Women artists were few and far between in 17th century Northern Europe, but some of the most renowned were devoted within their space. Because it was deemed inappropriate for women to paint from live models, many kinds of paintings were ruled out for their practices - history painting, genre painting, etc. - so many resorted to mastering still life painting, which required no human figures, and could usually be achieved within the domestic sphere. Many of these artists chose to focus on floral arrangements crafted either from life or their own imaginations (pairing flowers which naturally bloom in opposing seasons together), table and food arrangements, and some portraits (usually self portraits). Though we generally have less information about these female artists of the time than their male contemporaries, the women did not shy away from including their identities within their work, whether that be a craftily-placed signature or the addition of a reflection of the artist herself within a still life painting. From the works of these female artists in Northern Europe, we can get a glimpse through the frame into their work - what roles they played, how they fared in the painting industry, and how they were viewed by others.
Still Life with Flowers, a Silver-gilt Goblet, Dried Fruit, Sweetmeats,
Bread sticks, Wine and a Pewter Pitcher
Clara Peeters
1611
Oil on panel
Royal Collection, Museo del Prado.
In this still life, Clara Peeters creates an embodied scene in which the viewer can almost experience in real time– a piece of pretzel has just been broken off of the silver platter, the dried fruit somehow looks fresh, and we can see a reflection of the artist herself in the process of painting if we look to the pewter pitcher and the goblet. Though Peeters was limited in subject matter and genre as a female painter, we can see her assertion as an artist in the challenges she takes on in her work, such as painting reflection on varying materials and including her own self portrait multiple times throughout the piece.
A Bouquet of Flowers
Clara Peeters
ca. 1612
Oil on wood
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. 2020.22.
Influenced by illustrations of the Scientific Revolution, Clara Peeters depicts a full range of vibrant flowers and insects in this still life in which color and texture take center stage. In a similar fashion as in her other works, Peeters asserts her identity and proficiency, signing her name into the left side of the stone ledge and not shying away from the challenge of painting light reflections in the glass flower vase. Though somewhat limited to painting still lifes, Peeters exhibits her mastery by formulating an unrealistic combination of flowers (flowers that naturally bloom in different seasons) in her composition, highlighting the fact that she did not solely paint from a pre-set scene, but imagined the finished composition.
Self-Portrait
Judith Leyster
c. 1630
Oil on canvas
National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. 1949.6.1
In this self-portrait, Judith Leyster casually looks back from her easel towards the viewer, confident in her artistry. The Dutch artist paints herself in fine attire, which was common for self-portraits at the time, and displays her painting within a painting, which seems to reflect the artist’s own smiling look. Because the work was not signed and because Judith Leyster was not recognized until many years later, the painting was attributed to Frans Hals for a time, another Dutch male painter during the 17th century.
Bouquet of Flowers in a Vase
Maria van Oosterwyck
c. 1670s
Oil painting on canvas
The Denver Art Museum. 1997.219
Devoted so much to her career in the 1600s, Maria van Oosterwyck had paintings that sold to royalty despite her being one of few women in the painting scene. In this painting, Oosterwyck composes an imaginary group of flowers that would not naturally bloom at the same time of year, similar to other female contemporaries of her time like Clara Peeters. Oosterwyck never married and became very well-renowned for her still lifes, mostly focusing on flowers, instruments, and other miscellaneous items.
Rachel Ruysch (1664–1750)
Rachel Ruysch and Michiel van Mussche
1692
Oil on canvas
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. 2023.91
Rachel Ruysch collaborated with fellow Dutch painter, Michiel van Mussche, to create this painting, which incorporates both of their artistry. Ruysch contributes the floral arrangement to Mussche’s depiction of her in her studio, a subject she specialized in along with other still life compositions. Ruysch was a very well-known painter in 17th century Northern Europe, and though a woman, was highly praised for her works, some of which were acquired by royalty. In this scene, Ruysch looks straight out at the viewer and displays her process of painting– we can see floral sketches, her mixed paint and pigments, and her brushes. Yet the scene we see is also very staged. Ruysch seems to sit within a still life painting of perfectly rendered flowers and in front of a single larger-than-life rose which a butterfly rests on.
A Vase of Flowers
Margareta Haverman
1716
Oil on wood
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. 1871.6
Margareta Haverman displays her proficiency in floral paintings in her Vase of Flowers. Though confined to more limited subject matter because of her sex, Haverman confidently asserts her identity as a painter and claims her work by signing her name to look as if it is engraved on the ledge on which the bouquet rests. Though only a few of her paintings are recognized today, Haverman attended the French Royal Academy and was trained under the renowned Dutch painter Jan van Huysum, both remarkable and rare accomplishments for a female artist in 17th century Northern Europe.
References:
Segal, Sam, and Klara Alen. Dutch and Flemish Flower Pieces : Paintings, Drawings and Prints up to the Nineteenth Century. Translated by Judith Deitch. Leiden: Brill / Hes & De Graaf, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004427457.
Bastiaensen, Jean. Finding Clara: Establishing the Biographical
Details of Clara Peeters (c. 1587-after 1636). Boletin del Museo del
Prado 52, (2016): 17-31.
No comments:
Post a Comment