BREAKFAST-PIECE BY NICOLAES GILLIS A Comparative Study of Material Perspectives
Filippa Kenne
Department of Culture and Aesthetics, Stockholm University VT20 ABSTRACT
Department: Department of Culture and Aesthetics, Stockholm University, Art history Address: 106 91 Stockholm University
Supervisor: Maria Beatrice De Ruggieri
Title and subtitle: Breakfast-Piece by Nicolaes Gillis: A Comparative Study of Material Perspectives
Author: Filippa Kenne
Author’s contact information: Tjurbergsgatan 34, 118 56 Stockholm [email protected] Essay Level: Master’s Thesis Ventilation semester: VT 2020
The aim of the thesis is to examine the research hypothesis that Nicolaes Gillis, a Haarlem based 17th century still life painter, is the artist behind the still life painting Breakfast-Piece. The thesis is taking a stance out of a technical campaign of the painting that was carried out in January 2020. The results of the technical examination is the foundation for the research hypothesis. As the attribution of the painting is uncertain, the research hypothesis is studied through perspectives of the material and compositional features of the painting, and through studying the objects depicted in the painting. Two comparative studies are made in the thesis, exploring the material features of Breakfast-Piece in the context of 17th century Netherlandish still life painting. The compositional features of Breakfast-Piece are put in the context of early breakfast still lifes, as well as the objects depicted. The conclusion of the thesis is that Breakfast-Piece probably was not made by Gillis, due to the differences in Gillis’ painting technique compared to Breakfast-Piece and the chronology in the Gillis’ artistic production.
Key words: still life painting, Breakfast-Piece, Nicolaes Gillis, technical examination, reflectography, x-radiography, Stockholm University art collection
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1 Aim of study 1 Theoretical perspectives 2 Material 3 Method 4 Previous research 4 Disposition 6 Delimitations 7
TECHNICAL ENTRY 8
NICOLAES GILLIS 14 Gillis’ oeuvre 15
THE ATTRIBUTION OF BREAKFAST-PIECE 17
ONTBIJTJES 19 Breakfast-Piece and the ontbijtje repertoire 20
PAINTING TECHNIQUE 21 The Stockholm and the Bonn version 21 Pieter Claesz.’s Still Life with Peacock Pie 23 Painting techniques in 17th century still lifes 24 Underdrawing 25 Dead-colouring and working up 25
A STUDY OF OBJECTS 27 The repetition of objects 27 The objects of Breakfast-Piece 28 The herring 28 The façon de Venise 28 The parsnips 29 The jug, the vase and the knife 29
CONCLUSION 30
BIBLIOGRAPHY 31
LIST OF IMAGES 36
INTRODUCTION
Breakfast-Piece, see fig. 1, is hanging at the Scheffler Palace in Stockholm, as the painting is part of the Stockholm University art collection. The painting has been in the present collection since 1957, when it was purchased from the Rapps Konsthandel. Breakfast-Piece has previously been at Tidö Castle in Västmanland, as it previously was a part of the von Schinkel collection. During the research on Breakfast-Piece, several questions and doubts have arisen. The material data of the painting is known– the painting’s size, support and condition. The artist’s painting technique, and the materials the artist used can be investigated through that material data. However, one of the more fundamental data for art historical research is unknown to us – the artist behind the painting. During the beginning of the research on Breakfast-Piece, we thought we knew the basic information of the painting, that Nicolaes Gillis, a Haarlem based 17th century still life painter was the artist of Breakfast-Piece. The attribution to Gillis left us with a time and place for the creation of the painting. However, we soon understood that this attribution might be questionable. The questionable attribution clearly changed our understanding of the painting, as well as the way we should approach the painting. However, the data we had distinguished from the technical examination of the painting is unchanged, the support is still the same, as well as the technical features and the painting technique. Nevertheless, were we missing one important aspect for research – context. The thesis will therefore take a stance out of Netherlandish still life tradition during the 17th century, a genre and period well explored in art history. Most importantly, however, the thesis will take a stance out of the painting as an important source of information itself, as the painting and its material features might reveal information about this missing context. The thesis is therefore studying the painting’s material features to contextualise and trace the Breakfast-Piece’s possible origin.
Aim of study As there are conflicting thoughts on whether or not Breakfast-Piece is made by the 17th century Netherlandish still life painter Nicolaes Gillis, the thesis will focus on the research hypothesis that the painting could be made by Gillis, or in the Netherlandish environment of his time. The aim of the study is to examine this research hypothesis if Breakfast-Piece was made by Nicolaes Gillis. However, the aim of the thesis is not to declare a certain attribution of the studied still life. Through examining this suggested attribution, the thesis intends to get a greater understanding of the context in which the still life was created in. The hypothesis that
1
Breakfast-Piece could be made by Gillis will be studied through different perspectives– the material features of the painting, composition and by studying the objects depicted. The thesis takes a stance out of the artistic traditions of still lifes from Northern Europe during the early 17th century, for an understanding of the artistic milieu that Gillis and his contemporaries worked in. Breakfast-Piece is studied in the context of this artistic environment, to get a greater understanding of if it is likely that Gillis is the artist behind the painting.
Theoretical perspectives The aim of this thesis is not trying to understand what the artist of the studied still life meant with the painting or what the painting symbolises, rather, the aim is to understand the process of the painting being made and the context it was created in. Therefore, the thesis is studying the painting as an object, as well as studying the objects depicted in the painting – paying attention both to how the painting have been made, and the selection of objects depicted. Artefacts tell us something about the time and place the painting was created in. Anthropologist Arjun Appadurai describes what he calls a methodological fetishism, emphasising the need for attention to things themselves. Even if we are of the opinion that things have no meaning except the meaning that humans attributes to the things, Appadurai expresses that we still have to recognize the historical circulation of these things, as their meaning are inscribed in their uses and their trajectories.1 When studying the objects represented in Breakfast-Piece, the circulation of objects during the period has to be recognized. The objects represented are, presumably, objects surrounding the artist in his life. Studying which objects are shown in Breakfast-Piece, and if other artists from the same period have depicted similar items, is a way of understanding the context which the studied still life was created in. Art historian Michael Yonan stress the importance of material studies in art history, stating that art history long has suppressed its status as material culture. Materiality has rarely been described as an important component in the interpretation of art, as art history has privileged the visual features of art rather than materials. This hierarchization of the visual versus material can be traced to the discipline’s forerunners, Yonan states.2 However, art historians Tracy Ireland and Jane Lydon describes the “material turn”, an object-oriented approach that emphases the relation between people and things. The material turn, the authors explain, is mostly associated with a post humanist approach, as Bruno Latour’s actor-network theory. Over the last decade, an anthropological approach to non- human actors have changed the analysis of objects, from studying what things and images mean to instead study what they do. Scholars are stressing how the relationship between
1 A. Appadurai, ‘Introduction: commodities and the politics of value’, in A. Appadurai (ed.), The Social Life of Things. Commodities in Cultural Perspective, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1986, p. 5. 2 M. Yonan, ‘Towards a Fusion of Art History and Material Culture Studies’, West 86th 18, 2011, pp. 233– 238.
2 people and things is mutually constitutive, and new methodologies are evolving to overcome the traditional discrepancy of fieldwork and analysis, Ireland and Lydon explains.3 The importance of understanding the material composition of art works is described by art historian Erma Hermens. In the last two decades, a strong focus on material culture and the artwork as a physical object have characterized technical art history. Technical art history and the study of materials aspire for a comprehensive understanding of the artwork studied, in terms of original intention, materials and techniques, and the context in which the artefact was created in.4 Ireland and Lydon’s emphasising on studying what objects do, rather than mean, correlates to art historian Harry Berger Jr.’s remark towards iconographic studies when analysing still lifes. Berger Jr. expresses how Netherlandish still life painting has been hamstrung by iconography since its rise in early 17th century, merely indicating signs with which the interpreter can assign meaning to the painting.5 What the painting, and the objects represented in the painting, does is indicating of the context of its creation. As the studied painting is undated and as the attribution is uncertain, studying materiality is one way of understanding the painting in a context. The thesis will take stance out of the context of Gillis’ oeuvre and the artistic discourse during the 17th century in the Netherlands. Through Hermens’ statement on technical art history, studying materiality can identify the technical process of the painting, and with that, possibly clarify if Gillis is the artist of the painting studied. However, material studies are not enough for a certain attribution. Studying the painting through the perspective of materiality and through the methods of technical art history, can nevertheless generate new perspectives on the painting examined, exploring the creation of the painting.
Material The primary material the thesis is studying is Breakfast-Piece from the Stockholm University art collection.6 Besides the painting itself, the material studied in the thesis consists of information gathered during the technical campaign at the Scheffler Palace. The material collected during the campaign consists of one x-radiograph of the painting.7 Two reflectographs, one that shows the entire painting and one smaller detail image.8 One
3 T. Ireland and J. Lydon, ‘Rethinking Materiality, Memory and Identity’, in Public History Review, vol. 23, 2016, pp. 1-8. 4 E. Hermens, ‘Technical Art History: The Synergy of Art, Conservation and Science’, in M. Rampley, T. Lenain and H. Locher, (eds.), Art History and Visual Studies in Europe: Transnational Discourses and National Frameworks, Leiden and Boston, Brill, 2012, pp. 159-165. 5 H. Berger Jr., Caterpillage: Reflections on Seventeenth-Century Dutch Still Life Painting, New York, Fordman University Press, 2011, p. 1. 6 S. Karling, The Stockholm university collection of paintings: catalogue, Stockholm, University of Stockholm, 1978, p. 113. 7 The x-radiograph was taken with a Radio Light x-radiograph tube from Gilardoni, a HD-CR 35 NDT digital scanner and digital plates HD-IP Plus 30/40 cm. The X-radiograph was taken with 3 mA, 43 kV for 300 seconds. 8 The instrument used for the reflectograph at 1700 nm was an Osiris Camera from Opus, using an InGaAs line sensor.
3 image of the front and one of the back of the painting, in ultraviolet light.9 Complementary to these images are nine macrophotographs.10 From the material collected during the campaign a technical report was written, which serves as a foundation for the present thesis. The thesis is also studying an examination report on Pieter Claesz.’s Still Life with Peacock Pie, 1627, carried out by the National Gallery of Art in 2013. The four-page report describes, similarly to the technical entry on Breakfast-Piece, Claesz.’s still life from the support to the paint layers. Included in the examination report is one x-radiograph and one reflectograph image of Claesz.’s painting. The examination report on Claesz.’s still life was sent to the author from Jay Krueger, head of painting conservation at the National Gallery of Art, in an email conservation. The thesis is using the Claesz. report as a comparison of painting technique and material features from another still life painter from Haarlem, contemporary to Gillis. However, as the report is not that extensive, the report serves as a brief examination to understand if Breakfast- Piece is showing similarities or differences in technique to Claesz.’s still life.
Method To examine the hypothesis of Gillis being the artist behind the Breakfast-Piece, the thesis is initially studying the material gathered during the technical campaign at the Scheffler Palace in Stockholm. Painting technique and material features are described, to clarify the process behind Breakfast-Piece being made. Additionally, an in-depth study of the traditions of early breakfast pieces has been made with the literature on the subject. Parts of a translation of the artist and writer Karel van Mander’s Het Schilder-Boeck, published in 1604 in Haarlem, is used for an insight in the painting techniques of the period. van Mander’s text, as well as contemporary technical art historical research concerning 17th century still lifes, provides the thesis with different perspectives on the painting techniques of early Netherlandish still lifes. For a deeper understanding of the painting technique during the time, the thesis will conduct a comparative study of the results of the technical examination on Breakfast-Piece and the National Art Gallery’s technical examination. This kind of comparison can reveal technical similarities and differences in the two paintings. As the Claesz.’ still life has an established date, the technical examination of the painting serves as a guide for the painting technique of the period. Additionally, a comparative study of the Stockholm University version of Breakfast-Piece and a second version of the painting is executed, to investigate any similarities or differences in the two versions. Unfortunately, no technical data regarding the second version of Breakfast-Piece is accessible for the author.
9 For the ultraviolet images, a Nikon D800 was used, with a Micronikkor lens 55mm, and filters 2B+85B. 10 The macrophotographs were taken with a Nikon D800, with a 12 cm extention tube and a 55 mm Micronikkor lens.
4
Previous research Still life paintings in the Dutch golden age is well described in literature, and several different orientations on the subject have been studied. Art historian Julie Berger Hochstrasser, 2007, emphasises the economic practices in the Dutch golden age, and their effects on still life painting. Berger Hochstrasser provides a comprehensive text about 17th century life and art, through studying commodities and trade.11 Art historian Hanneke Grootenboer, 2006, also discusses Netherlandish 17th century still- life. Through the concept of phenomenology, the author examines the perspective and composition, as well as the early still lifes approach toward horror vacui. However, what is of most importance for the thesis in Grootenboer’s text is the examination of the history and stylistics of breakfast pieces, as well as Gillis’ and his contemporaries place in the tradition of still life painting.12 The techniques and the materiality of early modern paintings are examined in Historical painting techniques, materials, and studio practice: preprints of a symposium held at the University of Leiden, the Netherlands, 26-29 June, 1995, 1995. The text provides the thesis an insightful knowledge of how early modern artists worked, out of a technical art historical perspective.13 Similarly, The Science of Paintings, 2000, provide a general understanding of supports, mediums and pigments. Even though the later text is not merely oriented towards early modern art, the book serves as a guide of how to look at art through the eyes of science.14 The Rijksmuseum publication Still lifes: techniques and style: an examination of paintings from the Rijksmuseum, 1999, is the only book describing still lifes from the viewpoint of technical analysis that the author have found. The Rijksmuseum publication explores materials and techniques of the period through technical examinations. As this is the only text on technical analysis of still lifes, the thesis is using the book as a foundation for the understanding of painting techniques during the period.15 Unlike still life painting, and the several perspectives on these subject, the life and work of Gillis is not widely explored. One of the few books that explores the life of Gillis is art historian Ingvar Bergström’s dissertation from 1947. However, Bergström’s attempts to trace the life of Gillis is brief, and his assumptions of Gillis’ life appears rather speculative.16 One of the larger assets of the said dissertation is Bergström’s tracing of the early breakfast
11 J. Berger Hochstrasser, Still life and trade in the Dutch golden age, New Haven, Conn, Yale University Press, 2007. 12 H. Grootenboer, The rethoric of perspective: realism and illusionism in seventeenth-century Dutch still-life painting, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 2006. 13A. Wallert, E. Hermens and M. Peek (eds.), Historical painting techniques, materials, and studio practice: preprints of a symposium held at the University of Leiden, the Netherlands, 26-29 June, 1995/, Marina Del Ray, Getty Conservation Institute, 1995. Available from: The Getty Conservation Institute, (accessed 2020- 02-19). 14 W. Stanley Taft, Jr. and J. W. Mayer (eds.), The Science of Paintings, New York, Springer, 2000. Available from: SpringerLink Book, (accessed 2020-02-18). 15 A. Wallert (ed.), Still lifes: techniques and style: an examination of paintings from the Rijksmuseum: [exhibition, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, from 19 June to 19 September 1999], Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, 1999. 16 I. Bergström, Studier i holländskt stillebenmåleri under 1600-talet, Göteborg, Göteborgs Universitet, 1947.
5 still lifes, or ontbijtjes, and their development over the years as well as the artists’ who produced them. One of the more important sections is where the author examines Gillis’ artistic and stylistic development. However, as Bergström knows only three still lifes made by Gillis, and as Breakfast-Piece is not one of them, Bergström’s attempt to study the development is not that extensive. Nevertheless, Bergström’s text provides the thesis a helpful starting point of tracing Gillis’ artistic practices.17 One of the main discussions that is present in all texts about Gillis and his oeuvre, is the uncertainty of when he was active. The discussion of when Gillis’ earliest painting was created permeates all texts about the artists. Some authors, as Grootenboer, Bergström and art historian Joshua Bruyn, deem that the first known painting by Gillis’ is dated 1601.18 However, art historian Fred G. Meijer argues that Gillis’ earliest work cannot be from 1601.19 The 1601 date will be discussed further in the thesis. As very little is known about the life of Gillis, Thieme-Becker’s dictionary of artists from 1921, art historian A.P.A Vorenkamp’s and Bergström’s text are sources on Gillis in almost all text’s describing the artist. Relying on only a few sources about Gillis, it is clear that the dating of Gillis’ earliest work, and with that the whole chronology for his artistic career, becomes an accepted truth. The biography of Gillis is rather speculative and should therefore not be taken as established truth in the thesis. In the literature concerning Gillis and early breakfast still lifes, there is a lack of describing painting technique, instead iconography and connoisseurship are parameters categorizing the paintings. This complicates the research on the topic, and the thesis is using the Rijksmuseum publication as its principal text for information about technical features of still lifes and historical painting techniques. The thesis and the technical entry will hopefully contribute to the topic with the technical examination of Breakfast-Piece.
Disposition Apart from the technical entry, the thesis consists of five chapters. The technical entry serves as a foundation for the following chapters. Each chapter in the thesis examines different perspective of Breakfast-Piece, and the hypothesis that Gillis could be the artists behind the still life. The first and second chapter investigates Gillis’ oeuvre and the uncertain attribution of Breakfast-Piece. The third chapter explores the compositional features of Breakfast-Piece. Investigating the scheme of early breakfast pieces, described very similar by different scholars, Breakfast-Piece is studied out of this scheme for an understanding of if the painting fit in the repertoire.
17 Bergström, Studier i holländskt stillebenmåleri under 1600-talet. 18 J. Bruyn, ‘Dutch Cheese: A Problem of Interpretation’, Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art, vol. 24, no. 2/3, 1996, pp. 201-208. 19 F. G. Meijer, ‘Reviewed Works: Pieter Claesz. der Hauptmeister des Haarlemer Stillebens im 17. Jahrhundert. Kritischer Oeuvrekatalog by Martina Brunner-Bulst; Pieter Claesz Master of Haarlem Still Life (Dutch edition: Pieter Claesz Meester van het stilleven in de Gouden Eeuw) by Pieter Biesboer, Martina Brunner-Bulst, Henry D. Gregory, Christian Klemm’, in Oud Holland, vol. 120, no. ½, 2007, pp. 136-146. See note 11.
6
The fourth chapter examines the material features of the painting. In this chapter, the compositional features of the Stockholm version of Breakfast-Piece is compared to the second version of the painting. Additionally, the technical and material features of Breakfast- Piece is compared to the technical examination of Pieter Claesz.’s still life from 1627. Exploring the painting technique of the period, the thesis is using the previously mentioned Rijksmuseum publication as a general guide for painting techniques during the period, as well as parts of a translation of Karel van Mander’s Het Schilder-Boeck, published 1604 in Haarlem. The fifth chapter analyses the objects depicted in the studied still life. Additionally, the chapter explores if similar objects have been depicted by Gillis, or by other artists. The thesis ends with a conclusion, where ideas for further research on the attribution of Breakfast-Piece, as well as technical examinations of early Netherlandish still lifes are specified.
Delimitations The thesis would have benefited from comparing Breakfast-Piece with a technical examination of a painting that with certainty is attributed to Gillis, for an understanding of Gillis’ painting technique. As no such examination have been executed on any paintings by Gillis, this was not possible. Additionally, the thesis would also benefit from comparing the studied still life with several different technical examinations of still lifes from the period from different schools in Europe. This would have given the thesis a deeper understanding of how painting techniques differ from each other, and in what tradition Breakfast-Piece fit. However, as the author only came across one technical examination of a 17th century still life, the Claesz. examination from the National Gallery of Art, such a comparison could not be made. Furthermore, due to the length of the thesis, this would have been too big of a study to conduct in the present thesis. As no pigment samples were taken during the technical campaign, the pigments used in Breakfast-Piece cannot be examined. As the panel has not been studied with the method of dendrochronology, the information known about the panel is based on visual analyses. The thesis is concentrating on writing about early breakfast pieces, rather than still lifes in general, due to the length of the thesis and because the still life genre is already described in depth. However, the theme of early breakfast paintings has not been described to the same extent, and in particular, technical examinations of still lifes.
7
TECHNICAL ENTRY
Nicolaes Gillis Breakfast-Piece 53.2 x 65.6 cm (depth 1-1,4 cm) Oil on panel The Scheffler Palace, Stockholm University collection Inventory n. 282
Support
Through a direct observation of back of the painting, we can see that the support consists of one single panel. The panel is rather thin and smooth. The smooth panel gives the painting a refined finish, suiting for the painting technique. No large knots or differences in the wood can be seen easily with the naked eye. Some knots are, however, visible in macrophotographs on the painting, as near the fish and below the slab, see fig. 2. It is unlikely that the panel has been cut, as what seems to be original paint layers can be seen on the edges of the painting. However, on the back of the panel, long cuts can be detected, see fig. 3. This is likely due to a process of thinning the panel, as the marks on the back of the panel resembles a chisel.
In the x-radiography of the painting, see fig. 4, the grains of the wood become well-defined. The fibers of the wood are horizontal, long and parallel. Considering the results of the x- radiography examination, it is most likely that the panel is made of oak. As no dendrochronology test was executed on the panel, we cannot be certain that the panel is made of oak. However, in the region where the artist was active, oak was the most commonly used wood for panels.20 Several marks in the panel becomes visible in the x-radiograph, some longer and some shorter. These marks are present in all of the painting’s surface. The most prominent marks, however, are visible in the upper left part of the panel, concentrated above the bread and the jug. These marks appear as wavy, yet parallel lines. These marks could be the result of a tool, or they could appear natural in the wood. These marks could presumably be what is called medullary rays, which occur naturally in wood. In the x-radiography, what appears to be a nail in the upper, central part of the panel becomes visible. Examining the back of the panel, there seem to be a disruption in the panel which correspond to the placing of the nail.
20 A. Wallert, ‘Methods and materials of still-life painting in the seventeenth-century’, in A. Wallert (ed.), Still lifes: techniques and style: an examination of paintings from the Rijksmuseum: [exhibition, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, from 19 June to 19 September 1999], Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, 1999, p. 7.
8
Ground layers
There is no certainty of which colour the ground layer is based on a close visual examination. The colour of the ground cannot be seen in the craquelure, and neither in the loss of paint, as almost every loss has been retouched. In a few losses, what might be the ground is visible. However, these are tiny losses with which we cannot for sure state show the colour of the ground. It is reasonable, however, that the painting has a light-coloured ground. As can be seen in raking light, the pigments in the dark background seemed to have been applied thicker than in the lighter parts. This indicates that more media was needed to cover the light ground. It is also possible that the painting is divided into three parts of base-colour - the lighter coloured tablecloth, the greenish table and the dark background. The artist would benefit from this as the dark background does not affect the foreground, and as the tablecloth is opaque and does not need reflect or filter the colour of the table. These three blocks of colour are static, and not dependent of each other. It seems as the artist has left some objects en reserve before painting these blocks of base- colour, and some not. For the aesthetic and illusionistic effects, the object made of transparent material is not reserved, that is, the glass. The objects reserved from the blocks of base-colour, is the objects affected by two of these base-colours. That is, the jug, the bread and the vase. Looking at a macrophotograph of the left contour of the jug, gives an indication that the jug was left en reserve from the green pigment, see fig. 5, as there is a space between the jug and the green pigments of the table. It is visible how the artist carefully has painted the table’s green next to the jug, where however, some brushstrokes of green have penetrated the brown pigment of the jug.
Looking at the x-radiography and trying to understand the artist’s painting process, we can detect how the artist has left some of the objects en reserve. As we can see in the x- radiography, the trace of the brush follows the contours of some objects, as in the bottom part of the jug and the pewter plate. This implies that these objects were left en reserve, and that the pigments of the tablecloth and the table was added besides, and not under, the objects. If the objects had not been reserved, there would be no need for the artist to paint next to the object. The three objects mentioned earlier, the vase, the bread and the jug, appear to have a consistent distribution of lead white. That is, that there is no major difference in the lead white distribution in the object itself. If the lower part of these objects had been painted on top of the lighter table, not being reserved, the objects lower parts, those placed on the table, would appear lighter in the radiography.
Underdrawing
The underdrawing can be detected in some places with the naked eye, as in the slab, in the orange and in the parsnips. One of the reasons the underdrawing is visible in these areas is
9 because the objects depicted lack the sharp contours characterized by many other objects in the painting. The second reason is because the artist has altered the shape of the object, as the underdrawing becomes visible “inside” the object. However, it is difficult to tell what is an underdrawing and what is a dark contour of some objects. For some of the very dark contours of the fish, for example, it is almost impossible to distinguish underdrawing from paint layer.
With an infrared examination, the underdrawing appears in more objects. With the reflectography, see fig. 6, we can distinguish a clear underdrawing in some parts of the fish, as in the fish head. It also becomes clear how the artist firstly has drawn the contour of the pewter plate and the slab, and later drawn the objects placed upon them. The tops of the parsnips are left en reserve on the right-hand side of the pewter plate, but the underdrawing of the pewter plate cuts through the ends of the vegetables of the left. The slab seems to have been defined with underdrawing first, before the objects on it was. In the upper left crease of the slab, the contour of the slab crosses the fish’s head. Similarly, in the knife resting on the slab, we can detect the underdrawn contour of the slab going through the tip of the knife. Contrary to the straight lines in the underdrawing of the spice box, which cross each other like made with a ruler, are the rounded shapes in the painting. The orange and the bread, as well as the foot and the circles on the vase, appear to be the result of a rapid, circular movement of the artists hand. Nevertheless, there are objects in what we can detect no underdrawing. As many of the objects have sharp contours, it is difficult to tell if what we see in the reflectography is a trace of the underdrawing or the painted contour. The underdrawing that can be detected seem to have been made in a dry medium. The onions appear to have no underdrawing, alike the haulm of the parsnips. What could be, however, is an underdrawing made with a wet medium. It is difficult to tell if the thicker contours of these vegetables are in fact an underdrawing or a part of the later painting process. Another possibility for the “lack” of underdrawing seen, is that the underdrawing is made with a pigment which cannot be seen in the reflectograph, as red chalk. Concerning the underdrawing, the case could be that the artist executed a more detailed and meticulous underdrawing for the objects that are significant for the painting’s perspective – the folds in the tablecloth, the spice-box and parsnips. These objects in the painting contribute to the definition of depth, perception and direction in the painting.
Underpainting
In the painting, we can detect some compositional changes with the naked eye. The most prominent changes can be seen in the parsnips, where the size and shapes of the vegetables have been made thicker. The pentimenti in this area becomes noticeable as the underdrawing is visible through the paint layers.
10
Similar to the parsnips is the compositional change in the fish, which becomes evident when we can detect the underdrawing though the paint layers. It seems that the artist’s first intention for the form of the fish’s head followed the contour of the underdrawing of the slab. In four of the fish pieces we can also detect how the artist has increased the upper part of the fish.
However, when using reflectography the compositional changes becomes more well-defined. Interestingly, the reflections of the parsnips on the pewter plate also have been altered, something that is not visible with the naked eye, but can be seen in the reflectograph image. One of the larger changes that can be detected is that the right-hand side of the table have been moved to the left, leavening the artist a narrower table to work on. Some fine light lines are apparent next to, and on top of the glass. A conic shape, that becomes larger at the top, and three or four horizontal lines follows the shape of the glass. This could be a first shape of the glass, as the placing and the dimensions follow the depicted glass. If that is the case, the ‘first’ glass had another appearance than the now depicted. The horizontal lines of the ‘first’ glass does not have a correspondence to the appearance of the depicted glass. Alterations are also noticeable when studying x-radiography and reflectography combined. There is some disturbance on the edge of the knife, which appears to have a thicker edge in the x-radiography. It is also noticeable how the celeriac have been painted larger than its first shape. Studying the x-radiograph, we can also detect a lighter area appear next to the spice box. It appears to be an organic form, rounded, yet not in the shape of a sphere. This could be a fruit or a vegetable, as its shape corresponds to the depicted celeriac. This light area continues to the very edge of the painting, and we cannot see its outer contour on the right side. The lighter shape could be an indicator of the artist’s working method. As the table have been moved to the left, this shape could be a first placement of the celeriac or the orange. Nevertheless, there are no major compositional changes in the painting. Instead, the alterations mainly concern size. Comparing the reflectography, the x-radiography and the visible image, what appears before us is a restrained and organized painting and composition. The composition appears carefully thought out before the painting process, as the artist’s initial vision, the underdrawing, is followed except in the matter of size.
Paint layers
The medium of appear to be an oil type, indicated by the artist’s painting technique, as oil enables the artist to use the benefits of the medium. This can be detected in the fine glazing the artist is practicing, most noticeable in, as mentioned before, the object that filter the background - the glass. In the glass, only a brown and a yellow pigment is used, except for white. The artist uses these colours in a very thin glaze to shape and create depth, with the use of coloured and white highlights. In the details of the fishtail, the artist has delicately used the underlying colour of the slab to
11 enhance the transparency and thinness of the tail. White highlights are added to create the scales, and blue pigments are used to create the shimmering appearance of the fish scales. In many of the objects depicted, we can identify how the artist with only a few pigments distinguish form and texture. The artist is also creating these structural effects with the characteristics of the brushstrokes. The different kinds of types of brushwork used by the artist is evident in the bread, where the artist mimics the texture of the bread through the work of the brush. The pores on the orange’s peel is emphasised through short brushstrokes, similarly to the table’s rough wooden surface and the fine grains of spices. The brushwork is visible in several places besides the ones mentioned. We can clearly see the trace of the brush in the shadows of the orange and the faience plate. Likewise, the trace of the brush is noticeable in the highlights of the tablecloth’s creases. The shadows are achieved in some different ways. The shadows on the orange and the bread, for example, are created through the adding of a colder, not darker, tone. The shadows on the vase, the jug and the celeriac are, instead, emphasised through a darker tone, consistent of a tone already existing in the object. The fish’s shadows on the slab, however, are created through repeated parallel brushstrokes to resemble and emphasise the grains of the wood. There are some noticeable paint losses which can be seen with the naked eye. These losses are concentrated to the edges of the painting, in the top left edge and in the top right. Apart from the mentioned losses, which exposes the wood, there are losses that have been retouched one can see in close observation. Concentrated to the bottom left edge of the painting, a thicker layer of paint is noticeable, that is not consistent with the otherwise smooth surface of the painting. The other retouches which are evident is the ones where the pigments of the retouching are not coherent with the original pigments. Differences in tones of an otherwise homogenous surface reveals the retouches. This becomes apparent in the shade between the vase and the bread and next to the foot of the glass. Some craquelure is visible through a direct observation in raking light, mostly in the darker tones of the painting, in the background and in the upper parts of the table. These aging cracks spreads as a fine, evenly spread net across the painting.
Looking at the x-radiography, trying to trace the artist’s painting process, we can understand how the artist built up the composition step by step. Studying the haulms of the parsnips, we can detect how the shadow from the pewter plate is underneath the haulms, indicating that the haulms were painted on top of the shadow. Studying the orange in the x-radiography and reflectography images, a second shape for the orange seem to appear. Defined by brushwork, a somewhat pointer shape emerges right above the orange. The shape is more consistent with the shape of a pear or the depicted celeriac, rather than an orange. This, on the contrary of what is stated earlier in the entry, indicates that the artist did try out different shapes directly on the panel. The whole composition of the painting does then not have to be thought out before the painting process. Most of the objects depicted are enclosed by a prominently darker contour that surrounds some of, or the whole object. These contours are most evident in the fish, the slab, as well as
12 the haulms of the onions and parsnips. However, the orange and the bread are not enclosed by this dark contour. When comparing the x-radiograph and the visible image of the painting, we can detect how the three bugs seem to disappear when looking at the x-radiograph. As they almost become transparent, the highlights on the bugs, painted in what appear to be lead white, still remains visible in the x-radiograph.
Varnish
In a macrophotography showing the faience plate, drying cracks can be detected, see fig. 7. These cracks follow the light blue edge of the plate. The cracks become even more evident in the x-radiography. The cracks are isolated to the pigment used in the brush strokes of the edge of the plate, identifying them as drying cracks rather than aging cracks. Looking at the painting under ultraviolet light, the varnish can be distinguished, see fig. 8. The varnish seems to have been applied with a large brush, as the traces of the brush is evident in mostly in the darker areas of the painting. The intensity and the colour of the fluorescence of the varnish depend on age, as young varnished often show a light blue and older a strong green fluorescence.21 Under ultraviolet light, the varnish of the painting appears quite green, indicating an older varnish, which could possibly be of a mastic type. The varnish seems to have been applied rather homogenous. However, there are areas in which the varnish appears to have been applied thicker, most evident in the upper right corner and next to the jug. These lighter areas of varnish correspond to areas that have been retouched in some cases, as in the glass and on the right side of the vase. There seem to be two sets of retouches, as one appears lighter and one darker in the ultraviolet. The ultraviolet confirms that there is retouches around the edges of the painting. There are smaller retouches on the whole surface of the painting, but hardly any major retouches other than in the edges. Almost all objects depicted in the painting display signs of retouching in the ultraviolet light and in the x-radiograph. On some objects, as the bread and the tablecloth, quite many, smaller areas of retouching are exposed. Some objects, however, appear to not have any retouches at all – the orange, the jug and the celeriac. However, as the signs of retouches begin to fluorescence with increasing age, we cannot state for certain that these areas have not been retouched at some point.22
21 F. Mairinger, ‘The ultraviolet and fluorescence study of paintings and manuscripts’, in D.C. Creagh and D.A. Bradley (eds.), Radiation in Art and Archeometry, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2000, p. 65. 22 Mairinger, Radiation in Art and Archeometry, p. 65.
13
NICOLAES GILLIS
Little is known about the life and work of Nicolaes Gillis, also known as Nicolaes Gillisz., Claes Jilliesz., or Jelisz.23 In his dissertation, Bergström states through archival sources, that it is known that Gillis’ was active in Haarlem between 1622-1632. However, when and where Gillis was born and where he died is not known. Bergström expresses that it is not even established if Gillis was from the Netherlands.24 In a 2007 edition of Allgemeiner Künstlerlexikon, Meijer states that Gillis was born in Antwerp, however, no date of birth is specified. Meijer describes that it is presumed that Gillis came to the north of Netherlands with his patens, as Gillis’ name is not found in the Antwerp guild books. As Bergström, Meijer states that Gillis was active in Haarlem, where he presumably died a short time after 1632.25 Vorenkamp states that the independent still life was introduced in Haarlem by Gillis and his contemporary Floris van Dijck, 1575-1651. Gillis’ and van Dijck’s work, Vorenkamp and Bergström argues, show such a similarity that it is unlikely that their still lifes are independent of each other.26 As one of van Dijck’s earlier paintings is dated to 1610, it is likely that Gillis’ was in Haarlem earlier than 1622, as archival records tell. It is, according to Bergström, impossible to tell who was the master and who was the pupil of Gillis and van Dijck.27 There are uncertainties of when Gillis was active, as mentioned earlier in the introduction. Bergström, as many other scholars, turn to art historians Ulrich Thieme and Felix Becker’s records, which states that Gillis’ first painting Banquet Piece, is dated to 1601. Thieme and Becker refers to auction records, stating that Gillis’ works have been signed and dated from 1601 to 1629.28,29 Many scholars that have written about Gillis’ biography and oeuvre, repeats the 1601 dating, with references both to Bergström and Thieme and Becker.30 Though, as was mentioned earlier, Meijer opposes this 1601 dating. The porcelain depicted in Gillis’ earliest painting occurred early on, however, Meijer means that 1601 would be “extremely early”.31 The dating would be problematic, due to chronological reasons.32
23 Netherlands Institute for Art History, [website], https://rkd.nl/en/explore/artists/31730 (accessed 2020-03-23). 24 Bergström, p. 106. 25 F. G. Meijer,’Gillis, Nicolaes’, in Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon: die bildenden Künstler aller Zeiten und Völker vol. 54, Munich, Saur, 2007, pp. 208-209. 26 A. P. A. Vorenkamp, Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis van het Hollandsch stilleven in de zeventiende eeuw, Leiden, N.V Leidsche Uitgeversmaatschappij, 1933, p. 24. Available from: Delpher, (accessed 2020-02-04). 27 Bergström, p. 108. 28 U. Thieme and F. Becker, Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Kunstler von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, vol. 14, Liepzig, Seeman, 1921, p. 43. 29 ”Gillis, Nicolaes, Maler von Stilleben, tätig bereits 1601, urkundlich nachweisbar 1622-32 in Haarlem, wo auch in einem Inventar von 1656 ”een bancquettien van Mr. Jillis van Haerlem” vorkommt (Mitteil. V. A. Bredius). Mehrere ”NG (verschlungen) illis fecit” signierte und 1601-29 datierte Stilleben […]”, Thieme and Becker, Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Kunstler von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, p. 43. 30 See for example H. Grootenboer, The rethoric of perspective, and J. Bruyn, ‘Dutch Cheese: A Problem of Interpretation’. 31 F. G. Meijer, ‘Reviewed Works’. See note 11. 32’Gillis, Nicolaes’, Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon: die bildenden Künstler aller Zeiten und Völker vol. 54.
14
In an exhibition catalogue that includes the Stockholm University still life, from the 1967 exhibition “Holländska mästare i svensk ägo” at Nationalmuseum in Stockholm, Bergström states in the entry on Breakfast-Piece that the painting has a presumable date of creation before 1601, due to the painting’s composition.33
Gillis’ oeuvre There are only a few paintings with certain attribution to Gillis. One of the more extensive summaries of Gillis’ oeuvre is listed in Adriaan van der Willigen and Meijer’s dictionary of Netherlandish and Flemish artists, published in 2003. The dictionary describes the different types of still lifes that Gillis’ made, depicting flowers, game and fruits.34 However, still lifes depicting laid tables are omitted in the description of Gillis’ works. Bergström’s dissertation, which seem to be the foundation for information on Gillis for other scholars, mentions three works by Gillis, the “1601” Banquet Piece, Still Life on a Table and Still Life of Fruits, Cheeses, ‘Jan Steen-jug’ and Salt Vessel on a Table with a White Damask Cloth. Nevertheless, there is an uncertainty of Gillis’ oeuvre as there is no text that describes a complete list of Gillis’ paintings, and the paintings attributed to the artist. The author knows of seven still lifes which are signed by Gillis:
- Banquet Piece, 1601?, oil on panel, 45 x 56 cm, private collection. See fig. 9. - Laid Table, 1612, oil on panel, 59 x 79 cm, private collection. See fig. 10. - Still Life on a Table, 1614, oil on panel, 74 x 110 cm, National Gallery of Prague. See fig. 11. - Storeroom, 1615, oil on panel, 85 x 110 cm, private collection. See fig. 12. - Flowers in a Porcelain Vase, after 1618, oil on copper, 29,2 x 22,9 cm, private collection. See fig. 13. - Banquet Piece, 1625, oil on panel, 43.3 x 66.5 cm, private collection. See fig. 14. - A flower and fruit still life, circa 1620, 36 x 49 cm, sold at Hoogsteder & Hoogsteder in the Hague, circa 1996. See fig. 15. - Flower vase on an entablature, undated, oil on panel, 63,5 x 48 cm, private collection. See fig. 16.
There are also paintings which are attributed to Gillis, but not signed:
- Still Life with Strawberries in a Wan Li-bowl, a Roemer, a Spoon and Loose Fruits on a Table Covered with a White Napkin, undated, oil on panel, 19 x 31 cm, private collection. See fig. 17. - Still Life of Fruits, Cheeses, ‘Jan Steen-jug’ and Salt Vessel on a Table with a White Damask Cloth, after 1614, oil on panel, 62,3 x 94,6 cm, private collection. See fig. 18.
33 I. Bergström, ’Nicolaes Gillis’, in P. Grate (ed.), Holländska mästare i svensk ägo: Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, 3 mars – 30 april 1967, Stockholm, Nationalmuseum, 1967, p. 48. 34 A. van der Willigen and F. G. Meijer, A dictionary of Dutch and Flemish Still-life painters working in oils, 1525-1725, Leiden, Primavera Press, 2003, p. 92.
15
- A fruit, vegetable and flower still life, undated, oil on panel, 72,5 x 104 cm, private collection. See fig. 19.
Still Life of Fruits, Cheeses, ‘Jan Steen-jug’ and Salt Vessel on a Table with a White Damask Cloth is attributed to Gillis by both Bergström and Meijer. Neither of the authors describe what their attribution is based on. However, it is plausible that the attribution is based on the painting’s stylistic features. Still Life with Strawberries in a Wan Li-bowl, a Roemer, a Spoon and Loose Fruits on a Table Covered with a White Napkin, was previously attributed to both van Dijck and Floris van Schooten.35 The Polish auction house Rempex sold a still life attributed by the auction house to Gillis in 2017, which previously was attributed to van Dijck. The auction house states that there are compositional considerations in the painting that does not appear in van Dijck’s works, but in works by Gillis’.36 Two of the three paintings attributed to Gillis therefore have a previous attribution to van Dijck. Gillis’ signature on the seven paintings that are signed are similar in execution. Gillis’ signature is written either directly on the background or on a piece of paper, nailed to the background, as in Still Life on a Table, and Storeroom. The signatures consists of the artists’ full name, or “N Gillis”, often followed by “fecit” and a date. However, in the 1625 Banquet Piece, the initials “NG” are inscribed in the rim of one of the pewter plates.37 Besides Breakfast-Piece, this is the only painting by Gillis the have a monogram, and not a signature on the background. The author of the thesis has not found a high-resolution image of the 1625 Banquet Piece and have not seen the monogram herself. As other scholars, art historian Sam Segal describes Banquet Piece as made in 1601, but also addresses that paintings from the period between 1601 and 1612 have not been identified with certainty.38 In a review of Segal’s book, Meijer expresses how this is a “remarkably long period” separating the pioneering work and Gillis’ productive years.39 As Bergström believes Breakfast-Piece is made before the “1601” Banquet Piece, a similar problem to what Meijer discusses about the long period of no artistic production by Gillis would be present in the time line for the production of Breakfast-Piece. Thieme and Becker’s report of a signed and dated painting by Gillis from 1629 have not been found by the author of the thesis.
35 Netherlands Institute for Art History, [website], https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/record?filters%5Bkunstenaar%5D=Gillis%2C+Nicolaes&query=&start=6 (accessed 2020-03-23). 36 One bid, [website], https://onebid.pl/pl/auction/386/lot/157/nicolaes-gillis-1580-1632-przypisywany-martwa- natura-na-stole (accessed 2020-03-23). 37 S. Segal, A prosperous past: the sumptuous still life in the Netherlands, 1600-1700, The Hague, SDU Publishers, 1989, p. 121. 38 Segal, A prosperous past, pp. 69-70. 39 When Banquet Piece was auctioned in 1887, the auction catalogue mentions a signature in the upper right corner. This signature and the date, Meijer states, was according to a copy of the catalogue at the Netherlands Institute for Art History, not clearly legible. See F. G. Meijer, ‘Reviewed Work(s): A Prosperous Past: The Sumptuous Still Life in the Netherlands 1600- 1700 by Sam Segal Review by: Fred G. Meijer’, in Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art, vol. 20, no. 1, 1990-1991, pp. 91-98. See note 14.
16
THE ATTRIBUTION OF BREAKFAST-PIECE
Little is written about Breakfast-Piece, and the author only know of four books describing the painting. Three of the texts writing about Breakfast-Piece does not question the attribution to Gillis. The most extensive description of the painting is present in the catalogue of the Stockholm University art collection from 1978, written by art historian Sten Karling. It is rather unclear who first attributed Breakfast-Piece to Gillis. Bergström does so in the Nationalmuseum exhibition catalogue from 1967, which seem to the first evidence of this. Bergström refers to the initials on the pewter plate as being reason for the attribution.40 Karling ascribe the painting to Gillis, also referring to the monogram.41 In Vlaamse schilders en de dageraad van Hollands Gouden Eeuw 1585-1630, 1997, an image of Breakfast-Piece is in the biographical entry on Gillis. The author of the book, art historian Jan Briels, does not describe Breakfast-Piece, nor question the attribution in the entry.42 On the back of Breakfast-Piece’s panel there are two notes declaring that the painting is made by Gillis. One of the notes says “Nicolas Gillis, Måltidsstycke, Sthlms Universitet”. The other note says “282. Gillis, Nicolaes, Stilleben”. The second note also appears to be from the Stockholm University collection, as 282 is the present inventory number of the painting. A third note on the back of the panel explain that the painting is a still life, from the early 17th century.43 On this note Gillis’ name is not mentioned, indicating that the painting first was attributed to Gillis in the Stockholm University collection. However, in the biographical entry on Gillis in the Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon, 2007, Meijer states that “Ein oft abgebildetes Stillleben in Stockholm, Univ.-Slg, stammt nicht von G.s Hand, sondern von einem dt. Mesiter.”44 Meijer does therefore not believe that Breakfast- Piece is made by Gillis, but by a German master. However, no further explanation of this attribution to a German master is given.45 In an email to the author of the thesis, Meijer explains how:
It has indeed long been called Nicolaes Gillis upon the basis of the subject and the initials NG on the pewter plate. Both the palette and the handling of the Stockholm painting are very different from that of Nicolaes Gillis. […] Gillis’s handling is actually quite coarse and his palette is rather colourful.46
40 Bergström, Holländska mästare i svensk ägo, p. 48. 41 Karling, The Stockholm university collection of paintings, p. 113. 42 J. Briels, Vlaamse schilders en de dageraad van Hollands Gouden Eeuw 1585-1630, Antwerp, Mercatorfonds, 1997, p. 330. 43 The note also says ”11345/KDDD”. The author does not know what KDDD stands for. 44 ’Gillis, Nicolaes’, Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon: die bildenden Künstler aller Zeiten und Völker vol. 54. 45 It should be mentioned that Fred Meijer, who has worked at Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Docmentatie, has done a lot of the attributions on Netherlandish 17th century still life paintings that the author of the thesis has come across. Meijer has also attributed many paintings to Gillis and those in his artistic circle. However, it should also be mentioned that Meijer’s attributions appear to be based mostly on stylistic features, as he describes himself as an “acclaimed connoisseur”. 46 F. Meijer, [email to F. Kenne], 2020-02-27.
17
In addition to this statement, Meijer sent the author an image of a second version of Breakfast-Piece, from now on referred to as the “Bonn version”, see fig. 20. Meijer explains how “It was sold at Christie’s London, 4 July 1997, lot 280 and was previously in the collection of a Spanish Ambassador in Bonn. The measurements, 50,2 x 61,6 cm, are very close to those of the other painting.”47 The two versions of Breakfast-Piece are indeed very similar both in terms of composition and the objects depicted. The differences and similarities of the two paintings will be discussed in a following chapter in the thesis. On Christie’s website, the Bonn version is described as oil on panel, made by the “Monogrammist N.G.” who was active during the early 17th century. In the lot entry of the painting, it is also described how:
Another work by this artist, previously attributed to Nicolaes Gillis, is in the University collection, Stockholm. The artist would appear to be German, testified by the typically German panel of the present picture, and appears to have worked in the earliest decades of the seventeenth century, as indicated by the high viewpoint and the objects depicted (the 'Krautstrunk' glass is a typical sixteenth-century type and the ewer can be dated to circa 1600).48
From the lot entry on Christie’s website, we know that in 1997, the Stockholm version of Breakfast-Piece is described as “previously attributed” to Nicolaes Gillis. No information of why the attribution of the painting changed is given, or information of who questioned this attribution. We should, however, notice that Meijer seem to be the source on this quote on Christie’s website about the previous Gillis attribution on the Stockholm version. There are two reasons why Meijer seem to state that the two versions of Breakfast-Piece are made by a German master. The first is the “typically German panel” of the Bonn version, and the second reason being the depicted krautstrunk. Krautstrunk beakers were made in Germany between the 15th and 17th century.49 However, painting technique does not appear to be an indicator for Meijer’s attribution to a German artist. A conservation report of the Stockholm University collection made in 2011, describes that Christie’s attributed Breakfast-Piece to Gotthardt de Wedig, or Godert von Wedig, in 2008.50 de Wedig was a German painter, active during the 17th century in Cologne. Segal states how the artistic relationship between de Wedig and his Netherlandish contemporaries, among them Gillis, is small.51 However, the monogram on the pewter plate in Breakfast-Piece does not seem to correspond to the monogram of de Wedig, whose monogram was GDW or GDWF, as can be seen in de Wedig’s monogrammed paintings.52
47 F. Meijer, [email to F. Kenne], 2020-02-27. 48 Christie’s, [website], https://www.christies.com/lotfinder/lot/the-monogrammist-ng-a-filletted-herring-on- 196884-details.aspx?from=salesummery&intObjectID=196884&sid=859e96ef-732a-47a3-9928- 34d0a3481702&fbclid=IwAR3zqoBrw_qpEZa5CSRuBdJmfOtqmvbSG-4qORMKUu4K_zL8iQ11rF0iGW8 (accessed 2020-02-28). 49 Corning Museum of Glass, [website], https://www.cmog.org/glass-dictionary/krautstrunk, (accessed 2020-03- 16). 50 Inventering av skador på Stockholms universitets konstsamling, Konstsamlingarna SU/Pictor målerikonservering, 2011. 51 Segal, p. 57. 52 Netherlands Institute for Art History, [website], https://rkd.nl/en/explore/artists/83216 (accessed 2020-03-23).
18
ONTBIJTJES
The breakfast still life, or ontbijtje, was introduced shortly after the turn of the 17th century. The production of breakfast pieces was concentrated to Haarlem, Antwerp and Frankfurt am Main, Bergström states. Even though breakfast pieces were painted in different regions, they show a peculiar similarity with each other artistically.53 In the early breakfast pieces, an abundance of objects is depicted. Everyday foods as herring, bread, cheese and beer, are depicted with inexpensive pewter and glassware.54 The objects depicted are treated equally. The objects are represented with their local colour, and they are observed in isolation. No detail or object seems to be less important, which according to Bergström, gives the paintings a “naïve charm”. The objects are placed in lines, forming rows from foreground to background, filling the whole surface of the painting. Bergström emphasises the objectivity displayed in early breakfast pieces and the high viewpoint. All objects are depicted as “complete as possible”, lit by an evenly flowing daylight.55 The composition is characterized by how the objects depicted are lined up from the foreground to the background. Several, random directions are indicated.56 These indications of directions are often demonstrated through blocks of cheese stacked on each other, by knifes pointing inwards the middle of the painting, and the creases in the damask tablecloth. Grootenboer similarly discuss the composition and perspective in early breakfast pieces. The high viewpoint enables the objects to be depicted with complete outlines, as the object rarely overlap. Through Marice Merlau-Ponty’s phenomenology,57 Grootenbeor states that the objects are represented as they are, rather than what they look like in real life. The early breakfast still lifes therefore displays a pictorial reality without a view.58 Like Bergström, Grootenboer is also emphasises the lack of empty spaces in the early still lifes, or the notion of horror vacui. Examining Gillis’ Laid Table, Grootenboer emphasises the “compact fullness” of the pictorial space, as the table’s edges have been cut off by the frame and how nuts and pieces of fruit are sprinkled in empty spaces on the depicted table.59 Through the “1601” Banquet Piece, Still Life on a Table and Still Life of Fruits, Cheeses, ‘Jan Steen-jug’ and Salt Vessel on a Table with a White Damask Cloth, Bergström states that the still lifes are typical of the early phase of breakfast still life. The composition is characterized by how the objects depicted are lined up, and several directions are indicated.60
53 Bergström, p. 105. 54 National Gallery of Art Washington, Painting in the Dutch Golden Age, Washington, National Gallery of Art, 2007, p. 139. Available from: National Gallery of Art, (accessed 2020-03-02). 55 Bergström, pp. 105-106. 56 Bergström, p. 108. 57 Perception is the main subject of Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology, as perception itself is the object of his phenomenology. Truth cannot be represented in our perception, as it only is represented by the means of geometry. See Grootenboer, p. 9. 58 Grootenboer, p. 71. 59 Grootenboer, pp. 70–71. 60 Bergström, p. 108.
19
In later breakfast pieces, those of Pieter Claesz. and Willem Claesz. Heda in the 1630’s, the viewpoint was lowered, and a spatial void was allowed to appear, leaving the strong notion of horror vacui. The objects in later breakfast pieces were allowed to overlap and the composition were simpler than earlier.61
Breakfast-Piece and the ontbijtje repertoire Studying the scheme for early breakfast pieces, described by Bergström, Grootenboer and Vorenkamp, we can establish that there are some compositional themes occurring in Breakfast-Piece that corresponds to early breakfast pieces. The edge of the table rises significantly, providing a high viewpoint which gives the beholder an almost complete view of the objects outlines, depicting the objects as complete as possible. The objects are placed upon a well ironed tablecloth, grouped into three rows, filling the painting’s surface. The objects rarely overlap, only in a few cases - the slab covers the contour of the glass’ foot, the faience plate cover the base of the vase, and the knife resting on the slab covering some of the fish’s tail. There are some indications of directions, breaking the rigid grouping of the objects. The spice box and the knife are indicators of depth and perspective. There are, nevertheless, themes that are well established in the ontbijtjes tradition which is not represented in the studied still life. The notion of horror vacui have been discussed earlier, being a theme recognised in all early ontbijtjes. In the Nationalmuseum exhibition catalogue’s entry on Breakfast-Piece, Bergström states that there is an articulated horror vacui.62 There are some indications of this, however, not to the same extent as in other paintings by Gillis or those in his artistic circle, where nuts and fruit peels are distributed over the table in an eager way to fill the surface. Comparing Breakfast-Piece with the “1601” Banquet Piece, where twigs, fruits and nuts are scattered over the table, Breakfast-Piece express a humble horror vacui, if any. The reason of the lesser extent of horror vacui in the Stockholm University still life could occur since the painting is in fact one of the first breakfast pieces produced, as stated in the exhibition catalogue.63 If this is the case, the tradition of horror vacui could not yet have been born. Other works by Gillis and van Dijck display themes and objects which are frequently depicted in early breakfast pieces, which Breakfast-Piece does not depict. An abundance of fruits of different kinds are often showed, placed in bowls and on the table, as well as a halved apple or a citrus fruit. The cheese is another object commonly depicted. Depending on your financial status, a typical breakfast in the Netherlands during the 17th century would include, bread and cheese. If you were wealthy, a breakfast could also include butter and pickled herring. Exotic spices, as pepper nutmeg and cinnamon, were status symbols for the rich.64 Breakfast-Piece depicts a selection of food, portraying a breakfast for the rich.
61 Grootenboer, pp. 71–72. 62 Bergström, p. 48. 63 Bergström’s reason for believing that Breakfast-Piece presumably is made before 1601, is that the still life is characteristic for its genre, and of its era. Bergström also states how the still life is one of the earliest and most important Netherlandish breakfast pieces that we know of. 64 National Gallery of Art Washington, Painting in the Dutch Golden Age, p. 66.
20
PAINTING TECHNIQUE
The following chapter is studying and comparing the compositional features of the two versions of Breakfast-Piece. Additionally, a comparison between the techniques in Claesz.’s 1627 still life and the Stockholm version of Breakfast-Piece is conducted for an investigation of if any similarities, or differences, in the material features of the two paintings’ can be identified. Wallert’s and van Mander’s texts contextualises the painting techniques of 17th century still lifes, from a perspective contemporary to Gillis, as well as from a technical art historical perspective.
The Stockholm and the Bonn version The Stockholm University and the Bonn version of Breakfast-Piece are nearly identical. All of the objects depicted in the Stockholm University version is present in the Bonn version, except the insects, the orange and the tablecloth. The herring has been cut in a different way in the Bonn version, as the filets of the fish are placed inside the fish, rather than placed directly on the slab. Worth mentioning is also how the right-side edge of the table is not visible in the Bonn version. The panels are close in size, as the Stockholm version is only a few centimetres larger. The monogram and the makers mark on the pewter plate in both the Bonn and the Stockholm version are similar. It is difficult to tell if the marks are identical, as the image of the Bonn version accessible to the author is not in a high resolution. Nevertheless, as Meijer states in an email to the author, the “NG” mark on the plates could in fact be read as “NS”.65 The two versions show such close resemblance in details, for example in the haulms of the parsnips, the decoration on the faience plate and in the reflections on the jug and the vase, that is it highly likely that the paintings were produced by the same hand, or in the same workshop. It is the objects depicted in the two versions that show close resemblance. However, the objects are placed on the table somewhat different in the two still lifes. In the light of the early ontbijtjes repertoire, described in the previous chapter, it is evident that the objects in the Bonn version does not overlap in any case due to their placements. The perspective of the spice boxes in the versions are different, indicating that the artist, or artists, of the paintings did not use the same pattern for underdrawing, or an underdrawing at all, when painting the box. It is uncertain who is the artist of the two versions of Breakfast-Piece. Additionally, it is uncertain if the two still lifes are really done by the same hand, or if there are two artists behind the two versions. The still lifes share a close resemblance, indicating that one of the
65 F. Meijer, [email to F. Kenne], 2020-02-27.
21 versions is a model for the other, or that the two versions are executed after the same sketch or preparatory drawing. Art historian Claus Grimm explains the workshops during the early modern period, and the several versions of some paintings. When comparing different paintings based on the same patterns, the drawings and preparatory designs made by the master of the workshop, some differences in the paintings can nearly always be detected. It is rare to find identical adaptions of the same pattern, Grimm states.66 Trying to understand if one of the versions was the model for the other, we can trace and compare the underdrawing of the Stockholm painting to the Bonn version. The underdrawing of the Stockholm version is an indicator of which painting was made first, as we can distinguish if the underdrawing or the final paint layers of the Stockholm still life correspond to how the objects are depicted in the Bonn painting. Studying the parsnips in both versions, it becomes evident that the shape of the parsnips in the underdrawing of the Stockholm version correspond more in shape to the Bonn version, than the final form of the parsnips in the Stockholm version. The thinner, smoother shape of the parsnips seen in the underdrawing correspond with the parsnips in the Bonn painting, both in shape and size, see fig. 21. The fish head in the Bonn painting appear to have a resemblance with the underdrawing of the fish head in the Stockholm version. In the underdrawing of the Stockholm still life, the fish was given a pointier mouth, than then was realised, see fig. 22. Art historian Ana Calvo describes different versions of paintings and emphasises that the first version does not have to be the “better” of the versions. The original composition and design of a painting can be altered and refined over time, Calvo states, resulting in “better” versions over time.67 What Calvo describes is evident in the two versions of Breakfast-Piece. It is the details of the objects that differentiate the two versions; the decoration of the knife, the decoration on the jug, and the cut marks on the butter. It is therefore plausible that the artist or artists used a similar or identical sketch with which the shapes of the objects were realised. The decoration and details could then be added to the already realised shapes. Out of these examples, it seems like the underdrawing in the Stockholm version is very similar to the final image of the Bonn version. This could be an indication that the Bonn version have been used as a model for the Stockholm version, or that the two versions have used a close to identical preparatory drawing. After studying the two versions of Breakfast-Piece, with support from the technical examination of the Stockholm version, it is likely that the Bonn version is the first of the two paintings being made. More details could be added to the Stockholm version, as insects, a
66 C. Grimm, ‘Authenticity and Authorship’, in J. Lorenzelli and E. Lingenauer (eds.), The lure of still life: [exhibition, Galleria Lorenzelli, Bergamo, Galerie Lingenauber, Düsseldorf/Paris, 1995], Düsseldorf, Galerie Lingenauer, 1995, pp. 28-34. 67 A. Calvo, ‘From Workshop Master to the Artist’s Individuality’, in M. Bellavitis (ed.), Making copies in European art, 1400-1600: shifting tastes, modes of transmission, and changing contexts, Leiden, Brill, 2018, p. 359.
22 tablecloth and an orange. It is also reasonable to believe that the two paintings are done in the same workshop.
Pieter Claesz.’s Still Life with Peacock Pie In 2013, the National Gallery of Art in Washington, hereinafter referred to as NGA, carried out an examination report with a treatment proposal on Pieter Claesz.’s Still Life with Peacock Pie, 1627, see fig. 23.68 The NGA examination report provides the thesis a reference to the painting technique of other Haarlem still lifes during the period. However, the infrared and x- radiograph images in the NGA report that the author have access to are not in high quality. Nevertheless, the images do reveal information about Claesz.’s painting techniques, and the technique of this specific painting. Additionally, the examination report is describing what can be seen in the infrared and x-radiographic images, which makes it easier to decipher the images. Claesz., 1597/8-1661, was born in Burgsteinsfurt, Westphalia, but later moved to Haarlem.69 It is suggested that Gillis and van Dijck were forerunners of other still life artists, including Claesz. However, Meijer states that Claesz.’s earliest known still life from 1621 has little resemblance with Gillis and van Dijck, as Claesz. achieved a more lifelike perspective from the start of his career.70 Art historian Norbert Schneider, contrary to Meijer’s statement, argues that Claez.’s earliest ontbijtjes are dominated by the aesthetic principles and compositions which is also seen in van Dijck’s still lifes – a high centre perspective, meticulously ironed tablecloths and objects which rarely overlap.71 There are some technical similarities in Claesz.’s still life and the Stockholm version of Breakfast-Piece. The NGA report expresses that there is no evidence of underdrawing apparent to the naked eye, nor with infrared imaging, see fig. 24. It is suggested that Claesz.’s preparatory drawing could be made with a material which is not easily visible, which might also be the case in Breakfast-Piece.72 In the NGA report, it is stated how the x-radiograph, see fig. 25, does not reveal any details of the painting technique, since the grain in the wood is so dominant. However, the NGA reports states that Claesz. uses a variety of different brushstrokes to replicate texture and rinds. 73 The technique of brushstrokes to imitate texture is similarly executed in Breakfast- Piece. The technique, seen in the fruits and nuts in Claesz.’s still life, is however even more developed and visible in Claesz.’s painting than in the Stockholm version of Breakfast-Piece.
68 Claesz. is the abbreviation of Claeszoon. The full stop is mandatory in Dutch for abbreviations. 69 N. Schneider, Still life: Still Life Painting in the Early Modern Period, Köln, Taschen, 2003, p. 102. Available from: Google Book Search, (accessed 2020-01-28). 70 F. G. Meijer, ‘Reviewed Works’, pp. 136-146. 71 Schneider, Still life, p. 102. 72 A. Hoenigswald, Examination report and treatment proposal, National Gallery of Art, Painting conservation department, 2013, p. 2. 73 Hoenigswald, Examination report and treatment proposal, 2013, p. 3.
23
In many places, Claesz. uses the ground to play a part in the final image, as Claesz. uses such transparent glazes that the ground emerges from underneath.74 Even though the ground layer of the Stockholm version of Breakfast-Piece is difficult to detect, the artist’s use of thin glazes and an underlying tone to enhance thinness and fragility of objects is evident. Examining Claesz.’s painting in close observation, Claesz. seem to use the translucent glazes to a higher extent than what can be seen in Breakfast-Piece. Studying Claesz.’s painting in the reflectography image, we can detect how the plate under the poultry was fully realised before the object was placed on it.75 This corresponds greatly to the pewter plate with parsnips in Breakfast-Piece. The reflectographs of both Claesz.’ painting and the Stockholm version of Breakfast-Piece reveals how the contours of the plates is visible through the object placed upon it. This emphasises that the artists’ have worked in a similar way in working up the painting. Comparing the paintings and the technical examinations, the painting technique in Breakfast-Piece comes off as rigid and controlled, with large areas of almost fully opaque paint layers, whereas Claesz.’s translucent paint layers are well developed. The “naïve charm” Bergström describes becomes clear when comparing the two paintings side by side. Even though similar in some details, Claesz.’s still life appear to have a closer resemblance in painting technique with Gillis’ Still Life on a Table, than Breakfast-Piece. Bear in mind what Meijer expressed to the author in an email about Gillis painting technique, compared to Breakfast-Piece. The coarse handling and the colourful palette are indeed evident in Gillis’ works. Comparing how the faience plate with butter is portrayed in Gillis’ Still Life on a Table and Breakfast-Piece, we can detect one of the main differences in painting technique in the two paintings. Texture and form are described in different ways when comparing Breakfast-Piece to other paintings by Gillis. However, as some scholars believe that the Stockholm version of Breakfast-Piece is made before 1601, the differences in painting technique could be evident since the painting is an early work by the artist.
Painting techniques in 17th century still lifes In his Het Schilder-Boeck, first published 1604 in Haarlem, Karel van Mander describes painting techniques of the time.76 Art historian Walter S. Melion emphasises van Mander’s, and the Schilder-Boeck’s, importance to north European theory and practice of art. The Schilder-Boek was the first fully argued book on Netherlandish painting, drawing and printmaking, but also the first history of Netherlandish and Flemish painting from the 15th and
74 Hoenigswald, Examination report and treatment proposal, 2013, p. 2. 75 Hoenigswald, Examination report and treatment proposal, 2013, p. 3. 76 The author is using Rudolf Hoecker’s publication of van Mander’s text, which consists a side by side German translation of van Mander’s Dutch original text.
24
16th century.77 The first edition of Het Schilder-Boeck sold out “almost immediately”, according to the preface of the second edition, testifying the books popularity.78
Underdrawing In the commentaries on underdrawing, van Mander explains how some artists immediately start with their underpainting, while others with great effort compile their drawings from many sketches on the canvas, either with brush or with graphite, emphasising how the brilliance of the painting depend on this stage.79 van Mander also explains the Italian’s use of cartoons, stating that this is a preferred technique.80 Arie Wallert, curator of Technical Painting Research at the Rijksmuseum, describes different kinds of underdrawing in 17th century still lifes, stating that an underdrawing could be done more or less precisely, and that a variety of different kinds of underdrawing existed during the time. The outline of forms could be drawn, rapid and sketch like, but contours could also be drawn precisely. Instead of an underdrawing a painting could be based on a dark paint under the imprimatura.81 What Wallert describes, combined with the information about Claesz.’s undistinguishable underdrawing, corresponds to what was seen during the examination of Breakfast-Piece. No apparent underdrawing could be detected with the naked eye or with infrared imaging, except for in a few places. A similar case with a lack of underdrawing is evident in the technical examination of two Jan van Huysum still lifes, where reflectography hardly showed any underdrawing in the two paintings.82 Even though some traces of underdrawing could be detected in Breakfast-Piece, both with the naked eye and with reflectography, there were many places where no such traces were visible. The underdrawing appeared to have been done in different ways in those places we could detect an underdrawing, as the sketch like circles on the vase and the rigid lines of the spice box.
Dead-colouring and working up Wallert describes how dead-colouring, or dood-verf, served as a basis for depiction of forms that the artist would later work up in detail. The dead-colouring, often painted with a soft brush, had to be roughly the tone that the artist wanted to achieve in the object, as the dead- colour would remain visible throughout the paint layers.83
77 W. S. Melion, Shaping the Netherlandish canon: Karel van Mander’s Schilder-boeck, Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1991, p. xvii. 78 Melion, Shaping the Netherlandish canon, p. xviii. 79 R. Hoecker, Das Lehrgedicht des Karel van Mander: Text, Uebersetzung und Kommentar nebst Anhang, Haag, Martinus Nijhoff, 1916, p. 267. Available from: Internet Archive (accessed: 2020-02-19). 80 Hoecker, Das Lehrgedicht des Karel van Mander, p. 269. 81 Wallert, Still lifes, pp. 12-13. 82 J. Dik and A. Wallert, ‘Two Still-Life Paintings by Jan van Huysum’, in E. Hermens, A. Ouwerkerk and N. Costaras (eds.), Looking through paintings: the study of painting techniques and materials in support of art historical research, , Baarn, de Prom, 1998, p. 398. 83 Wallert, pp. 21-22.
25
A possible case of dead-colouring was mentioned in the technical entry as three blocks of base colour; the light tablecloth, the greenish table and the dark background. The possibility of dead-colouring in several objects is also mentioned in the entry, as it is evident how some of these objects are left en reserve. Working up the painting, opwerken, started from the general colour of the dead-colouring, adding details and relief. Wallert states that often, not more than three layers of colour was needed to be added from the ground or imprimatura. Varying thickness of glazes created volume, and more definition could be created by painting the shadows in a pure, unmixed colour.84 The paint layers should, according to van Mander, not be applied to heavily, but thin and carefully.85 van Mander explains what seems to be a colour scheme, describing what colours go well with each other, and how one should turn to nature, as nature teaches the artist how to distribute colour.86 A technique for creating volume, similar to the methods used by 17th century illuminators, was fairly accepted among 17th century artist. Each figure was firstly painted out in its basic colour, aanleggen, then adding shadows in a darker tone or black, diepen, and lastly painting highlight with a mix of the basic colour and white, or only white, called verhooghen.87 When studying the painting technique applied by the artist when painting the parsnips in Breakfast-Piece, we can detect how perhaps only three layers of paint have been applied. The light base colour of the parsnips, with some added white vertical lines for highlights, and a brown, added with a fine brush to create shadow and texture of the parsnips. Near the haulms, however, some green which go tone in tone with the haulms have been added. Though, it is difficult to determine if these methods have been applied since we do not have any pigment samples of the painting. The method used by illuminators can be detected in the butter. The same yellow base tone seems to have been applied to the whole pile of butter, where the same pigment mixed with some white appear to have been applied for the highlights, and a light brown to create shadows and the marks on the butter. There are objects which appear to have a more complex method of opwerken. The fish seem to have been painted with several different pigments - a brown for the head, mouth and tail of the fish, some blue pigments to resemble the silver shimmer of the skin, and pink for the flesh. The yellow pigments visible in the eye, head and on the scales, might resemble the reflection of light in the studio. As was described earlier, the shadows in Breakfast-Piece seem to have been achieved in different ways. The shadows on the vase and the jug are indicated by a darker tone similar to the base tone of the object, like the diepen method. Though, the shadows of the orange and the bread are created with a colder, not darker, tone. However, it is difficult to draw conclusions without technical evidence of pigments. We can state that different types of working up shapes, texture and depth seem to have been applied by the artist.
84 Wallert, pp. 21-23. 85 Wallert, p. 23. 86 Hoecker, p. 259. 87 Wallert, p. 23.
26
A STUDY OF OBJECTS
Berger Hochstrasser emphasise that the development of the still life genre is parallel with the trade during the Dutch golden age, and the birth of a consumer society. During the 17th century, Berger Hochstrasser explains, the United Provinces of the Netherlands became leading in global trade, bringing wealth to Holland. Still lifes from 17th century depicts these commodities gathered from all over the world; Venezuelan tobacco, Chinese porcelain and Persian carpets.88 However, domestic commodities, as cheese and herring, are also frequently depicted in still lifes.89 Art historian Alan Chong describes how the objects depicted in still lifes from the time is a celebration of prosperity of the city, linked with the wealth and trade in the country.90 Art historian Donna R. Barnes describes how still life painters were known to repeat visual elements and themes in several works, as well as borrowing and copying the works of other painters.91 Studying the objects depicted in Breakfast-Piece can reveal if the objects in the painting are repeated in other works by Gillis.
The repetition of objects Breakfast-Piece display little resemble with other still lifes by Gillis or by van Dijck. The pewter plates with bread are virtually identical in Gillis’ Laid Table, 1612, and Still Life on a Table, 1614. A white damask cloth placed on a table runner is depicted in the 1612 and 1614 still lifes, as well as Still Life of Fruits, Cheeses, ‘Jan Steen-jug’ and Salt Vessel on a Table with a White Damask Cloth, made after 1614. The pewter plates in these paintings are each placed on a crease in the tablecloth, and nearly tipping over the edge of the table. Depicting a pewter plate sliding of the edge of the table and placing a damask cloth on a table runner is nothing Gillis’ was unique in doing. In a discussion about van Dijck’s still lifes, Berger Jr. describes how the pewter plate sliding over the edge of the table was “already part of the standard repertoire” in van Dijck’s time. Depicting a pewter plate in this manner reinforced the feeling of depth in the painting, as well as proving the artist’s technical accomplishments.92 Worth mentioning, however, is the great resemblance of the pewter plates with a piece of bread in van Dijck’s 1613 painting Still Life with Fruit, Nuts and Cheese, fig. 26, and Gillis’ 1612 and 1614 paintings. Similar is Floris van Schooten’s undated Still-Life of Fruit and Cheese, fig. 27, and the undated A Dutch Breakfast, fig. 28. When studying these paintings, it
88 Berger Hochstrasser, Still life and trade in the Dutch golden age, pp. 1–3. 89 Berger Hochstrasser, pp. 23–34. 90 A. Chong, ‘Contained Under the Name of Still Life: The Associations of Still-Life Painting’, in A. Chong and W. Kloek (eds.), Still-life paintings from the Netherlands 1550-1720, Zwolle, Waanders, cop., 1999, p. 21. 91 D. R. Barnes, ‘Dutch paintings in the seventeenth century: understanding the historical context’, in D. R. Barnes and P. G. Rose (eds.), Matters of taste: food and drink in seventeenth-century Dutch art and life, Albany, Syracuse University Press, 2002, p. 14. Available from: Google Book Search, (accessed: 2020-02-20). 92 H. Berger Jr, Caterpillage, p. 29.
27 is evident how these artists were influenced by each other, both in terms of motifs and composition.93 The table with a runner and a well-ironed white damask cloth, with creases appearing as parallel lines regardless perspective, is a feature shown in many ontbijtjes by Gillis and van Dijck.94 Yet, Breakfast-Piece does not display a patterned damask cloth placed on a runner, instead, the cloth is placed on a exposed wooden table. Breakfast-Piece would then act as an intermezzo between the uncovered table in the “1601” Banquet Piece and Gillis’ later works.
The objects of Breakfast-Piece As mentioned, there are evident similarities in composition and objects depicted in different painting by Gillis and van Dijck. Depicting a jug of various types, a pewter plate and a faience plate is an act present in all Gillis’ breakfast pieces. There are many objects and themes in the Stockholm version of Breakfast-Piece that does not occur in other paintings by Gillis, but instead in other still lifes from the time. The damask cloth without pattern, pushed to one side of the table exposing the wooden table, can be seen in van Schooten’s A Dutch Breakfast, as well as in many other paintings by van Schooten’s and Claesz., as Claesz.’s Table with Lobster, Silver jug, large Berkemeyer, Fruit, Bowl, Violin and Books, fig. 29, from 1641.
The herring A herring is not depicted in any breakfast still lifes either by Gillis or van Dijck that the author knows of. Herrings, and fish generally, are however frequently depicted in still lifes during the period. Schneider discusses, from Claesz.’s Still Life with a Glass of Beer and Smoked Herring on a Plate, 1636, fig. 30, how the herring depicted have been cut into parallel pieces and arranged on the plate to emphasise the herring’s original contours. This kind of method is already evident in works by Pieter Aertsen, ca. 1508-1575, Schneider states.95 Similarly to what Schneider describes, is how the herring is presented in the Bonn version of Breakfast-Piece. We can only speculate in why the herrings are depicted in different ways in the Stockholm version and the Bonn version of Breakfast-Piece. The cut and display of herring are one of the most prominent differences on the two versions. The herring in the Stockholm version finds more resemblance with the fishes presented by Hieronymus Francken II, as for example his 1604 Still Life with Pottery, Herring and Pancakes, a Print of an Owl on the Wall, fig. 31.
The façon de Venise Other paintings by Gillis do depict a type of façon de Venise glass, a venetian style glass being made in Antwerp from the beginning of the 16th century.96 However, none of the
93 Floris van Schooten 1585/1588-1656, was a Haarlem based still life painter, contemporary to Gillis. 94 Schneider, p. 101. 95 Schneider, p. 103. 96 Note for example the similar glasses in Still Life on a Table, 1614, and Storeroom, 1615.
28 paintings by Gillis that the author know of depict a façon de Venise with similar decoration with the one in Breakfast-Piece.97 However, we do find a very similar fluted façon de Venise glasses with a lion-mask stem in Clara Peeter’s 1611 Still life with Flowers, Gilt Goblet, Dried Fruits, Sweets, Biscuits, Wine and a Pewter Flagon, fig. 32, and Osias Beert’s Still Life with Fruits, Glassware and Bread, 1607/1608, see fig. 33. As mentioned in the technical entry, what could possibly be a “first” shape of the glass could be detected in the reflectography images. A wider shape with horizontal lines, could be seen as light lines surrounding the glass. This shape of a first glass shares a great resemblance with the façon de Venise depicted in Peeter’s Still Life with Cheeses, Almonds and Pretzels, c. 1615, fig. 34. Most interesting might be the similar façon de Venise depicted in de Wedig’s undated A Meal Still Life with Ceremonial Vessels, fig. 35, as Breakfast-Piece was attributed to de Wedig by Christie’s in 2008.
The parsnips The parsnips are another theme which the author have not found in any paintings by Gillis or those in his circle. However, similar parsnips are depicted in Still Life with Food, Glasses and Jugs on a Table, from the beginning of the 17th century, see fig. 36, which have been attributed to both Hieronymus Francken II and van Schooten, but now is attributed to an anonymous artist. Also note how the herring is depicted in a similar way to the Bonn version. In the undated Still Life with Silver Tazza and a Glass of Wine, fig. 37, now attributed to Georg Flegel but previously attributed to de Wedig, a similar depiction of the parsnips as in Breakfast-Piece can be detected. Therefore, two paintings, one of them attributed, by de Wedig have similar depictions of objects as Breakfast-Piece.
The jug, the vase and the knife The jugs Gillis have depicted in his paintings are jugs or pitchers with a spout, rather than one without a spout. A painting from the first half of the 17th century, Still Life with a Burning Oil Lamp, fig. 38, described as possibly made by François van der Borcht IV, display a jug with similar decoration as the decoration in the Stockholm version of Breakfast-Piece. Many flower still lifes by Roelent Savery, as Flower Piece with Butterfly and Grasshopper, 1609, see fig. 49, display a krautstrunk as a vase, similarly to the vase in Breakfast-Piece. However, in Savery’s paintings, the vase is described as a roemer and not a krautstrunk. The patterns on knifes in still lifes from the period often depict a similar checked pattern that is represented in the knife in the Bonn version, see for example de Wedig’s A Meal Still Life with Ceremonial Vessels. However, Gillis does not seem to have depicted a knife with a checked pattern in any of his works. The author has not found a similar pattern as the one depicted in the Stockholm version, which appears to resemble a kind of fleur-de-lis.
97 Encyclopaedia Britannica, [website], https://www.britannica.com/art/facon-de-Venise (accessed: 2020-03- 18).
29
CONCLUSION
The aim of the study was to examine the hypothesis if Breakfast-Piece was made by the Netherlandish 17th century still life artist Nicolaes Gillis, as well as to get a greater understanding of the context in which the painting was created in. The hypothesis has been studied through different perspectives, starting with the material features of the painting. The technical entry served as a foundation for the thesis. The intricate matter of the attribution of the painting was also studied in the thesis. There are many uncertainties about the attribution of Breakfast-Piece, as several scholars have different beliefs of who the artist behind the painting is. However, it is difficult to find clarity in if Nicolaes Gillis made the painting, as Gillis’ oeuvre and painting techniques are not thoroughly researched. A comparison of the two versions of Breakfast-Piece proposed the idea that the two paintings were made in the same workshop. It is reasonable that the two versions were made almost in the same moment, or one after another. Comparing the two versions of Breakfast- Piece, especially with the reflectography images of the Stockholm version, it appeared as the Bonn version was the first of the two paintings being made. However, this is still uncertain as no technical examination have been carried out on the Bonn version. A possible case of using the technique of dead-colouring was detected during the technical campaign on Breakfast-Piece, as well as in Pieter Claesz.’ still life from 1627. Dead- colouring is a rapid technique for a repetition of objects, for cases where more than one version of the painting is made, as for example seen in the Stockholm and the Bonn version of Breakfast-Piece. Considering the chronology of Gillis’ oeuvre, it is most likely that Breakfast-Piece was not painted by Gillis. Additionally, the painting techniques, as the colours and impastos, and the compositional features seem to differ in Breakfast-Piece compared to other works by Gillis. Though, in the light of the different perspectives studied in the thesis, Breakfast-Piece can be placed with some certainty in the context of the early 17th century. It is also likely that the painting was made in one of the regions in which the production of early breakfast pieces was concentrated, as Haarlem, Antwerp or Frankfurt am Main. As there is little research and documentation on Gillis’ life and collected works, the next step for further research on the attribution of Breakfast-Piece would be to turn to archival records. With a greater knowledge of the artist’s productive years, and the years between 1601 and 1612, a chronology for the artist’s production could be established. Furthermore, more technical research on Gillis’ painting technique and the materials he used would be necessary for a more certain attribution of the painting. As we have seen, the painting technique in Breakfast-Piece does seem to differ from the other works of Gillis. Technical examinations of paintings that are made by Gillis, where no question of attribution is present, could set up a scheme for the artist’s painting process. Generally, more technical research on early still life paintings is needed, as there are many works that the authors have come across that have an uncertain attribution.
30
BIBLIOGRAPHY
UNPUBLISHED SOURCES
Hoenigswald, A., Examination report and treatment proposal, National Gallery of Art, Painting conservation department, 2013.
Inventering av skador på Stockholms universitets konstsamling, Konstsamlingarna SU/Pictor målerikonservering, 2011.
PUBLISHED SOURCES
Appadurai, A., ‘Introduction: commodities and the politics of value’, in A. Appadurai (ed.), The Social Life of Things. Commodities in Cultural Perspective, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1986, pp. 3-63.
Barnes, D. R., ‘Dutch paintings in the seventeenth century: understanding the historical context’, in D. R. Barnes and P. G. Rose (eds.), Matters of taste: food and drink in seventeenth-century Dutch art and life, Albany, Syracuse University Press, 2002, pp. 9- 16. Available from: Google Book Search, (accessed: 2020-02-20).
Berger Hochstrasser, J., Still life and trade in the Dutch golden age, New Haven, Conn., Yale University Press, 2007.
Berger Jr., H., Caterpillage: Reflections on Seventeenth-Century Dutch Still Life Painting, New York, Fordman University Press, 2011.
Bergström, I., Studier i holländskt stillebenmåleri under 1600-talet, Göteborg, Göteborgs Universitet, 1947.
Bergström, I., ’Nicolaes Gillis’, in P. Grate (ed.), Holländska mästare i svensk ägo: Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, 3 mars – 30 april 1967, Stockholm, Nationalmuseum, 1967.
Briels, J., Vlaamse schilders en de dageraad van Hollands Gouden Eeuw 1585–1630, Antwerp, Mercatorfonds, 1997.
31
Bruyn, J., ‘Dutch Cheese: A Problem of Interpretation’, Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art, vol. 24, no. 2/3, 1996, pp. 201-208.
Calvo, A., ‘From Workshop Master to the Artist’s Individuality’, in M. Bellavitis (ed.), Making copies in European art, 1400-1600: shifting tastes, modes of transmission, and changing contexts, Leiden, Brill, 2018, pp. 358-374.
Chong, A., ‘Contained Under the Name of Still Life: The Associations of Still-Life Painting’, in A. Chong and W. Kloek (eds.), Still-life paintings from the Netherlands 1550-1720, Zwolle, Waanders, cop., 1999, pp. 11-37.
Dik, J., and A. Wallert, ‘Two Still-Life Paintings by Jan van Huysum’, in E. Hermens, A. Ouwerkerk and N. Costaras (eds.), Looking through paintings: the study of painting techniques and materials in support of art historical research, Baarn, de Prom, 1998, pp. 391-414.
Grate, P., (ed.), Holländska mästare i svensk ägo: Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, 3 mars – 30 april 1967, Stockholm, Nationalmuseum, 1967.
Grimm, C., ‘Authenticity and Authorship’, in J. Lorenzelli and E. Lingenauer (eds.), The lure of still life: [exhibition, Galleria Lorenzelli, Bergamo, Galerie Lingenauber, Düsseldorf/Paris, 1995], Düsseldorf, Galerie Lingenauer, 1995, pp. 28-43.
Grootenboer, H., The rethoric of perspective: realism and illusionism in seventeenth-century Dutch still-life painting, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 2005.
Hermens, E., ‘Technical Art History: The Synergy of Art, Conservation and Science’, in M. Rampley, T. Lenain and H. Locher (eds.), Art History and Visual Studies in Europe: Transnational Discourses and National Frameworks, Leiden and Boston, Brill, 2012, pp. 151-165.
Hoecker, R., Das Lehrgedicht des Karel van Mander: Text, Uebersetzung und Kommentar nebst Anhang, Haag, Martinus Nijhoff, 1916. Available from: Internet Archive (accessed 2020-02-19).
Ireland, T., and J. Lydon, ‘Rethinking Materiality, Memory and Identity’, Public History Review, vol. 23, 2016, pp. 1-8.
Karling, S., The Stockholm university collection of paintings: catalogue, Stockholm, University of Stockholm, 1978.
32
Mairinger, F., ‘The ultraviolet and fluorescence study of paintings and manuscripts’, in D.C. Creagh and D.A. Bradley (eds.), Radiation in Art and Archeometry, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2000, pp. 56-75.
Meijer, F. G., ’Gillis, Nicolaes’, in Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon: die bildenden Künstler aller Zeiten und Völker vol. 54, Munich, Saur, 2007.
Meijer, F. G., ‘Reviewed Work(s): A Prosperous Past: The Sumptuous Still Life in the Netherlands 1600- 1700 by Sam Segal Review by: Fred G. Meijer’, in Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art, vol. 20, no. 1, 1990-1991, pp. 91-98.
Meijer, F. G., ‘Reviewed Works: Pieter Claesz. der Hauptmeister des Haarlemer Stillebens im 17. Jahrhundert. Kritischer Oeuvrekatalog by Martina Brunner-Bulst; Pieter Claesz Master of Haarlem Still Life (Dutch edition: Pieter Claesz Meester van het stilleven in de Gouden Eeuw) by Pieter Biesboer, Martina Brunner-Bulst, Henry D. Gregory, Christian Klemm’, Oud Holland, vol. 120, no. ½, 2007, pp. 136-146.
Melion, W. S., Shaping the Netherlandish canon: Karel van Mander’s Schilder-boeck, Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1991.
National Gallery of Art Washington, Painting in the Dutch Golden Age, Washington, National Gallery of Art, 2007. Available from: National Gallery of Art, (accessed 2020- 03-02).
Schneider, N., Still life: Still Life Painting in the Early Modern Period, Köln, Taschen, 2003. Available from: Google Book Search, (accessed 2020-01-28).
Segal, S., A prosperous past: the sumptuous still life in the Netherlands, 1600-1700, The Hague, SDU Publishers, 1989.
Stanley Taft Jr., W., and J. W. Mayer (eds.), The Science of Paintings, New York, Springer, 2000. Available from: SpringerLink Book, (accessed 2020-02-18).
Thieme, U., and F. Becker, Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Kunstler von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, vol. 14, Liepzig, Seeman, 1921. Available from: Internet Archive, (accessed 2020-01-28).
Vorenkamp, A. P. A., Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis van het Hollandsch stilleven in de zeventiende eeuw, Leiden, N.V Leidsche Uitgeversmaatschappij, 1933. Available from: Delpher, (accessed 2020-02-04).
33
Wallert, A. (ed.), Still lifes: techniques and style: an examination of paintings from the Rijksmuseum: [exhibition, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, from 19 June to 19 September 1999], Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, 1999.
Wallert, A., ‘Methods and materials of still-life painting in the seventeenth-century’, in Arie Wallert (ed.), Still lifes: techniques and style: an examination of paintings from the Rijksmuseum: [exhibition, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, from 19 June to 19 September 1999], Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, 1999, pp. 7-24.
Wallert, A., E. Hermens and M. Peek (eds.), Historical painting techniques, materials, and studio practice: preprints of a symposium held at the University of Leiden, the Netherlands, 26-29 June, 1995 /, Marina Del Ray, Getty Conservation Institute, 1995. Available from: The Getty Conservation Institute, (accessed 2020-02-19).
Willigen, van der, A., and F. G. Meijer, A dictionary of Dutch and Flemish Still-life painters working in oils, 1525-1725, Leiden, Primavera Press, 2003.
Yonan, M., ‘Towards a Fusion of Art History and Material Culture Studies’, West 86th 18, 2011.
Internet sources
Christie’s, [website], https://www.christies.com/lotfinder/lot/the-monogrammist-ng-a- filletted-herring-on-196884- details.aspx?from=salesummery&intObjectID=196884&sid=859e96ef-732a-47a3- 9928-34d0a3481702&fbclid=IwAR3zqoBrw_qpEZa5CSRuBdJmfOtqmvbSG- 4qORMKUu4K_zL8iQ11rF0iGW8 (accessed 2020-02-28).
Corning Museum of Glass, [website], https://www.cmog.org/glass-dictionary/krautstrunk, (accessed 2020-03-16).
Encyclopaedia Britannica, [website], https://www.britannica.com/art/facon-de-Venise (accessed: 2020-03-18).
Netherlands Institute for Art History, [website], https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/record?filters%5Bkunstenaar%5D=Gillis%2C+Nicolae s&query=&start=6 (accessed 2020-03-23).
Netherlands Institute for Art History, [website], https://rkd.nl/en/explore/artists/83216 (accessed 2020-03-23).
34
Netherlands Institute for Art History, [website], https://rkd.nl/en/explore/artists/31730 (accessed 2020-03-23).
One bid, [website], https://onebid.pl/pl/auction/386/lot/157/nicolaes-gillis-1580-1632- przypisywany-martwa-natura-na-stole (accessed 2020-03-23).
35
LIST OF IMAGES
Figure 1. Attributed to Nicolaes Gillis, Breakfast-Piece, undated, oil on panel, 53.2 x 65.6 cm, Stockholm University collection, Scheffler Palace.
Figure 2. Macrophotograph of Breakfast-Piece.
36
Figure 3. Breakfast-Piece (back).
Figure 4. X-radiograph of Breakfast-Piece.
37
Figure 5. Macrophotograph of Breakfast-Piece.
Figure 6. Reflectography image of Breakfast-Piece.
38
Figure 7. Macrophotograph of Breakfast-Piece.
Figure 8. Ultraviolet image of Breakfast-Piece.
39
Figure 9. Nicolaes Gillis, Banquet Piece, 1601?, oil on panel, 45 x 56 cm, private collection. Photo courtesy of Fred Meijer.
Figure 10. Nicolaes Gillis, Laid Table, 1612, oil on panel, 59 x 79 cm, private collection. Web Gallery of Art, https://www.wga.hu/html_m/g/gillis/laidtabl.html (2020-03-16).
40
Figure 11. Nicolaes Gillis, Still Life on a Table, 1614, oil on panel, 74 x 110 cm, National Gallery of Prague. National Gallery Prague, http://sbirky.ngprague.cz/en/dielo/CZE:NG.O_1478 (2020-03-16).
Figure 12. Nicolaes Gillis, Storeroom, 1615, oil on panel, 85 x 110 cm, private collection. Crotos, https://zone47.com/crotos/?q=61703554 (2020-03-16).
41
Figure 13. Nicolaes Gillis, Flowers in a Porcelain Vase, after 1618, oil on copper, 29,2 x 22,9 cm, private collection. Netherlands Institute for Art History, https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/record?filters%5Bkunstenaar%5D=Gillis%2C+Nicolaes&query=&start=7 (2020-03-16).
Figure 14. Nicolaes Gillis, Banquet Piece, 1625, oil on panel, 43.3 x 66.5 cm, private collection. Crotos, https://zone47.com/crotos/?p170=465619 (2020-03-16).
42
Figure 15. Nicolaes Gillis, around 1620, 36 x 49 cm, Sold at The Hague Hoogsteder & Hoogsteder c. 1996. Photo courtesy Fred Meijer.
Figure 16. Flower vase on an entablature, undated, oil on panel, 63,5 x 48 cm, private collection. Ader, Nordmann & Dominique, https://www.ader-paris.fr/en/lot/98537/10435028 (2020-03-16).
43
Figure 17. Attributed to Nicolaes Gillis, Still Life with Strawberries in a Wan Li-bowl, a Roemer, a Spoon and Loose Fruits on a Table Covered with a White Napkin, undated, oil on panel, 19 x 31 cm, private collection. Netherlands Institute for Art History, https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/record?filters%5Bkunstenaar%5D=Gillis%2C+Nicolaes&query=&start=6 (2020- 03-16).
Figure 18. Attributed to Nicolaes Gillis, Still Life of Fruits, Cheeses, ‘Jan Steen-jug’ and Salt Vessel on a Table with a White Damask Cloth, after 1614, oil on panel, 62,3 x 94,6 cm, private collection. Netherlands Institute for Art History, https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/record?filters%5Bkunstenaar%5D=Gillis%2C+Nicolaes&query=&start=1 (2020-03-16).
44
Figure 19. Attributed to Nicolaes Gillis, undated, oil on panel, 72,5 x 104 cm, private collection. Rempex, https://rempex.com.pl/przedmioty/search?lot_filter%5Barchive%5D=false&lot_filter%5Bquery%5D=nicolaes+gillis&x=0& y=0 (2020-03-16).
Figure 20. "The Monogrammist N.G.", early 17th century, oil on panel, 50.2 x 61.6 cm, private collection. Photo courtesy of Fred Meijer.
45
Figure 21. The upper image shows the Bonn version, and the lower a reflectography image of the Stockholm version.
Figure 22. The upper image shows the Bonn version, and the lower a reflectography image of the Stockholm version.
46
Figure 23. Pieter Claesz., Still Life with Peacock Pie, 1627, oil on panel, 77,5 x 128.9 cm, National Gallery of Art. National Gallery of Art, https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.132271.html (2020-03-16).
Figure 24. Reflectography of Pieter Claesz., Still Life with Peacock Pie, 1627. Photo courtesy of National Gallery of Art.
47
Figure 25. X-radiography of Pieter Claesz., Still Life with Peacock Pie, 1627. Photo courtesy of National Gallery of Art.
Figure 26. Floris van Dijck, Still Life with Fruit, Nuts and Cheese, 1613, oil on panel, 49,1 x 77,4 cm, Frans Hals Museum. Frans Hals Museum, https://www.franshalsmuseum.nl/en/art/still-life-with-fruit-nuts-and-cheese/ (2020-03-16).
48
Figure 27. Floris van Schooten, Still-Life of Fruit and Cheese, undated, oil on panel, 38 x 55 cm, private collection. Web Gallery of Art, https://www.wga.hu/support/viewer/z.html (2020-03-16).
Figure 28. Floris van Schooten, A Dutch Breakfast, undated, oil on panel, 50 x 82 cm, Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp. Google Arts & Culture, https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/a-dutch-breakfast-floris-van-schooten/dAEmF0XdQoPzoQ (2020-03-16).
49
Figure 29. Pieter Claesz., Table with Lobster, Silver jug, large Berkemeyer, Fruit, Bowl, Violin and Books, 1641, oil on canvas, 64 x 88,5 cm, private collection. Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pieter_Claesz_- _Tafel_mit_Hummer,_Silberkanne,_gro%C3%9Fem_Berkemeyer,_Fr%C3%BCchteschale,_Violine_und_B%C3%BCchern. jpg (2020-03-16).
Figure 30. Pieter Claesz., Still Life with a Glass of Beer and Smoked Herring on a Plate, 1636, oil on panel, 36 x 49 cm, Museum Boijmans van Beuningen. Arthive, https://arthive.com/artists/870~Peter_Class/works/270467~Still_life_with_glass_of_beer_and_smoked_herring_on_a_plate (2020-03-16).
50
Figure 31. Hieronymus Francken II, Still Life with Pottery, Herring and Pancakes, a Print of an Owl on the wall, 1604, oil on panel, 25 x 35 cm, Royal Museum of Fine Arts Antwerp. Web Gallery of Art, https://www.wga.hu/support/viewer/z.html (2020-03-16).
Figure 32. Clara Peeters, Still life with Flowers, Gilt Goblet, Dried Fruits, Sweets, Biscuits, Wine and a Pewter Flagon, 1611, oil on panel, 52 x 73 cm, Museo del Prado. Museo del Prado, https://www.museodelprado.es/en/the-collection/art- work/still-life-with-flowers-a-silver-gilt-goblet/97a18fea-112a-417a-9a8a-6665a44cc331 (2020-03-16).
51
Figure 33. Osias Beert, Still Life with Fruits, Glassware and Bread, 1607/1608, oil on copper, 43 x 62 cm, private collection. Netherlands Institute for Art History, https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/13817 (2020-03-16).
Figure 34. Clara Peeters, Still Life with Cheeses, Almonds and Pretzels, c. 1615, oil on panel, 34.5 x 49,5 cm, Mauritshuis. Mauritshuis, https://www.mauritshuis.nl/en/explore/the-collection/artworks/still-life-with-cheeses-almonds-and-pretzels- 1203/ (2020-03-16).
52
Figure 35. Gotthardt de Wedig, A Meal Still Life with Ceremonial Vessels, undated, oil on panel, 51.5 x 72 cm, private collection. Artnet, http://www.artnet.com/artists/gotthardt-godert-de-wedig/ein-mahlzeitstillleben-mit-prunkgef%c3%a4ssen- w5Ggszz6wh2cY_GIpHTL8Q2 (2020-03-16).
Figure 36. Unknown artist, Still Life with Food, Glasses and Jugs on a Table, undated, oil on panel, 52 x 102 cm, private collection. Netherlands Institute for Art History, https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/record?query=Still+life+with+food%2C+glasses+and+jugs+on+a+table%2C+&start=0 (2020-03-16).
53
Figure 37. Attributed to Georg Flegel, Still Life with Silver Tazza and a Glass of Wine, undated, oil on panel, 33 x 52 cm, private collection. Netherlands Institute for Art History, https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/record?query=georg+flegel&start=29 (2020-03-16).
Figure 38. Possibly François van der Borcht, Still Life with a Burning Oil Lamp, undated, oil on copper, 10,8 x 14 cm, private collection. Netherlands Institute for Art History, https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/record?query=+Fran%C3%A7ois+van+der+Borcht&start=0 (2020-03-16).
54
Figure 39. Roelant Savery, Flower Piece with Butterfly and Grasshopper, 1609, oil on panel, 34,7 x 23,8 cm, private collection. Netherlands Institute for Art History, https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/189516 (2020-03-16).
55