van Dyck has the reputation of being the best portraitist in Europe in the early 17th century, and if you want to know why, make an effort to get to the Palazzo Ducale in Genoa to see Van Dyck, the European , a superlative exhibition about a superlative painter. This is what Charles was paying van Dyck's high prices for: that impression of regal might (and no expense spared on the fashionable outfits or coiffure either). The figures of the King and his Queen, Henrietta Maria, are about lifesize and feel incredibly real, even four centuries later. Of course, just in case you didn't recognise His Royal Highness, there's his golden crown, sceptre and orb on the table behind him. Though ...
So the question to ask about the Michaelina Wautier exhibition at the Royal Academy in London must be: Is the hype about this recently rediscovered 17th-century woman painter justified? The answer: Yes, absolutely. She really does merit acknowledgement -- and not just because we recognise a woman working in a man's world. Her art shows she was extremely talented, producing superb canvases covering a diverse range of subject matter. What's more, she painted very large pictures featuring male nudes, such as Bacchus, despite her contemporaries thinking that was not the sort of thing a female artist could do. And her portraits are wonderfully lively and lifelike. This is Martino Martini, an Italian Jesuit missionary who travelled to China in the 1640s. It was painted in 1654, when Michaelina was around 40. Martini, who was staying at the Jesuit College in Brussels, is depicted wearing traditional Chinese silk court attire and a hat of fur and feathers. A rather substantial...