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.