A Memorial of Progress: 17th Century Dutch Still-Lifes

 During the Dutch Golden Age, which roughly spanned from 1588-1672, the Netherlands became a hub of globalization and progress. As imported goods made their way into households and the economy flourished, the genre of still-life painting (paintings of arranged objects) saw a big boom. Moving away from symbolic and overtly religious work, Dutch painters turned their gaze to the ordinary. Art was no longer just for public places, but the home. If art was now for the common man, what should that look like?

    Through their paintings, these Dutch artists pondered their ever-growing world through the lens of the everyday. Artists like Clara Peeters and Pieter Claesz engaged directly with their shifting world through self-portrait, while others like Melchior d’Hondecoeter depicted the majesty of change through wild animals. Like pinning a butterfly to a wall, others like Otto Marseus van Schrieck and Joris Hoefnagel used still-lifes for scientific study, furthering entomological and floricultural research by capturing insects and flowers in riveting detail. How do commonplace objects and lowly nature mirror grand cultural shifts? What is an artist’s place during change? Spanning just before and just after the Dutch Golden Age, the paintings in this collection endeavor to answer these questions. 

Clara Peeters, Still Life with Flowers, a Silver-gilt Goblet, Dried Fruit, Sweetmeats, Bread sticks, Wine and a Pewter Pitcher, 1611, Oil on panel, P1620, Museo del Prado, Madrid, Spain. 

Globalization decreased the size of the world and brought new items to the Dutch. At first glance, the flowers and food of this rich table setting feel simple and domestic, but a closer look shows that the flowers depicted would have been blooming at different times during the season. The sweetmeats, dried fruits, and pastries are a mixture of international and native goods. Stepping into this harmonization of cultures, Peeters paints her own reflection into the pewter jug on the right and the goblet in the center. As a woman, her reputation as an artist would have been easily dismissed–by memorializing herself alongside this representation of a changing world, Peeters seems to say that she is unabashedly aware of and part of that change.

Melchior d' Hondecoeter, Peacocks, 1683, Oil on canvas, 27.250.1, The Met.

The wealth of imported goods brought to the Netherlands would have included the varied array of animals and fruit depicted by d’Hondecoeter in Peacocks. Bursting with life, the painting shows a conglomerate of exotic and native animals–a squealing red squirrel on the ground contrasts sharply with the ibis stepping into the left frame, the squawking, regal peacocks, and the monkey. D’Hondecoeter also draws our attention to this contrast with plants, showing sunflowers blooming above the peacocks and a collection of various fruits at their feet. The excitement and confusion of the unfamiliar looms large in d’Hondecoeter’s world, and in his work.

Pieter Claesz, Vanitas with Violin and Glass Ball, 1628, Oil on panel, Gm 1409, Germanisches National Museum, Nuremberg.

 It was a common trend amongst some Dutch still-lifers to paint themselves into their work, as seen in the tiny, warped version of Claesz reflected in the glass ball sitting on the table. This practice served a dual purpose. It acted as a direct correlation between artist and artwork, like a big, bold signature, but additionally, it transformed artists into pictures themselves. In Claesz’s case, including a self-portrait is a reminder of the fleeting nature of his bodily life, as alongside his reflection, he highlights the sheen on a pocket watch; the light falling on a skull hiding in the background. By providing the viewer with a memento mori–reminder of death–beside his own face, he shows that as time marches on, our images can live forever, even as our bodies become bones.

Otto Marseus van Schrieck, Vase of Flowers with Butterflies, 1669, Oil on canvas, 551, Palatina Gallery, Florence, Italy.

One of Schrieck’s brightest works, this painting is rich with vibrant flowers and butterflies, evoking spring. Schrieck’s artistry focused on the scientific, and he spent much of his time crafting careful paintings that detailed the natural world, with special attention towards insects, reptiles, and flowers. Looking closely allows for appreciation of his sense of detail, from the water droplets on petals to the delicate wings of the dragonfly. However, Schrieck’s darker senses are not totally absent–looming above the bursting blooms, curling dead leaves remind the viewer that these flowers will not live forever in the natural world. But, through faithful duplication, they can live to be studied through the ages.

Joris Hoefnagel, Still Life with Flowers, a Snail and Insects, 1589,

Watercolor, gouache, and shell gold on vellum, 2008.110. The Met.

Hoefnagel’s still life, done just shy of the 17th century, is a delicate, postcard-esque piece painted onto vellum (animal skin). His detailed lines feel almost scholarly as he captures every feature of the softly hued insects and flowers. They look as if they could come to life at any minute! This work precedes the works that bloomed later in the 17th century under the sottobosco genre, which focused on the scientific study of ‘lower’ creatures (like insects) and plants, however, whispers of that genre can be seen in this painting. The carefully posed butterflies, caterpillars, and dragonfly cradle the flowers like a picture frame–rather than being a natural composition, Hoefnagel captures aspects of nature we would be hard-pressed to get a good look at otherwise.

Otto Marseus van Schrieck, Still Life with Poppy, Insects, and Reptiles, 1670, Oil on canvas, 53.155. The Met.

 Using value and contrast to his great advantage, Schrieck paints a moody forest scene with a sharp scarlet poppy in the foreground, surrounded by insects, a lizard, and a snake. Schrieck was a prominent figure of the Dutch sottobosco (‘forest floor’) movement, a subgenre of still life that focused on obscure aspects of nature. Sottobosco painters studied creatures like butterflies, bugs, and reptiles, as they were considered part of the ‘lowest chain of being’ in the Baroque period and there was little scientific knowledge about them. Painters like Schrieck were even known to use real butterfly wings to make their paintings as accurate as possible. Works like these earned Schrieck the title of “The Snuffler” amongst his friends, since, as this painting shows, he spent a lot of time in the underbrush.