Still Life
Socio Economic Background
The creation of the Dutch Republic gave rise to a great pride
in national identity and with it came a delight in the new art
that was uniquely Dutch. As the economy flourished, and trade
with the Indies and South America expanded, so did the fashion
for collecting, the popularity of painting in general, and Still
Life -Stilleven -in particular. Watchful Calvinist ecclesiastics,
dwindling royalty and powerful Burghers changed the face of patronage.
With the emergence of the aspirational, property-owning bourgeoisie,
a whole new market opened up.
Origins and Definition of Still
Life
As a result of this trade with far-flung places and the introduction
of exotica, Dutch artists of the 17th Century became renowned
for being greatly concerned with what Kahr refers to as a: ‘close
scrutiny of the natural world.’[1] This, combined with their
preoccupation with perspective and the study of light, provided
the basic elements of Still Life painting. The term had come into
general usage in mid-century, Still Life being the carefully composed
portrayal of inanimate objects. Living creatures were in fact
allowable as long as they were incidental to the main theme. Specialisation
was a notable feature of Dutch 17th century art; consequently,
Still Life - itself a particular aspect of art - further diversified
into different categories.
The Distinct Categories.
The earliest examples, from the beginning of the 1600s and later
influenced by 'tulip-mania', were the popular floral paintings;
these were followed by flowers with fruit, then the humble 'breakfast
pieces'. As the century progressed, and wealth became widespread,
so the 'breakfast' developed into the 'banquet piece'. Perhaps
influenced by deep-rooted Calvinism centred on Leiden University,
the Dutch psyche remained a moralising one and the concern with
the transience of life was the motif of the numerous 'Vanitas'
paintings and an element in other genres. Another important facet
of Still Life, Trompe L'Oeil - French for 'deceive the
eye' - evolved in mid-century from the game piece, its illusionism
appealing to the Dutch penchant for humour. Finally, at the latter
part of the century, taste changed, colour and form became more
baroque and pronk still life- the art of the ostentatious
- was born.
Flower Pieces
Just as painters specialised in different aspects of art, certain
towns became the focal points noted for specific genres and Middelburg,
Utrecht and Amsterdam were the main centres for flower painting,
a genre that was highly regarded and well paid. The artists, although
portraying genuine flowers, depicted them in impossible arrangements:
blooms from all four seasons were shown at once, reflecting the
studio practice of painting individual flowers, in season, as
studies for future reference. Flowers were accurately detailed
without the overlapping that would happen naturally in a vase
arrangement. Another artifice, in the 1620s, was the image of
a snail, or butterfly flying in the background, which referred
to the soul, freed after death. Flowers were ciphers for spring
but there was also an evolving symbolism in the language of flowers
that was accessible to contemporary viewers: the Madonna lily,
for instance, was an attribute of the Virgin Mary, the white iris
a symbol of her purity and the rose, her love. A daisy meant charity,
a buttercup the unmarried state, and the sunflower represented
the love of God, or sometimes, earthly love.[2] Some artists presented
their work as so-called 'niche' paintings (in emulation of Trompe
L'Oeil Roman murals), which emphasised the symmetrical aspect
of the arrangement. An excellent example is the Middelburg painter
Ambrosius Bosschaert's Vase of Flowers of 1620 (oil on
panel, 64 x 46cm, Mauritshuis, The Hague) whose Wan Li Vase
refers to oriental travel, and fallen flower-head to decay and
transience; the flower, however, is a carnation - the symbol for
resurrection and eternal life.
Fruit with Flowers
Symbolism was present too, in the exotic fruits and shells brought
back by trading merchants. Shells had particular appeal to a nation
governed by the sea and, with fruit, were often displayed as part
of floral compositions. Opened - as in the case of oysters or
mussels - they suggested vanitas overtones of the brevity
of life, or could be interpreted as having erotic implications.
On a higher level, fruit had a religious message: the apple of
temptation, the grape the blood of Christ; in the words of St
Thomas Aquinas; ‘a corporeal metaphor of things spiritual;’
and a different shell might represent each continent as visual
tribute to the exploratory travel and scientific discoveries of
the day.
Breakfast Pieces
With the introduction in Haarlem and Amsterdam of the Ontbijtje,
the Breakfast Piece, the format changed to landscape to accommodate
the expanse of a tabletop. Placing the table edge parallel to
the horizon, with the table-cover dropping markedly downwards,
enhanced the impression of space. The food illustrated was basic
- bread, cheese, fruit, nuts, herring - and often presented half
eaten for realism. The cutlery and dishes of pewter or pottery
were equally simple but skilfully painted. In earlier breakfast
pieces, the viewer is looking downwards onto the table, but as
the century progresses, the viewpoint is lowered. Like the flowers,
the objects were carefully spaced and by the 1620s were projecting
over the table edge, creating an illusion of nearness to the viewer.
By the 1630s these bright colours were becoming more monochromatic.
Vanitas Paintings - A Metaphor for Transience
Society's awareness of death did not disappear with the end of
the Twelve Year Truce; in the 1620s the Republic suffered two
outbreaks of Bubonic Plague and this may account for the proliferation
in Leiden of Vanitas paintings, whose recurring motif,
the skull, was a constant reminder of mortality. Symbolism was
present in every form of Still Life but never more significant
than in Vanitas work where everything spoke of ephemerality
and the inevitability of death: the watch or hourglass - the passage
of time; the overturned glass - the emptiness of life; a violin
- the vice of enjoyment, or music fading away; a book - pride
in knowledge - an artificial virtue, or history being finished;
a smoker's empty pipe, a guttering candle or smoking oil lamp
- life is eventually snuffed out; and airborne soap bubbles were
evanescence epitomised. However, there remained as redeeming Christian
reference, the chaplet of corn on a skull, a reminder of the Resurrection.
Fuchs suggests that this density of morbid symbols would have
appealed to the intelligentsia at Leiden University, centre for
the study of Calvinism.[3]
Trompe L'Oeil and its Relationship with
the Game Piece
Perhaps to counter the sobriety of the Vanitas paintings,
a new category of still life appeared in the 1640s, the amusing,
illusionistic game piece. Hunting being an intrinsic part of Dutch
life, the gentleman-hunter was a valuable client, yet the game
piece is a relatively late arrival on the scene, although there
were earlier precedents. Game would have been hung in many Dutch
kitchens; the artifice of the game piece, therefore, was to present
an apparently real bird into the room: a two dimensional object
is 'modelled' to convince the spectator of its three-dimensionality
as a 'vehicle for persuasion and challenge'.[4] Effective imitation
of reality became a benchmark of the artist's virtuosity and Melchior
d' Hondecoeter achieves this humorously by the addition of a child's
chalk graffito on the board his thrushes are hanging
from in his Trompe L'Oeil with Dead Birds on a Pinewood Wall,
(oil on canvas, 84 x 66cm Suermondt-Ludwig-Museum, Aachen). The
first mention of the term Trompe L'Oeil in print was
not until 1800, when the work of one Louis-Léopold Boilly
was thus described in the catalogue of the Paris Salon of that
year. The earliest example of a '3 D' game piece is thought to
be Jacopo de' Barbari's painting of a partridge, Still Life,
(oil on panel, 51.6 x 42.4cm; signed and dated 1504, Alte Pinakothek,
Munich); however, the puzzling inclusion of armoured wristlets
suggests that it may actually have been an emblem painting for
a member of the nobility.[5]
The Origins and Branches of Trompe L'Oeil
Led by two of Rembrandt's pupils, Samuel van Hoogstraten and Carel
Fabritius who were concerned with illusion and perspective, Dutch
Trompe L'Oeil probably derived from the Italian marquetry
of the Quattro-cento; Venetian intarsia, where
whole rooms were panelled with 'mosaics' and 'frescoes'. The Italians
in their turn were inspired by Classical Roman villas. Artists
visiting Italy would have brought these ideas back to the Netherlands.
Certainly, both Trompe L'Oeil and game were depicted
in the art of ancient Greece and classical Rome: Pliny the Elder
records in his Natural Histories the famous confrontation
between two Greek 5th Century BC painters, Zeuxis and Parrhasios.
Zeuxis portrayed grapes so skilfully that birds flew down to eat
them. In response, Parrhasios painted a picture concealed by a
'curtain', which Zeuxis attempted to open. This incident set the
precedent for the 17th century illusionist 'curtain' paintings,
a motif, which along with chantournés, 'niche'
paintings, game pieces, hunting gear, letter racks, quodlibets,
cupboards, easels and peepshows comprised Trompe L'Oeil.
Curtain Paintings
Centred on Delft, Leiden and Amsterdam, curtain paintings were
of two types: the draped theatrical 'swag' pulled to the side,
or sometimes knotted up, and the curtain suspended from a rod
running parallel to the frame (itself often an illusion). They
were usually painted in blue or green and were possibly popular
because the Dutch often protected their actual paintings behind
curtains. A self-portrait by Cornelis Bisschop (Dordrecht 1630-74),
wittily depicts him challenging the viewer by holding back a curtain
to reveal a hidden picture, an implied homage to the Zeuxis story.
The curtain motif, originally introduced by Rembrandt (Holy
Family, 1646, oil on panel, 46.5 x 68.5cm, Kassel, Staatliche
Museen), was broadly applied in the 1650s and 1660s, from genre
paintings by Gerrit Dou, to church interiors by Emanuel de Witte.
Koester nominates Trompe L'Oeil: Still Life with a Flower
Garland and a Curtain 1658 (oil on wood, 46.5 x 63.9 The
Art Institute of Chicago) by Adriaen van der Spelt and Frans van
Mieris, as the outstanding example.
Chantournés and Easels
Cornelis Bisschop originated the 'Chantourné'
piece where a fretsaw was used to cut out a work - in wood or
canvas - in curved outline, before placing it in its 'natural
surroundings'. From this, developed the 'Easel' paintings, where the entire cut out 'easel' complete
with attached works in progress, was an illusion.
Letter Racks, Quodlibets, Cupboards and
Peepshows
Samuel Hoogstraten was the witty initiator of the porte-lettre,
the letter rack, a few red ribbons pinned to a board and containing
snatches of socially informative letters, a motif that possibly
derived from the Italian signature cartellini. The Quodlibet,
Latin for 'what you like', was a letter rack also holding personal
items found in any study: combs, scissors (both Vanitas
emblems), pens, bills etc. Some quodlibets were displayed
under a 'curtain', thus becoming a double deceit. An extension
of this speciality was then to paint the cupboard onto which the
letter rack was attached, complete with metal hinges, locks and
handles. The experiments with the impact of perspective on the
eye culminated in the so-called 'peepshows'; these were boxes
with complex, curved interiors of houses, churches etc.
|
|
Trompe L'Oeil with Hunting Equipment
Working in the latter half of the century for the bourgeois hunting
market, two little known illusionist painters thought to be brothers,
developed a highly specialised facet of still life. These were
Anthonie and Johannes Leemans whose focus was not the hunt, nor
the trophy, but the actual implements involved in trapping and
killing the game. Produced as 'over-doors', their Trompe L'Oeil
paintings provided the would-be hunter with his equipment, apparently
hanging ready for use. Hunting gear, without game, was also painted
by Philip Angel and Cornelius Biltius.
Pronk: Sumptuous Art
As the century progressed and wealth increased, flourishing households
acquired exotically beautiful materials and artefacts. This affluence
was reflected in their paintings, which used expensive pigments
such as lapis lazuli from Afghanistan, and which, because
of the detail involved, were labour-intensive, hence costly. Fine
silverware, Venetian glass, oriental rugs and ginger jars abounded.
This luxury and opulence is epitomised in Willem Kalf's Still
Life with a Late Ming Ginger Jar, (1669 oil on canvas, 77
x 66.5cm, Indianapolis Museum of Art). Even the frames became
gilded and elaborate, rather than black and simple as previously.
By the 1640s this new lavish ornate-ness had
transformed the humble breakfast piece into a banquet. The food,
no longer simple but including imported, expensive fruits, and
lobsters not herring, was displayed with the finest tableware
and glass, exemplified by the works of Abraham van Beyeren. However,
the vanitas element remained, a warning against over-indulgence:
the ivy signifying resurrection, the bread and wine, the Eucharist.
Luxury even influenced the portrayal of game
pieces. The sombre palettes were replaced in the 1660s by gorgeous
blues and reds; hunting bags were velvet and hunting horns hidden
behind a flurry of feathers, as in Willem van Aelst's Hunting
Still Life (oil on canvas, 65.5 x 52.7cm, Johnny van Haeften
Ltd., London).
The Survivors
17th Century Still Life encompassed an enormous artistic range
which peaked by the 1670s and seemed to stagnate thereafter, perhaps
because of the deaths in the 1680s and 1690s of so many of its
exponents. What did survive, were the two aspects entrenched in
the Dutch psyche: decorative hunting still lifes and the flower
paintings.
References
1. M. M. Kahr, Dutch Painting in the Seventeenth
Century, (New York, 1978), 20.
2. B. Haak, The Golden Age: Dutch Painters of the Seventeenth-Century,
(New York, 1978), Part I, Still Lives, 115.
3. R.H.Fuchs, Dutch Painting, (London, 1994), 115.
4. The words of Fromentin cited by M. Hollander, An Entrance for
the Eyes: Space and meaning in Dutch Seventeenth Century Art,
(London & Berkeley, 2002), 7.
5. S. Sullivan, The Dutch Gamepiece, (London, 1984), 6.
6. Referred to by Karel van Mander in Het Schilder-boek, (Haarlem,
1604) and Philips Angel in his treatise Lof der Schilder-Konst,
(Leiden, 1642).
7. O. Koester, Illusions: Gijsbrechts, Royal Master of Deception,
(Copenhagen, 1999), 24.
|