There is an accepted consensus that the true birth of landscape in painting occurred at the beginning of the 17th century, in Nordic countries such as Germany and Flanders, and in a definitive way in Holland. Prior to this, there were gradual precedents, initially as a background or simple backdrop for figures. Later, the seemingly central subject became merely a pretext, minimized to magnify the Nature. For example, the landscape was already evident in works by artists such as Konrad Witz (1410–1445) or Joachim Patinir (1480/85–1525). Later, the landscape took on an independent role, devoid of figures, as it is demonstrated in some paintings by Albrecht Dürer (1471–1528), Albrecht Altdorfer (1480–1538), or Pieter Brueghel (1526/30–1569). However, it would not be until this significant moment in the 17th century when certain established criteria were fully met, to consider that the autonomous landscape truly emerged (Berque, 1995; 2009; Roger, 1997). This means that now the landscape is not only the prominent protagonist of the canvas but is an end in itself, not a simple stage subject to a story. Furthermore, it would coincide in time with the diffusion of the word “landscape” itself, which already emerged at the end of the 15th century (Maderuelo, 2006; Roger, 2008; López Silvestre, 2009; Pérez Moreira, 2010).

Historical reasons explain the triumph of the naturalistic landscape painting during the 17th century, which reached its zenith in its middle years, as the culminating artistic moment of what is commonly called the Golden Age of Dutch landscape painting. Political, economic, and religious changes occurred simultaneously. Their origin lay in the rebellion of the Netherlands against the Spanish monarchy, provoking a long war known as the Eighty Years’ War (1568–1648). As early as 1579, the Seven United Provinces of the North (Holland) declared themselves an independent republic, separating themselves from the southern provinces (Flanders), which remained under the hegemony of the Spanish crown. The period of war concluded with the signing of the Treaty of Münster, by which Spain recognized the newly independent nation. At the same time, Protestantism replaced Catholicism in the religious dominance in this new nation. From then on, the new nation would experience immediate economic development, driven by a powerful commercial bourgeoisie, becoming one of the leading European powers of the time.

Regarding pictorial art, the traditional institutional and ecclesiastical patronage was lost. This was because in this new secularized and bourgeois society, both the courtly nobility and the Catholic Church ceased to be hegemonic. At the same time, the iconoclasm of the Reformed Church proscribed religious or mythological images, considering them idolatrous. This affected the traditional historical painting, which was restricted to the private sphere of the elite. The triumphant bourgeois class, with less cultural training and less interest in historical representations, appreciated new pictorial genres, including landscapes (Posada Kubissa, 2011).

The art of painting innovatively adapted to social changes (Brown, 1984; Franits, 2004). The new Dutch merchant bourgeoisie emerged as a class interested in owning paintings. A dynamic art market then flourished, becoming popular the small-format genre paintings, especially landscapes. Landscape paintings were collected by all classes of society, even the most modest, constituting almost 40% of artistic production by mid-century (Adams, 1994; Sutton, 1994). This could be partly explained by economic reasons derived from a special relationship with the land, significantly enlarged through the effort to drain wetlands, as in the regions surrounding Haarlem and Amsterdam (Adams, 1994). It could also be due to a certain nostalgia for the traditional rural landscape among a population that was now predominantly urban. But above all, it would be due to a civic pride in representing their free country, its joyful everyday reality, and its landscapes (Hauser, 1998; Adams, 1994; Sutton, 1994; Posada Kubissa, 2009). Landscape painting would therefore be a vehicle for affirming the new national identity.

Artists, in this early period, rarely painted outside their studios (Slive, 1995), but they frequently went into the field to take sketches from nature. These preliminary drawings would be used to create the final work, which was always executed back in their studio or workshop. However, by going outdoors to take sketches in the field, these painters captured details and subtleties previously unperceived, transcending traditional pictorial conventions. At the same time, these excursions allowed them to discover their nature and their country as a landscape.

The final artistic result was a peculiar naturalism in landscape painting, often interpreted as a true vision of its nature. Its apparent objectivity was based on a thorough representation of details. However, they painted scenes that were believable but not real, as they imaginatively reconstructed reality, translated in an exemplary manner. In truth, it was an idealized vision, in which imagination and convention combined with observation (Adams, 1994; Sutton, 1994; Slive, 1995).

This Dutch naturalistic landscape has also sometimes been attributed symbolic meanings, as concepts with moral undertones. However, today’s dominant scholarly opinion questions this overinterpretation (Sutton, 1994; Alpers, 1987). Surely, there would be no other pretension than to mean the simple beauty represented in such landscapes.

The soils of much of the Netherlands have mobile sand deposits as their parent material. These are frequently paleosols interbedded between successive sand layers. In these drifting sands, the youngest soils are little evolved; however, a study of the paleosols shows that most of them developed more or less evident podzolic characteristics (Koster, 2009; Sevink et al., 2023).

Some Dutch artists specialized in painting such dune landscapes, almost from the beginning and during the first half of the 17th century. In all these paintings, the human figure is subordinate, with the dunes as the main subject. One of the first to paint them, in a work dated 1614, was Esaias van de Velde (1587–1630), who was highly influential on later landscape artists (Sutton, 1994). Other artists also inspired by this subject were, mainly, Pieter van Santvoort (1604/05–1635), Jan J. van Goyen (1596–1656), Pieter de Molinj (1595–1661) and Salomon van Ruysdael (1600/03–1670). Likewise, these painters distinguished themselves among the creators of the so-called “tonal phase”, toning the paintings in a unitary, almost monochromatic way, with a reduced palette of colors of warm tones, usually grays and earth tones (Sutton, 1994).

This group of artists laid the foundations for a subsequent “classical phase” of Dutch landscape painting, in which nature and landscape became monumentalized, with solid forms, accentuated contrasts, and more vivid colors (Sutton, 1994; Slive, 1995). These other painters were more versatile in their subjects, but they also represented dunes in their landscapes, either directly or in woodland or other scenes located on dune soils. Notable among these were Jacob I. van Ruisdael (1628/29–1682), Meinder Hobbema (1638–1709), and Philips Wouwerman (1619–1668), while the painter Jan Wijnants (1632/35–1684) stands out for having focused his entire artistic work on painting dunes and dune soils, as will be detailed later.

The soil profile is already hinted at in several of these dune paintings, at least with its A horizon clearly distinguishable. This surface horizon is observable, for example, in works by Aelbert Cuyp (1620–1691), such as in A River Scene with Distant Windmills (c. 1640-42), ¹⁵ as well as in Wooded Landscape with an Artist (c. 1643). ¹⁶ It is also present in various canvases by Jacob I. Van Ruisdael (1628–1682), an artist renowned for his meticulous depiction of natural elements, particularly his unmistakably recognizable trees. The soil can be seen in several of his works, such as in Road through an Oak Forest (c. 1646-47), ¹⁷ but more clearly in Dunes (c. 1650-53) ¹⁸ (Figure 6). The soil profile is much more eloquent in Salomon van Ruysdael’s painting Landscape with Sandy Road (1628) ¹⁹ , where an upper horizon with abundant roots stands out (Figure 7).

Jan Wijnants (Haarlem, 1632/35–Amsterdam, 1684) stands out not only for his exclusive specialization in dune paintings but also for his representation of distinct soil horizons. Like many other artists of the time, his thematic specialization was probably due to the demands of a market saturated with painters and paintings, which were quoted at very low prices, forcing them to focus on the topics in which they achieved greater recognition (Sutton, 1994; Slive, 1995).

This artist was inspired by the dunes near his native Haarlem. However, what is surprising is that his paintings with the most expressive soil horizons date from a period when he no longer lived there but in Amsterdam, where he would move permanently in December 1660. In paintings prior to this date, the soil profile is not clearly observed; however, in later works, the soil details are not merely anecdotal, but exceptional for their time and undoubtedly the result of prior observation, even though it later became a particular convention, repeated in varying degrees throughout his paintings.

In almost all of his paintings executed after 1660, the superficial A horizon can be clearly distinguished above the dune substrate, and in several of them podzolic soils can also be distinguished, with a distinctive eluvial horizon (E) and even an underlying illuvial spodic B horizon (Bh, Bs). Among the best examples of this, the following works can be highlighted: A wooded landscape with figures walking by a sandy bank (1659-60), ²⁰ perhaps the only one that could be done when he was still living in Haarlem; A Track by a Dune, with Peasants and a Horseman (c. 1655); ²¹ Landscape with Hunters (c. 1660-80) ²² (Figure 8) and Landschap met twee jagers (1665–1684) ²³ (Figure 9). However, we consider that the most eloquent example of a soil profile, with features that can now be recognized as podzols, is observed in his painting The Dunes near Haarlem (1667) ²⁴ (Figure 10).

Early 19th-century Europe emerged from successive wars and political turmoil in several countries, where an incipient Industrial Revolution was already emerging. England was at the forefront of progress, followed by France and the Netherlands, and then Germany. Industrial prosperity, above all, empowered a new bourgeoisie, wielding a power that until then had been held almost exclusively by monarchs and aristocrats (Pérez-Reverte, 2024).

Pictorial art, consequently, was no longer driven, as it once was, by the desire to express the grandeur of power, as expressed in traditional history paintings. This allowed artists to develop their individuality with fewer constraints (Hauser, 2003). Moreover, painters could not escape the new reality that manifested itself with the advances of progress over the course of the century. Nor will they be immune to the attraction aroused by scientific discoveries and the development of the natural sciences. Even some artists, along with poets, geographers, geologists, adventurers, etc., will participate in the intellectual atmosphere and desire for discovery of scientific excursionism, which will develop mainly at the end of the century. In this context, a certain convergence of scientific and humanistic cultures would occur, motivated by a shared interest in nature and the landscape (Pena, 1998; Casado de Otaola, 2010; Martinez de Pisón, 2017).

The great masters of the Golden Age of Dutch landscape painting exerted a notable influence on this 19th-century landscape painting, serving as inspiration for the resurgence of a new naturalism. Thus, for example, Thomas Gainsborough and John Constable, pioneers of this emerging trend, looked back and studied with devoted admiration the paintings of Ruisdael, Hobbema, and Wijnants, as did other painters involved in this artistic movement. It could therefore be argued that the most revolutionary and lasting contribution of the Dutch landscape painting precedent was its naturalism (Sutton, 1994). Thus, naturalism and the practice of outdoor painting are once again appreciated. Now artists will approach painting from nature in a more consistent manner, with plein air painting becoming a success.

In the preceding 18th century, the socio-historical circumstances and the prevailing aesthetic criteria were not conducive to an equivalent development of pictorial naturalism and plein-air painting. Both were disparaged even in their country of origin, declining there shortly after reaching their zenith, especially due to the subsequent artistic and normative expansion of French academicism (Pena, 2000; López-Manzanares, 2013).

Open-air painting was unusual, with a few exceptions. This was partly because it was not valued as a priority in the pictorial tradition. Likewise, landscape painting was still considered a minor genre in the pictorial hierarchy, secondary to history painting, which enjoyed the highest academic recognition. But it was also the case, especially with oil painting, that its execution in the field was technically complicated until certain technical innovations facilitated the task. Specifically, the invention of paint tubes and portable or field easels, in the mid-century, simplified fieldwork and led to the further development of this plein air activity (Graham-Dixon et al., 2020).

For some time now, highly influential treatises had dictated standards regarding landscape painting and open-air painting. Among the most famous were those written by Karol van Mander (published in 1604), Roger de Piles (published in 1708), and Pierre-Henri de Valenciennes (published in 1800), which remained reference texts for a long time. In all of them, the practice of painting from life was advocated, but solely for the purpose of acquiring a repertoire of notes with which to later compose the complete work, which invariably had to be developed in the studio (López-Manzanares, 2013; Pomarède, 2013). In other words, sketches that were simply copies from life were not yet considered true art, but rather what was subsequently recomposed and reinvented with them. What was valued as art was not imitation but creation, and not the landscape elements themselves, but their composition as an integral part of historical painting.

Another preliminary step on the path to the full triumph of pictorial naturalism was to overcome the sublime fantasies characteristic of Romanticism. At this earlier stage, nature was not yet an end but a means of expressing feelings. However, in their romantic exaltation, some artists elevated landscape painting to the level of recognition of historical painting. With them, the pictorial category of the “picturesque” would also be confirmed. In their struggle against the rules imposed on art, they anticipated “l’art pour l’art” (art for its own end), an art more free of prejudice, with its consequent freedoms for artistic development (Hauser, 2003).

After Romanticism’s flight from reality, a return to it arose with Realism. The aim was no longer to create a breathtaking or picturesque setting, but rather to faithfully reproduce nature as it is, as a natural entity, of interest in itself. The theoretical discourse would also adjust to this shift in approach. For example, John Ruskin, in his monumental work Modern Painters (1843–1860), in his advice to young painters, specified that nature should be copied truthfully “in the best way of penetrating its meaning; without rejecting anything, without choosing anything and without despising anything” (Ruskin, 1848).

In contemporary naturalistic/realistic painting, work from life would no longer be secondary and subordinate to its completion in the studio, as had been the case until then. The balance nature-studio, as well as the gradation between faithful reproduction or the reproduction of one’s own feelings, would depend on the will of each artist (López-Manzanares, 2013). Furthermore, in contrast to the academic postulates of the “universal” and the “ideal,” in Realism the “local” and the “real” prevail (Pena, 2000). This painting demonstrates sincerity and meticulous attention to detail. In it, natural elements are no longer simply decorative elements of the composition, but are reproduced as singular entities and according to their own reality.

This new naturalistic landscape painting would develop in Europe mainly in three areas, which are now retrospectively referred to as the English School, the Barbizon School, and the Hague School.

The English School of landscape painters of the early 19th century was partly a Romantic expression, partly a transcendence of Romanticism, and the initiator of Naturalism (Hauser, 2003). Its landscape painters were pioneers in the practice of open-air painting. However, the opportunity for definitive academic recognition of the landscape genre and plein air painting arose in France with the creation in 1817 of the “Grand Prix de Rome de paysage historique”, an award that included a coveted two-year pension in Rome (Pomarède, 2013). One of the most feared exercises was the “tree test,” which required many of the candidates to practice painting studies in forests near the French capital, the most notable being the Forest of Fontainebleau.

The Barbizon School is the name given to the group of painters who came to this French village, about 50 km southeast of Paris, to find inspiration in the nearby Fontainebleau forest. This place would attract several generations of landscape artists to paint outdoors, primarily between 1820 and 1860 (Schama, 1999; Hauser, 2003; Oropesa and Caille, 2007; López-Manzanares, 2013; Schulman, 2013). However, they did not constitute a uniform movement or a shared ideal, having only in common a rejection of imposed academic rules and an enthusiasm for painting from nature (Hauser, 2003; Schulman, 2013).

The Hague School refers in turn to those painters who in Holland followed similar paths to those taken by the Barbizon artists, whose equivalent here would be the village of Oosterbeek, in the eastern part of the country. Many of the painters in this group were previously attracted to the Fontainebleau forest, and later developed their Dutch activity mainly between 1860 and 1885 (Suijver, 2009).

In the English School of landscape painting, which had already emerged in the previous century, the view of the soil was anticipated in some paintings. The soil profile appears -although its horizons are not clearly defined- in several works by Thomas Gainsborough (1727–1788), such as A View in Suffolk (1746-47) ²⁵ (Figure 11). However, it was the work of John Constable (1776–1837) that marked a substantial change from earlier landscape artists. He is considered one of the first artists to paint deliberately outdoors, having begun doing so in 1810 and continuing for most of his life. This painter was a pioneer in a period of transition between Romanticism and Realism, incorporating truth and emotion, although his painting was not an exact realism. The soil profile is clearly shown in several of his paintings, such as Dedham Vale (1802) ²⁶ (Figure 12) or Dell at Helmingham Park (c. 1825-26), ²⁷ in which the surface horizon and other soil features are distinguished. Another British painter of this period was J. M. William Turner (1775–1851), also ahead of his time, who himself would move away from figurative and realistic painting, dissolving forms and colors, and advancing the art of later times; the upper horizon of the soil is suggested in his work The Bay of Baiae with Apollo and the Sibyl (1823). ²⁸

In the Barbizon School, the painters who anticipated naturalistic landscape painting were Georges Michel (1763–1843) and Làzare Bruandet (1755–1804), who made their first field trips together to paint from life, doing so in places close to Paris. They also represented a turning point in landscape art, moving away from the idealist tradition of classicism, capturing in their paintings both reality and the artist’s feelings. The soil is intuited in works by Georges Michel such as Landschap met zandweg (1820), ²⁹ but the soil profile is more clearly seen in works by Làzare Bruandet -one of the first to visit the Fontainebleau Forest-, as in Vue prise dans le forêt de Fontainebleau (1785), ³⁰ and in Paysage avec chasseurs (c. 1780-90), ³¹ where the upper horizon can be clearly distinguished.

The soil profile was eloquently represented in paintings by Jacques-Raymond Brascassat (1804–1867) and Jean Baptiste Camille Corot (1796–1875), who were also among the first landscape artists to regularly visit the Fontainebleau Forest, back in the 1920s and early 1930s, and were the true precursors of the Barbizon School.

In Brascassat, the soil profile is evident in his painting Rochers en forêt (1828) ³² (Figure 13), which for a long time was considered to have been executed in the Fontainebleau forest, although this was not true. In fact, having been awarded second prize at the Grand Prix de Rome in 1825, he remained in Italy between 1826 and 1830, coinciding with the period in which he produced this painting, along with many others in which he depicted nature, composing paintings based on sketches taken from life. Another good example is seen in Clairière en forêt (1828). ³³ Upon his return to Paris, he gained a reputation for animal paintings in which the soil profile is also visible in the foreground, such as Un combat de taureau (1855). ³⁴

In Corot, the truly realist intention is observed in his painting Carrière de Chaise-Marie à Fontainebleau (1831) ³⁵ (Figure 14). It is a representation, not at all picturesque, of a fragment of nature that is interrupted by the frame of the painting, appearing to have been drawn directly from nature. This painting attests to the importance of the observation and truthful reproduction of nature, including the reproduction of the soil.

In the Hague School, we must highlight Willem Roelofs (1822–1897), one of its precursors and a leader of the movement in its early days. He was previously involved with the Barbizon School of Realists, visiting the Forest of Fontainebleau on three occasions. In his painting Landschap bij naderend onweer (1850) ³⁶ (Figure 15), the soil appears to be part of an old riverbed, seen on its surface rather than in profile. Likewise, his painting Forêt de Fontainebleau (c. 1852-55) ³⁷ is a good example of the realistic reproduction of details in this naturalistic art, with its meticulous representation of trees, rocks, and even soil.

As naturalism developed in the aforementioned English, Barbizon, and Hague schools, paintings in this style were also produced in other European countries. For example, in Spain, where the Belgian-born painter Carlos de Haes (1826–1898), would create a naturalist school of landscape at the Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando in Madrid, popularizing open-air painting and the faithful reproduction of natural reality (Pena, 1998; 2014; Gutiérrez Marquez, 2004; Casado de Otaola, 2010). Another example, also significant, is that of the Catalan landscape painter Joaquim Vayreda (1843–1894), who contributed to the founding of the renowned Olot School. Both artists, familiar with the pictorial work of Barbizon, suggest the vision of the soil in some of his paintings.

Finally, many of the painters who initially participated in this naturalistic art would later move toward other, less narrative and more informalist artistic styles. Among them were some of the best-known artists who practiced plein-air painting in the Fontainebleau forest. They initially evolved toward Impressionism, still a radically plein-air art, and later advanced toward other formulas, labeled as Symbolism, Fauvism, Expressionism, etc., in successive distortions on the path to abstraction and modernity (Thomson, 2014). To a certain extent, toward the end of the century, the prevailing naturalism was rejected in favor of new creative codes, no longer figurative but rather conceptual. Painters now sought to distinguish themselves with their own style that distanced themselves from the merely descriptive, replacing external reality with one born from the artist’s spirit. Consequently, under these new aesthetic parameters, the faithful reproduction of nature loses interest, while the soil profile would no longer be represented in a recognizable and realistic way.