Dutch Flower Still Life of 17th Century: Interest and Oblivion through the Centuries

Over three and a half centuries, the genre of flower still life created by Dutch artists experienced ups of interest and oblivion. There were the maximum assessment of society in the form of high fees of the 17th century artists; the criticism of connoisseurs and art theorists; the neglect in the 19th century and the rise of auction prices and close attention of art critics, manifested from the middle of the 20th century to the present day. In the middle of the 17th century, there was already a hierarchy of genres, based on both the subject and the size of the paintings, which was reflected in the price. Still lifes and landscapes were cheaper than allegorical and historical scenes, but there were exceptions, for example, in the works of Jan Brueghel the Elder and Jan Davidsz. de Heem. Art theorists Willem van Hoogstraten and Arnold Houbraken, resting upon academic tastes, downplayed the importance of still-life painting. Meanwhile, the artists themselves, determining the worth of their paintings, sought for maximum naturalism, and such paintings were sold well.In the 20th century, this genre attracted the attention of collectors in Europe and the United States. A revival of interest in Dutch still lifes in general, and in flower ones in particular, began in the 20th century, the paintings rose in price at auctions, and collecting them became almost a fashion. Art societies and art dealers of the Netherlands and Belgium organized several small exhibitions of still lifes. The course for studying symbolic messages in still lifes, presented by Ingvar Bergström, is continued by Eddie de Jong, who emphasizes the diverse nature of symbolism in Dutch painting of the 17th century. Svetlana Alpers, on the contrary, criticizes the iconological method and presents the Dutch painting of that period as an example of visual culture. Norman Bryson’s view of Dutch still lifes is formed against the background of the development of a consumer society, economic prosperity and abundance. Finally, there has been an increasing interest in the natural science aspects of flower still-life painting in the researches of the last twenty years. Curiosity, skill, and admiration for nature are the impulses that can still be felt in the images of bouquets and fruits.

Seashells in Dutch Still-Life Painting of the 17th Century

Dutch still-life is a distinctive cultural phenomenon of the 17th century. Collecting of rarities, curiosities, plants, paintings, sculptures and many other rare things was characteristic for that period. Seashells which were brought from the exotic countries attracted the attention and love of collectors and artists. J. Hoefnagel was one of the first who took an interest to seashells in the emblems. In the early Dutch flower still-life shells were found occasionally but from the beginning of the first quarter of the 17th century artists started to add these graceful creations almost into all compositions with flower bouquets and fruits. New type of still-life with seashells appeared abundantly in painting of Balthasar van der Ast, Jan Davidsz de Heеm, Abraham Beyeren, Willem Kalf and others. While the naturalism in still-life painting brought to the maximum, there was a problem of veracity in depicting shells in the engravings, for example, in Rembrandt’s work. This problem was eventually solved only in the second half of the 17th century, so engravings and zoological illustrations began to show the curl of the shells in its correct direction, exactly clockwise. This research poses problems of the appearance of shells as collectibles and Dutch still-life’ motifs, visual traditions and shells’ classification in the paintings. The article is relevant with interdisciplinary method; some mollusks zoological names with indication of their origin place are given; the cultural and historical context is generalized; the stylistic analysis takes into account the emblematics’ traditions.

Lipsius’ De constantia, 17th Century Still Life Painting and the Use of Constancy Today

"Lipsius’ De constantia, 17th Century Still Life Painting and the Use of Constancy Today. The present article revisits the main ideas from Justus Lipsius’ De constantia in the light of the present ongoing pandemic. Through his interest for the Stoics, Lipsius was able to contribute to a more general and European interest towards this topic, reviving the Stoic philosophy under the name of Neostoicism. The influence of his ideas can be seen in some art production, especially the one that is connected to the places where Lipsius lived and it is a testimony to their popularity and the various ways of transmitting them. Even if the Stoic ideal remains an ideal, the Neostoicism of Justus Lipsius is meaningful in as much as any philosophy that deals with crises because it can help us view the text from both its relevancy and our recent general experience. The isolation, the anxiety, the uneasiness and fear are emotions that have been more or less present in our lives during this pandemic and they require a solution. Constancy is the solution that Justus Lipsius proposes. Keywords: Justus Lipsius, Neostoicism, Still Life Painting, Pandemic, Moral Philosophy, Crisis Philosophy."

Combined Micro- and Macro scale X-ray powder diffraction mapping of degraded Orpiment paint in a 17th century still life painting by Martinus Nellius

The spontaneous chemical alteration of artists’ pigment materials may be caused by several degradation processes. Some of these are well known while others are still in need of more detailed investigation and documentation. These changes often become apparent as color modifications, either caused by a change in the oxidation state in the original material or the formation of degradation products or salts, via simple or more complex, multistep reactions. Arsenic-based pigments such as orpiment (As2S3) or realgar (α-As4S4) are prone to such alterations and are often described as easily oxidizing upon exposure to light. Macroscopic X-ray powder diffraction (MA-XRPD) imaging on a sub area of a still life painting by the 17th century Dutch painter Martinus Nellius was employed in combination with microscopic (μ-) XRPD imaging of a paint cross section taken in the area imaged by MA-XRPD. In this way, the in situ formation of secondary metal arsenate and sulfate species and their migration through the paint layer stack they originate from could be visualized. In the areas originally painted with orpiment, it could be shown that several secondary minerals such as schultenite (PbHAsO4), mimetite (Pb5(AsO4)3Cl), palmierite (K2Pb(SO4)2) and syngenite (K2Ca(SO4)2∙H2O) have formed. Closer inspection of the cross-sectioned paint layer stack with μ-XRPD illustrates that the arsenate minerals schultenite and mimetite have precipitated at the interface between the orpiment layer and the layer below that is rich in lead white, i.e. close to the depth of formation of the arsenate ions. The sulfate palmierite has mostly precipitated at the surface and upper layers of the painting.