University of Amsterdam
Graduate school of Humanities – Faculty of Humanities Arts and Culture – Dutch Art (Masters)
Author: Rukshana Edwards Supervisor: Dr. E.E. P. Kolfin Second reader: Dr. A.A. Witte
Language: English
Date: December 1, 2015
Portraits as Objects within Seventeenth-Century Dutch
Vanitas Still Life
2
Abstract
This paper is mainly concerned with the seventeenth-century Dutch vanitas still life with special attention given to its later years in 1650 – 1700. In the early period, there was
significant innovation: It shaped the characteristic Dutch art of the Golden Age. The research focuses on the sub-genre of the vanitas still life, particularly the type which includes as part of its composition a human face, a physiognomic likeness by way of a print, painted portrait, painted tronie, or a sculpture. This thesis attempts to utilize this artistic tradition as a vehicle to delve into the aspects of realism and iconography in Dutch seventeenth-century art. To provide context the introduction deals with the Dutch Republic and the conditions that made this art feasible. A brief historiography of still life and vanitas still life follows. The research then delves into the still life paintings with a portrait, print or sculpture, with examples from twelve artists, and attempts to understand the relationships that exist between the objects rendered. The trends within this subject matter revolve around a master artist, other times around a city such as Haarlem, Leiden or country, England. The research looks closely at specific paintings of different artists, with a thematic focus of artist portraits, historical figures, painted tronies, and sculpture within the vanitas still life sub-genre.
3
Contents
Abstract ... 2
Introduction ... 4
Chapter 1 – Vanitas portraits to vanitas still life ... 8
Chapter 2 – The skull as motif and the conventional vanitas objects ... 13
Chapter 3 – Methodologies and interpretations ... 17
Chapter 4 – Still life source media ... 26
Chapter 5 Observations on the selection of seventeenth-century vanitas still life ... 31
Historical figures ... 31
Self-portraits and self-representation ... 48
Tronies and Sculpture ... 51
Chapter 6 – Themes and relationships examined – “Spirit of the times” ... 56
Conclusion ... 65
Appendix ... 68
4
Introduction
The Golden Age of Dutch history and subsequently its art gave rise to an unique era. The Dutch Republic, constituted in 1588, produced great wealth, and the prolific creation and sale of Dutch art. At that time the Dutch Republic was one of the most forward thinking and prosperous nations in Europe. It was made up of the seven Northern Dutch states with a large influx of immigrants from Flanders, which after 1588 had continued to be occupied by the Spaniards. The tension between the Catholic tradition of the south and the emerging
Calvinistic religious movement in the north, along with the upheavals of the wars, resulted in a constant migration of people and ideas throughout this time. The immigrants from the south contributed a great deal to the art and culture of the Republic.
The Dutch art of this time frame was classified into many genre and a couple of elements made them stand out. The Dutch paintings of this era can be categorised as history, landscape, portraits, genre paintings and still life, in roughly the order of popularity.
Landscape, genre, portrait and still life were based on life or emulating life and hence the term, natuelyk (from nature), is used to describe seventeenth-century Dutch art, even at the time. Remarkable for its time, the creation of paintings in seventeenth-century Netherlands was based on a free and open market. Unshackled from religious or church based patronage, it came into a distinct style of its own, and one that to this day is considered unique. This Dutch art tradition from 1600s to the early 1670’s is classified as the Golden Age of Dutch painting. It reflected the growing commercial wealth, the development of a new wealthy middle class, the learning, the need for possessions to decorate a home, the time and luxury to enjoy these possessions, and it reflected the growing commerce in art. In short, it was the new urbanisation of the Republic, rooted in the success of its international trade.1
Still life painting was a significant branch of oil painting in the Netherlands in the first half of the seventeenth century, at its height from about 1610 – 1640, it waned in the latter half of the century.2 It was usually a portrayal of an arrangement of objects artfully, seemingly casually or deliberately displayed on a table.3 Still life was not unique to the
1 Kahr 1993, p. xii-xiv; pp. 1-7
2 Bacthelor 2012, p. 17; With the decline in the commerce of art in the Netherlands, many artists moved to more
productive regions, and the ebb and flow of artists and the public continued.
3 Kahr 1993, pp. 199 - 200; The collection of objects are said to be realistic, meaning they are rendered as
objects appear, with not even a scant hint of the brush stokes which created them. But, there are numerous examples of how the collection, which is usually placed on a table would not clearly exist for physical reasons; it would all topple over. Still life compositions with objects, would if painted as seen, require an effort to create
5 Netherlands, but within the Dutch canon still life painting took a firm and new direction, and established itself as an independent genre.
Still life is a collection of objects usually displayed on a table or pedestal. In recent cross discipline discussions, it has been termed material culture, designating objects that cultures create and use in the course of common life. Objects referencing music, visual arts, architecture, drama, dance and writing, can come under this designation.4 From the southern cities such as Antwerp, to the northern cities such as Amsterdam, Leiden and Haarlem, artists were creating a variety of still life paintings which we now know became a singularly
Netherlandish art tradition. The artfully composed objects illustrated the contemporary interests in nature, science, the idea of transience, humanist teaching and philosophy, and it also played with illusionistic practices or trompe l’oeil.5 Material objects were incorporated and placed together to aid with this communication. While there was no specific terminology associated with the genre in the seventeenth century, contemporary writers allude to “painters of inanimate objects” by using a Latin term “inanimatus.” Constantijn Huygens (1596-1687) provides enough evidence in his writings to indicate that still life was an accepted genre in the seventeenth century.6 In seventeenth-century Holland, the term “stilleven” was coined to mean a “quiet life” or “inanimate model.”7 Samuel Van Hoogstraten (1672 – 1678) in his
1678 treatise on the art of painting refers to “stilleven’’ in his work. The authors of iconic Dutch art treatises, Karel van Mander (1548 – 1606) and Gerard de Lairesse (1641 – 1711), do refer to paintings with objects as its central motif, albeit grudgingly, as they both do not consider still life the highest form of painting. Yet there is every indication, notably the quantity that survives to this day, that still life was an established genre within the Dutch canon.
Still life in general illustrates a deep interest by the artists in positioning motif, lighting, and to some extent, repetition of the motif as seen among several works of contemporary artists. A still life, given its intrinsic nature, simply creates a world that is unchanging, where everything is preserved. It requires interpretation to regain its potency, to bring it back to life. Alan Chong describes still life as an “independent world, carefully
in the physical space. Thus, it is probably a composition created from imagination, based on prints and studies, with attention given to individual objects as they appear in reality.
4 Frantz 1998, p. 791
5 Chong; Kloek; Brusati 1999, pp. 11 - 14 6 Chong; Kloek; Brusati 1999, p. 11
6 selected, composed and lit.”8 While there is an abundance of categories within the still life
genre, the importance of still life in general to the Dutch art canon is irrefutable.
The still life tradition in the seventeenth century is categorized into several distinct types. They are flower paintings, the ontbijtjes or breakfast pieces, luxury or pronkstilleven, and vanitas still life.9 Still life works were in contemporary times named after the objects
they represented: breakfast piece, little banquet, little tobacco painting, death head or vanitas, little kitchen, flower pot, fruit, fruitage, and so on, thus differentiated by the objects they represented. Bob Haak, in his survey of seventeenth-century Dutch art, states that these objects were not assembled for pleasure, as art for art’s sake was not yet born. However, each artist drew on their aesthetic sensibilities, and created a particular combination which they felt were logically associated, a didactic purpose rather than an aesthetic one.10 Haak alludes here to an iconographic view point.
The depiction of the visible world is a noted pillar in the description of the above Dutch canon. Arthur Wheelock describing the Dutch still life states: “The artists who created these works wanted to convey the delicacy of a rose petal, the sheen of a silver urn, the rich textual surface of a lemon, and the shimmer of a satin drapery because they felt that the essence of a still-life painting is found in its illusion of reality.”11 The art historian Théophile Thoré-Bürger (1807 – 1869) was instrumental in creating a greater awareness of the Dutch canon via his writings; his ideological views led him to claim that Dutch art was unique in its naturalism, and he called it the photography of its day.12 He also proclaimed the Dutch art to be egalitarian, and for the people, as opposed to an elite few. His writings and fervent beliefs propelled the Dutch canon, as he saw it, into the forefront.
Iconography has been until recent years the most prevalent methodology to
contextualize and attempt to give meaning to Dutch art. Initially put forth by Erwin Panofsky (1892 – 1968) and further elaborated by Eddy de Jongh, it placed the meaning of paintings beneath the surface and motif, beyond the realistic composition with hidden or “veiled” meanings that usually were educational or moralistic in nature.13 In an article detailing the
methodologies available for art historians, Egbert Haverkamp-Begemann elucidates,
“Realism is not incompatible with symbolism; the “descriptive” and “narrative mode” are not
8 Chong; Kloek; Brusati 1999, p. 11 9 Sonnema 1980, p.1; Wheelock 1989, p. 9 10 Haak 1984, p. 115
11 Wheelock 1989, p. 9
12 Blankert 2004, p. 103; Cornelis 1998, p. 145 13 De Jongh 2000, p. 131
7 mutually exclusive, at least not in art.”14 It is this germane idea interconnected to the Dutch
seventeenth century paintings that this thesis hopes to explore via the vehicle of vanitas still life with portraits. Vanitas still life with the insertion of conventional portraits as objects goes beyond the boundaries of traditional temporal, moralising still life by bringing together several pictorial genres, namely still life genre, graphic prints, portraiture and sculpture.
What is the symbolic and visual function of the portrait within a vanitas still life? How does vanitas still life from the seventeenth century, displaying conventional portraiture, interrelate with or document the period? Could the two methodologies named by
Haverkamp-Begemann when applied as a hybrid form help revive the meaning of still life vanitas? This thesis is not meant to provide yet another interpretative model, but simply to see if at the intersection of symbolism and realism there is a means to provide better vitality and understanding to still life vanitas.
The first chapter will provide some context for the vanitas paintings and will discuss the vanitas still life, briefly outlining its place within the Dutch art canon. It will delve into the introduction of the portrait as an object in the vanitas motif. The use of the skull, a ubiquitous and traditional vanitas object, will be addressed next. It will be followed by the historiography of interpretation in chapter three. The next two chapters will consider a selection of vanitas still life from the seventeenth century, when physiognomy is introduced into the Dutch still life motif. It will look at the media used, the placement and identification when possible of the person represented in the vanitas still life. Themes and observations of this will be drawn in chapter six. Lastly, I will provide some conclusions to the overall research.
8 Chapter 1 – Vanitas portraits to vanitas still life
In 1603 Jacob de Gheyn II (1565 - 1629, fig. 1) created a painting, now at The Metropolitan Museum in New York, which has as its motif independent vanitas objects devoid of any human presence, except a reference to classical sculpture embedded into the front piece of a niche. A front facing skull is in the niche with a reflective bubble overhead. At the top are two classical sculptures, one of a laughing Democritus on the left and on the right Heraclitus bemoaning the world. Coins are placed on the sill of the niche, together with a vase of flowers with a prominent and expensive tulip on the left and a smoking urn on the right. Illusionism is prominent with the use of the niche. It is De Gheyn who is credited with placing for the first time only conventional vanitas elements together, devoid of a person.15 Hanneke Grootenboer makes an interesting observation about the beginning of this new sub-genre reflecting the antiquarian painting convention: the composition is symmetrical with the positive reflection of earthly pleasures on the left and on the right, the negative effects of that pleasure.16 Bob Haak, in the Golden Age, makes a reference to Abraham Bloemaert (1564 – 1651) whose early vanitas painting no longer exists, except for a copy in an engraving made by Jan Saenredam (1565 – 1607), which also illustrates this departure.17 Either way, the important deviation here is the use of vanitas objects and associated symbolism, independent of a person.
This chapter will focus on a proposed origin and its connection to religious
symbolism, often associated with vanitas still life. It will provide as a point of departure for the vanitas with portraits, which is the focus of this thesis.
Still life painting is fascinating because it freezes a moment in time, yet it mimics a world that we know is in constant movement. It captures transience, but momentarily also memorializes life. This is a paradox. Life is memorialized with observations of actual objects within a still life, which also have symbolic and allegorical contents that express a message of vanitas. The combinations of objects within vanitas paintings are eccentric, textures defy the eye, creating an elusive and illusionist environment within the painting (figs. 2, 3). Vanitas pieces are described in more than one instance as a critique on life and life’s fleeting nature. Ultimately, the traditional view and still life’s common feature is that they all in some way remind us that life on earth is fleeting, and death is close.
15 Haak 1984, p. 128 16 Grootenboer 2005, p. 141 17 Haak 1984, pp. 126 - 128
9 Vanitas paintings are “characterized as unambiguous, meaning they are instantly recognizable because the objects depicted are specific and distinctive to this sub-genre.”18 Vanitas, a term more commonly used in the north, alluded to an overall meaning seen in certain types of still life paintings, rather than it referring to an exact collection of objects within the painting.19 The term was often used to describe the works of Edward Collier,
Pieter Claesz, Jan Davidsz De Heem, Simon Luttichuys, the Steenwyck brothers of Haarlem, Vincent Laurensz Van der Vinne, and even Rembrandt.20 Typically containing a skull,
hourglass or timepiece, burnt-out candle, aged manuscripts and documents, bubbles or globes and musical instruments to varying degrees, vanitas is the least understood compared to history paintings of the same era, as its origins remain under discussion and its content is deemed complex.21 Vanitas still life, as are still life in general, was considered the second tier in painting by many seventeenth- and eighteenth-century scholars, and was thus deemed unworthy of study.22 Yet the enigma they portray, the array of objects juxtaposed, the associations and references within the motif, and the sheer quantity of paintings that have survived the ravages of time, suggest otherwise.
Where might the roots of the sub-genre of vanitas be located? The vanitas derives its fundamental iconography from the Bible. Book of Ecclesiastes, where the saying onmia
vanitas (Vanity; all is Vanity; Ecclesiastes 1:2),23 and notions of ars moriendi, memento
mori, vanitas are all part and parcel of the same package within the Christian traditions. As illustrated by Barthel Bruyn the Elder (1493–1555, fig. 4), it was commonplace to conjure the transience of life in a portrait painting by depicting the vanitas pictorial messages on the reverse of the portrait (fig. 4a) or as noted below, sometimes even within the painting (figs. 1, 5).
Vanitas still life in general was associated with morality, religious issues and the transitory nature of life.24 While there are many different examples of how vanitas elements
18 De Jongh 2000, p. 131
19 Chong: Kloek; Brusati 1999, p. 13: It is the collection of objects in this setting, rather than each individual
object, that made the vanitas motif.
20 Chong: Kloek; Brusati 1999, p. 13; Attached image list gives dates for artists mentioned. 21 Sonnema 1980, p. 1
22 Wheelock; Goedde 1989, pg. 35: De Jongh 2000, p. 142; Samuel van Hoogstraten is noted to have said, “still
life is the foot soldier in the army of art.” It should be noted that this is not a widely held belief currently, as there is variety of research into Dutch still life, and notable works are housed in many collections.
23The In Latin, vanity loosely translates and corresponds to the transient nature of life on earth, and the
meaninglessness of life, Ecclesiastes1:2:12:8 from the Bible is often related to this term. The Vulgate, or the Latin translation of the Bible, has the verse as: Vanitas, vanitatum onmia vanitas; and translates into Vanity of Vanities; all is vanity, in the King James version of the Bible. In this context it can be further interpreted as futility, and in the medieval to the seventeenth century, the term had these connotations.
10 came into use in the Dutch still life tradition, there is a commonly held belief that vanitas was a migration from early European Christian traditions, prolific within the Dutch canon
between 1620 and 1650,25 and further explored in the second part of the century. Vanitas paintings have recognizable characteristics, which has lead scholars to embrace the notion that the objects within the painting are subject to interpretations and have a varying degree of symbolic messages.26 The notion of memento mori and related symbolic objects were important elements within the still life vanitas paintings.27
Vanitas still life took many components from early sixteenth-century Netherlandish religious paintings, and elements formerly seen in a larger context, for example of a history or religious painting, were now isolated or singled out and became the subject of the vanitas painting. In Albrecht Dürer’s Saint Jerome in his study (1471 – 1528, fig. 6) the skull and manuscripts were considered to be characteristic vanitas elements, which in the vanitas sub-genre became the focus of the painting (figs. 2, 3, 7). This type of vanitas motif was also included on the back frame of the portrait in portraiture. Bruyn’s Portrait of Gertraude von Leutz further illustrates the characteristic and early memento mori objects as seen on the reverse side of the painting (figs. 4, 4a).28 Life on one side, and life’s irony, death metaphorically illustrated on the reverse side.29 Musical instruments, manuscripts, and hourglasses were readily available everyday objects and recurrent motifs in vanitas that have led to varying interpretations (figs. 2, 3, 7).30 In this traditional view, objects are imbued with symbolic meaning, beyond its realistic depiction.
In still life a violin is rendered scrupulously as a violin, thus retaining its inane
identity, but it may also represent the pleasures of life, an allegory for hearing or the transient nature of music as notes fade away (fig. 2). The skull is recognizable as a skull, but
historically it is given to mean death, transience of life and resurrection as it pertains to
25 Sonnema 1980, p. 2 26 Sonnema 1980, p. 3
27 Koozin 1990, p. 20; Koozin defines memento mori in her introduction as a metaphor for both death and life.
Objects associated with memento mori, often are seen within images of St. Jerome in his study and typically encompass a skull, candlestick, text and manuscripts. See fig. 1.
28 Haak 1984, p. 125. : Koozin 1990, pp 7 – 9, pp. 10 – 13; The German painter Barthel Bruyn the Elder,
Portrait of a Women, the reverse of the portrait is a candlestick, with a blown candle, skull and fly, and Latin phrase suggesting the transience of life. Koozin explains that these elements formerly used for the back of the painting now have taken center stage.
29 Koozin 1990, p. vi, p. 21; Abstract ideas such as death was metaphorically represented by
the skull, and explained by objects that held a pre -known meaning. Time an abstract concept is represented by a sand glass. Koozin, details Ingvar Bergström’s categorization of objects used within still life, that are imbued with a clear metaphoric understanding.
11 Christian faith.31 The use of wreaths while discernable also might mean victory, loyalty or royalty.32 Fallen grains, especially in relation to skulls can mean resurrection.33 There would of course be no point if the still life objects were not discernible or represented unclearly. It would defeat the purpose and interpretation attributed thus far to still life vanitas.
Many vanitas paintings use the standard still life items representing the arts and sciences, wealth and opulence, earthly pleasures such as smoking, symbols of the transient nature of life or the elements of resurrections and the life hereafter, all rendered with elegant precision.34 Madlyn Millner Kahr in her book Dutch Painting, refers to Ingvar Bergström’s
definition: “The term ‘still life’ strictly speaking refers to the depiction of objects that lack the capacity for self-governed motion.”35 Objects that are inanimate. However, as the still
life genre developed from De Gheyn’s 1603 version sans person, in some instances a facsimile of a person was set against the vanitas motif and within the painting (figs. 7, 8, 9), introducing a replica of an animate object into its motif. They took varying forms: a portrait rendered as a print, a medallion, a painted miniature portrait or even free-standing sculpture, placed in visible areas of the composition and along with the conventional vanitas objects.36 David Baily’s (1584–1657) Self portrait with Vanitas symbols made in 1651(fig. 3) and Simon Luttichuys’s (1610 – 1661) Allegory of the arts painted in 1646 (fig. 8) illustrates the diversity of portraiture that this thesis will attempt to research and discuss.37
Within the trajectory of the development of vanitas still life painting in the Dutch canon, the print, painted and sculptured portraiture enter at a significant moment in time and make a lively addition to an otherwise inanimate motif of objects. This evolution raises new questions with regard to symbolism and realism. The introduction of a person, usually in miniature, was an addition repeated by artists in divergent geographies, from Leiden to Haarlem to Copenhagen (figs. 7, 8, 9, 10). By focusing on this specific sub-genre and using it as an illustrative vehicle, can we further understand how the prevailing aspects of
31 Sonnema 1980, p. 4; A detailed description of the variety within vanitas paintings is listed within three
categories. Please refer here for details on the symbolic meaning of each of the more prevalent objects.
32 Anđelković-Grašar, Nikolić, Rogić 2012, pp. 341-342 33 Koozin 1990, p. 28
34 Sonnema 1980, p. 4: A detailed description of the variety within vanitas paintings is listed within three
categories.
35 Kahr, 1993, p. 189
36 Sculpture has been used within the vanitas genre as noted in the niche settings in the De Gheyn II piece, and
here it means the introduction of a free standing, usually classical figure as on object within the motif, as opposed to a sculptured niche or architectural element in the painting.
12 symbolism and representation as interpretive models play out within this sub-genre of vanitas still life?
13 Chapter 2 – The skull as motif and the conventional vanitas objects
The ubiquitous skull in still life represents a consistent and often shared element. It puts the focus on memento mori and the transience of life, amidst the pleasures life can offer. The Dutch went further and used material culture objects, such as violins, flags, books, military armor and coins to set the tone for this message, but also included within the composition the skull as a shared element. Below follows a brief analysis of the use of the skull within the vanitas symbolism.
Dirck Jacobsz (1497 – 1567) placed a skull within his Portrait of Pompeius Occo (1483 -1537, fig. 11). Bruyn’s Portrait of Gertraude von Leutz (fig. 4) the skull and vanitas
elements are on the reverse side of the panel. Both paintings firmly associate the skull with the portrait. There is a development visible in Dutch paintings where the skull has both a secular and a religious significance, as it now expands its symbolic significance to sit within a portrait. The appearance of the skull in portraits creates two avenues: vanitas portraits and the move to create vanitas still life with portrait. As early as 1603 and at its height in 1650, the skull takes center stage, the sitter is removed and the Dutch vanitas still life is produced (fig. 1). Van Mander notes that in the seventeenth-century, vanitas paintings became popular among collectors such as Jacques Rozet and Reynier Antonissen. Emperors and kings were enamored with sill life, as well erudite, educated scholars.38 What they were buying were works where the central theme was vanitas, the skull surrounded by material and other culturally specific objects, together said to be conveying a moral message, along with text affixed to the painting’s composition.39 The text typically reinforced the memento mori
message (figs. 1, 3, 4a, 5).
It is a commonly held belief that the plague and the atrocious scenes of death brought on by the epidemic, provoked the use of the skull as an ars moriendi symbol.40 The idea that all are equal in death is an important aspect and element within the vanitas tradition. The artist Hans Holbein (1497 – 1543) has recorded many scenes within the Christian cloisters in Italy, showing processions of people at funeral marches during the fourteenth and fifteenth century. They include the Pope, church dignitaries, common people and a skeleton. From this representation of the whole skeleton as a symbol of death, we see in sixteenth-century Holland, the skeleton in artistic works reduced to a skull, enough to direct the viewer to
38 Koozin 1996, p. 149; Koester 1999, p. 17
39 Roberts 1998, p.886; There is evidence to prove that vanitas paintings were highly popular, fetching six
guilders and almost the same price as a coveted history painting.
14 thoughts about the end of life and to refrain from worldly vanities.41 In time the skull became associated with the hermetic, aesthetic traditions of meditation, as we see in Dürer’s St. Jerome (fig. 6), and the pointing gesture claims Helen Roberts in the Encyclopedia of Iconography refers to the transience of life, homo bulla (man is like a bubble) and these are also reflected in the emblem tradition.42 In this context, the skull becomes a symbol for
religious learning, contemplation of death and the afterlife. Thus, we see it appearing with books and manuscripts on several selected paintings within this thesis.
As the theme developed the stylistic considerations within vanitas still life was varied, and non-conclusive. Generally speaking, there are triangular or pyramid compositions or more horizontal compositions.43 The early works were often more restrained, with just a
handful of objects. However, in 1640 – 50, at the height of the tradition, the objects within a vanitas usually numbered 10-15, and a clear beam of light lit the scene (figs. 3, 8, 9). Both in early and later paintings the objects were usually placed on a table in a non-descript room. Objects are set against a dark non-discernable background or they seem to come out at us from a dark background (figs. 2, 5, 8, 10). Overtime more objects and more personal objects were added. This corresponds to items portrayed becoming more secular in nature, rather than having only the religious overtones.
Taking the 1621 Yale University Art Museum work by De Gheyn (fig. 12) and William Claesz Heda (1594 -1682, fig. 10) as a starting point, the traditional vanitas
elements are now examined. In Heda’s Vanitas still life at the Museum Bredius (fig. 10), the objects seem randomly placed, and they appear to come out at us from the darker space behind. The traditional roemer, the skull, the extinguished oil lamp, a crumpled paper, the knife on a dish, and around these central elements there are pipes, pipe-lighters, a tobacco box, a bowl of glowing embers, all rendered in the early monochromatic style associated with the still life vanitas.44 The common element with the De Gheyn’s 1621 painting is the skull
and the overall vanitas reading, but beyond that the other objects are different. 45 Heda’s
painting refers to earthly pleasures such as smoking and drinking – with the fire and smoke being vanitas motifs in and of themselves. De Gheyn’s painting is possibly about learning,
41 Roberts 1998, p. 883 42 Roberts 1998, p. 884
43 Sonnema 1980, pp. 106 - 112 44 Sonnema 1980, pp. 42 - 44
45 Sonnema 1980, pp. 43 – 44: Sonnema makes these observations about Heda and De Gheyn. He notes that
the objects within Heda’s composition reflects tobacco smoking, and this might be the first time this type of contemporary subject is introduced. Heda’s 1628 vanitas focuses on representing these objects in its associated iconography. De Gheyn’s 1621 vanitas is different in the sense that he utilizes more traditional objects, such as books, documents etc., which have more traditional iconography or lexicon of meaning.
15 similar to Dürer’s (fig. 6), another motif that belonged to the vanitas tradition. The rendering of the still life is also different. De Gheyn has used a pyramid composition to organize the rather large number of objects. Heda’s minimal composition is more horizontal. The skulls, thus death, is prominent.
From the 1650’s onwards, the vanitas tradition was popular all over the Netherlands following a more basic format formulated by De Gheyn (fig. 1), who was from Antwerp, and later settled in Haarlem, and Leiden, where he created his vanitas from 1603.46 From that
inception and through an additive process, objects were added, as they became more popular within the contemporary culture, such as smoking or tobacco, exotic items such as shells and objects with increasing value. Sonnema concludes they became more general, collectively referring to various earthly vanities, and not any specific vanity.47 The vanitas painting became diverse and complex, intertwined, and no longer focused or emphasizing any one vanity or earthly pleasure or vice, but referring to them as a whole. However, in the later period the tradition moved to include very specific objects and specific individuals.
Herman Steenwyck (1612 – 1656) of Haarlem is credited with a large oeuvre of vanitas paintings, and his later vanitas from circa 1640 utilized the more pyramidal arrangement. He introduced a significant characteristic: the depiction of personal artifacts among the memento mori objects, such as a personally owned Japanese sword.48 His brother Pieter Steenwyck (1615 -1666), under the tuition of David Baily, provides an example of a vanitas painting that symbolically refers to a specific individual (fig. 7). Around 1654 there was sub-genre of vanitas paintings extolling the virtues of individuals, and Pieter Steenwyck, who was from Delft, as was his subject, chose to create a vanitas painting that celebrated the great Admiral Maarten Harpertszoon Tromp (1598 – 1653), introducing his subject with an engraved print portrait, along with the funeral oration for Tromp by Antonius Thysius (fig. 7).49 With this addition, the vanitas paintings came to a full circle, as it once again included a
human or animated representation.
In these later vanitas by the Steenwyck brothers and their teacher Bailly (figs. 3, 7), and in other varying geographies (figs. 8, 9) specific individuals are introduced within the
46 Sonnema 1980, pp. 17 - 21
47 Sonnema 1980, p. 95; For example Sonnema notes that Heda’s 1621 Vanitas (fig 10) condemns the practice
of smoking. But later works by Herman Steenwyck and Bailly provide an array of vanitas iconography, and does not particularly emphasise one type of earthly vice or vanity. Thus concluding that the themes were getting more general.
48 Sonnema 1980, p. 91
49 Sonnema 1980, pp. 94 – 95; A brief history of Tromp’s accomplishments and importance in Dutch naval
16 vanitas motif, and it is this specific introduction of a subject, the replica of a person to vanitas paintings that will be the focus of the next chapters.
However, before I give my own reading of vanitas paintings with portraits, tronies and sculpture, a brief overview of interpretative methods of other authors provide a backdrop for my own argumentation.
17 Chapter 3 – Methodologies and interpretations
This chapter will focus on the prevalent art history methodology used to decipher the vanitas paintings.
Art creation in the seventeenth century was not purely based on aesthetic reasons, a view point noted by Haak earlier. Art served a purpose, and was not created for “art sake;” a very different climate from today.50 It was, according to Eddy de Jongh, created in an
environment that understood and accepted that the arts, from visual to written, have hidden meanings that awaited discovery.51 Objects within the paintings conveyed and expressed not only the recognizable visual aspects of objects, but also implied hidden meanings. A vanitas still life was not assembled for pure pleasure in the objects depicted, nor for the enjoyment of its artistic mastery or the use of light. When examined, it was an intellectual endeavor, created to convey a set of ideas and meanings. In his essay titled “A Little World Made Cunningly: Dutch still Life and Ekphrasis,” Lawrence Goedde paid homage to the depth within the still life: “still life…as evocative and compelling repositories of meaning, whose detailed naturalism and artifice of structure move the beholder. They are objects for emotional and intellectual engagement.”52 It was De Jongh, one of the main proponents of
the iconographic interpretation of Dutch art who emphasized that many seventeenth-century Dutch genre paintings were intended to have a symbolic or emblematic meaning. Over the course of its evolution, artists became more adept at using these meanings and at hiding them, thus in De Jongh’s eyes giving rise to a complex system of what he called “veiling”.53 This term will be discussed below.
The vanitas still life tradition within art history has largely been studied from an iconographic perspective, and symbolism and meanings attributed often take from the
prevailing visual culture. In the Netherlands, the famed emblem books such as the one by the Italian Cesare Ripa (c1560 – c1645) Iconologia, the Dutchman Roemer Visscher (1547 -1620), Sinnepoppen, and the poetic writings of Jacob Cats (1577 1660), were employed to create an understanding of vanitas based on symbols and symbolism. Iconography has been at the forefront of still life interpretation focusing on the questions of meaning, postulating
50 Haak 1984, p. 115
51 De Jongh; Hoyle 1995, p. 130 52 Wheelock; Goedde 1989, p. 43 53 De Jongh; Hoyle 1995, p. 130
18 that there is more within a still life than the visual offering alone,54 thus departing from the notion of realism within the Dutch art canon of the seventeenth-century, and solely focusing on the objects and their meanings.
In the 1970s, De Jongh advanced iconography methodically within art history
scholarship to include Dutch still life.55 In his book, Questions of Meaning: Theme and Motif in Dutch Seventeenth-Century Painting, he alludes to the fact that there are no seventeenth-century writings on the still life genre.56 Instead, he utilizes the seventeenth-century emblem
art, prints, poetry and literature for his analysis of this genre. Commonly understood symbolic language was often found in these illustrated writings, literature and in resulting emblem art in Holland. Illustrations or emblems are explained by language, linking images to concepts. These are moralistic, meditative or reflective and this reading can be confirmed by the juxtaposition of image and language seen on the emblem print.57 Thus, the interpretation is fed by one form of visual communication, the emblem books, and links this art form into another art form, a painting.
The emblem art and the thinking it advocated was not new to the seventeenth- century audience, instead it was passed on from previous eras, notes De Jongh. While new thoughts and scientific discoveries where fueling the intellect of the contemporary audience, some of the more established ideas, as illustrated in the emblem art, were still in place. Emblem art is said to be an example of visual metaphors, which have stood the test of time, and was an accepted manner of communication. Since Panofsky’s initial theories, emblems have been considered as an apt vehicle to apply within art history.
De Jongh also introduced the idea of “veiling,” where, as noted before, the
concealment of the message within the art form, and creating an element of surprise for the audience was accepted.58 Important thinkers and writers of the day, such as Cats, proposed that it is indeed better to discover rather than comprehend completely at first glance. Therefore, indirect communication was favored. With this link to contemporary society established via the printed visual materials, it is not hard to imagine that artists were also
54 Svetlana Alpers and other modern historians are more in favour of looking at Dutch still life via stylistic or
representation lenses, while De Jongh, building on Erwin Panofsky focuses on the iconography methodology. This is also counter to the notion that Dutch art of the seventeenth century was purely one of “realism” where by artists only painted what they saw in front of their eyes.
55 De Jongh, 2000, p. 19
56 De Jongh, 2000, pp. 130 – 131; the audience for still life has varied through the ages, and so has the manner in
which they are interpreted. De Jongh is right that there are no contemporary historical writings, which give us clues, and so he has resorted to using the emblem books from the sixteenth and seventeenth century.
57 De Jongh, 2000, pp. 130 - 131 58 De Jongh 2000, p. 131
19 using “veiling,” secretly embedding meaning in increasingly cleverer ways, or so the
iconographic method postulates.
De Jongh’s methodology focused on an integral explanation of the still life painting, and within its historical context. By taking the collective arts of the period such as the illustrations, prints, literature and emblems as a starting point, and linking language to the image and the image to a concept, he created an iconographic language to apply to paintings. It however results in degrees of interpretations. Ivan Gaskell in his review of the book Questions of Meaning, states that De Jongh was instrumental in establishing Dutch art as an “art of ideas.”59 De Jongh had crafted the iconographic methodology to a subtle, yet
high-level of sophistication. He was able to demonstrate that Dutch paintings were simply not an explicit depiction of ordinary life but an intellectual representation of ideas. While we can indeed argue about the degree to which this theory can work, the fundamental viewpoint is irrefutable, according to Gaskell.
Until recently iconography was the mainstay of how still life paintings were
interpreted. In vanitas, paintings focused on the theme of man’s existence on earth and the fleeting quality of life, artists are said to have used specific iconography, a symbolic “linguistic” structure based on objects with metaphoric meaning, and these are used as iconographic cues within the painting. Objects such as skulls, mirrors, bubbles are sometimes juxtaposed with words, they collectively allude to the fleeting nature and the pleasures life has to offer.60 Vanitas in its early, mediaeval days functioned as a warning against opulence and riches. It also was related to philosophical elements, the order of the universe, planets, and the humours, which were very much the topics of discussion at that time. The elements within the emblem arts were appropriated into paintings, to create a fusion of symbols with varying interpretations. This is also the reason why the use of iconography alone to decipher vanitas paintings has come under attack.61
The question is whether with the passage of time and possible multi-level meanings attached to objects and their context, if symbolic references and metaphoric manifestations in objects are still relevant? Since 1970s corresponding arguments and new ways of seeing have been put forth by other art historians. They focus on many aspects of the Dutch paintings, but germane to this thesis are the methodologies or theories regarding realism,
59 Gaskell 2000, p. 707 60 Roberts, 1998, p. 883
61 Sonnema 1980, p. 4; Koozin 1990, p. vi; An overview and a list is provided by Sonnema on the objects that
constitute vanitas, their symbolism and context of use. It is a list first detailed by Ingmar Bergström in 1956. Koozin uses a similar list.
20 symbolism and perspective. More recently, art historians are focused on dealing with
methodological concerns that result in pragmatic interpretations representative of postmodernist points of view. Thus consensus on the De Jongh’s point of view has weakened, opening the way for other explanations. Furthermore there is scepticism about ever being able to decipher the original intentions of the artist.
Jan Baptist Bedaux, The reality of symbols: The question of disguised symbolism in Jan van Eyck’s Arnolfini portrait, provides an interpretation that is based on documented evidence that the realism within the Arnolfini portrait by Jan van Eyck (1391-1441) is not disguised, but it is in fact a factual representation of a marriage room in the fifteenth century. According to Bedaux, to attribute contrived symbolism was a wasted process. He concludes that what is more inherent in the Arnolfini portrait are viable and innate symbols of a
marriage, rather than hidden allegories or symbols, which thus do not need extensive
interpretation.62 Bedaux further refutes interpretations based on emblem art or literature. He cautions against the direct use of emblems, which might have had entirely different origins and purpose, and warns against the use of those emblems as connections with similar representation in a paintings.63 Several emblems that have been used to interpret
seventeenth-century Dutch art, for example by De Jongh, are shown by Bedaux to have either started life in a very different nuance or were really only represented in part in the painting. Therefore, the accuracy of the application of the emblem in the painting comes into question, and the symbolism employed may be corrupted. This presents our contemporary interpretations with “levels of meaning” or the possibility of multiple meanings.64 The veiled
or disguised symbols currently within the iconographic methodology also assume that the painter or the painter and the patron or his audience where involved in a very complex system of communications.65 In the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century literature, there is no
mention of this type of symbolism nor interpretive tools for looking at or appreciating seventeenth-century art. The thought that this symbolism was lost in a mere 35 – 40 years also seems improbable. Bedaux maintains that the seventeenth-century Dutch art probably did not have a complex set of hidden values.66
Bedaux, further makes a large investment in his essay on the use of text in the Arnolfini painting (namely the signature above the convex mirror). There is a prevalent use 62 Bedaux 1990, p. 53 63 Bedaux 1990, p. 73 64 Bedaux 1990, p. 100 65 Bedaux 1990, p. 103 66 Bedaux 1990, p. 172
21 of text in the vanitas tradition. According to Bedaux the use of text does not add to the narrative but it is in essence a part of the pictorial depiction. However, the prevalent use of text within the vanitas tradition means that it must have a larger relevance. In this particular sub-genre, more than in still life in general, there is evidence of creating specific text within the painting’s motif. As with Van Eyck’s wedding portrait, in vanitas, the use of text becomes a way in which to leave a signature, date or a message. These can be common moralistic inscriptions, which were not limited to Vanitas Vanitatum (Vanity, vanity all is vanity), Memento mori, sic transit Gloria mundi (So passes away the glory of the world).67
The works of Bruyn in the early vanitas traditions (fig. 4), Adriaen van Nieulandt (1586 – 1658, fig. 5), and Bailly, Steenwyjck, De Gheyn in the early seventeenth century (fig. 3. 7, 12) and later by Collier and others, attest to this use.
Svetlana Alpers also provides an alternative analysis to De Jongh’s interpretative emblem system. In her view the visual analysis is at the heart of Dutch paintings, and they create a “world of meaning” on the surface of the painting, though vision. 68 One of Alpers main arguments centres around her insight that interpretive methodologies were developed in response to Italian narrative images. Dutch art, she opininnates is vastly different from the biblical or narrative images of the Italian Renaissance and so should not be explored via prevalent methods.69 Summarised by Walter Gibson, “Italian art is narrative; Dutch art is descriptive.”70 Focusing on the surface of the painting only and its detailed representation, Alpers asserts that the didactic meanings in Dutch art is non-existent, hence there is no need for an interpretive stance. Dutch pictures exemplify the craft of representation, and use pictorial strategies on the surface to convey meaning, and in this art of visual description she focuses on the way paintings look. How they choreography viewing, might be likened to the use of a Kepler camera obscura. Ivan Gaskell states, in Dutch art, this visual viewing and realism has an epistemological significance.71
More recent contributions to the questions of meaning have been made to these
opposing views, which Peter Hecht quoting Hessel Miedema, terms as “neo-sensitive” views. Hecht’s viewpoint is that denying all aspect of meaning in some paintings, as Alpers
demands, and acquiescing to a complete emblematic interpretation in others is heresy.72 For
67 Roberts 1998, p. 885 68 Gibson 1983, p. 210 69 Gaskell 1984, p. 57 70 Gibson 1983, p. 210 71 Gaskell 1984, p. 58 72 Hecht 1992, p. 85
22 Hecht, Dutch genre paintings can no longer be thought to be the photographic ideal nor to have the iconographic appeal it once had. In his questioning of the realism attached to the Dutch genre paintings he claims they are pseudo-photographic. Hecht explores via a variety of examples why it is improbable to assume that hidden or veiled meanings were prevalent in the genre paintings of the seventeenth century. In his exploration of the listings/catalogues of Dutch art within the collection of King Charles II of England, the art is simply described as it is depicted, and the title associated with the image was simply a reflection of its motif and content. If more didactic relevance would have been adjudicated, the title or description would have noted such nuances. There is no symbolism associated in any of the
contemporary writings because writers such as Houbraken would not have omitted any such information, if it was indeed important to the reading of a painting. Therefore the lack of these iconographic and veiled references speaks volumes. It is hard to imagine that such a well versed cultural set of symbols and associations, if it did exist, would have disappeared in this short time frame from the cultural memory. Citing Gerard Dou’s (1613 – 1675) work as an example and the writings of Philips Angel (1618 – 1664) on the paragone of art, where Angel profusely claims Dou as an epitome, Hecht expounds on Dou’s finely painted and high-priced images, the details within the motif, the use of light, and states “there was indeed very nearly nothing on God’s earth that Dou’s virtuoso brush could not successfully
imitate.”73 Dou’s clever use of perspective to create depth and illusion of space along with his signature stone niche, and finely painted objects were the pinnacle of naturalism, rather than realism. Subsequently Dou’s student Frans van Mieris (1635 – 1681) took the ideals of naturalism, according to Hecht even further and created an even more exquisite picture, in an effort to push the boundaries of presentation. Both Dou and van Mieris played with
perspective and presentation of the painted surface, and both excelled in presenting images that were incredibly plausible in their naturalness. Hecht concludes that the subject is simply a vehicle for the picture’s form and the display of talent suggests that form would have been the overriding factor over subject matter and meaning.
Perspective was a near obsession in the Netherlands, and its importance was further compounded by the fact that perspective provided a very convincing illusion of reality.74 Art is itself is an abstract idea, and artists prevailing on their imagination and intuition gives life to a painting, and this is through the demonstration of the mathematics of art, which is
73 Hecht 1992, p. 87 74 Fuchs 1978, p. 124
23 perspective.75 It being a brand of mathematics and painters wanting to rise above their status as craftsmen, painters became perspective experts, which resulted in the highly illusionistic Dutch art. It probably did not go unnoticed by Dutch painters that Leonardo da Vinci claimed that painting was more important than poetry, eluding to the paragone debate, because painting appealed to the eye, which according to Aristotle was the first means by which humans acquired knowledge.76
Grootenboer brings a more complex set of notions to the painterly perspective. In her book The Rhetoric of Perspective: Realism and Illusionism inSeventeenth-Century Dutch Still-Life Painting, she argues perspective as being a form of language, while establishing that still life paintings are a form of thinking. She combines the painterly aspect of allegories, which is to show something from history over and over again within a visual concept - the skull as an allegory for passing of time for instance within vanitas, which if not used
regularly as a metaphor, would disappear. Taking the painting Anamorphosis of Charles I at the Gripsholm Castle, where the skull and the portrait of the king can only be viewed via a cylindrical mirror, she maintains that the image of the king would disappear, if it were not utilised or seen. And in that same manner allegory is considered to be a form of expression whereby the elements as in the spoken word, express an idea.77
Grootenboer highlights the tromp l’oeil by Cornelius Gijsbrechts (fig. 9) which features a contradiction of space, illusion and perspective. In this representation of a painting the vanitas allegorical elements are placed within multiple illusionistic perspectives,
challenging the viewer and challenging the visual space. Here Grootenboer states that the perspective acts as an allegory where the point of view directs one way, which in turn points to something else; the multiple perspectives within this image confuse the viewer. A picture within a picture, an illusion within an illusion. There is no definite demarcation of the actual painting, what is outside the painting, what is real. Her definitions and explanations of allegory and perspective lead her to conclude that perspective is a form of ideas, similar to the philosophical ideas that represent the elusive truth. In that manner perspective is a form of thinking and functions as the language of the image. Within this exploration, perspective is seen moving away from a mathematical concept to a more philosophical realm.
In her essay, Natural artifice and Material Values in Dutch Still-Life, Celeste Brusati states that the vanitas motifs and elements, such as the skull and bound books and their
75 Wheeler 1989, pp.12-13 76 Fuchs 1978, p. 124 77 Grootenboer 2005, p. 143
24 “implied” symbolic meaning, are not central to understanding the paintings. She suggests that still life was a display of the ability of the painter. The heightened, illusionistic
representation so characteristic of still life was a strategic means to illicit a response from the viewer and to marvel at the ability of the artist. This was not conducted under false pretext, but was instead an intentional means for maximum effect.78 Still life was an accurate
imitation of realism. The key focus in still life was the visual representation and the realism exhibited. Therefore, Brusati holds a similar viewpoint to Hecht’s.
Brusati focuses on “natuurlijkheid,” and how still life clarifies our understanding of the seventeenth-century aesthetic. She also examines how specific configurations and compositions provide meaning to the viewer. Brusati highlights Simon Luttichuys’ Still life with Attributes of the Pictorial Arts, (title listed in her article, fig. 8) where there is further evidence, according to Brusati, of such relationships not only in the literal, structural form of the objects as seen with the sphere, globe and the other rounded shapes, but also in the interplay between the objects and their perceived physical associations.
The character of objects as painted by Luttichuys in fine detail goes as far as to accentuate the minutia of each object.79 Because they are a set of unfeasible arrangements not found in the real world, Brusati argues that the still life is an example of artistic
capabilities, and it “exploits natural objects, and naturalizes the representation.”80 In essence,
Brusati views the entire composition as a whole, looking at the physical relationships between the objects, the effective strategies used to represent the objects and ultimately the entire effect of the painting. Unlike Hecht, she delves a little deeper addressing the forms and the painter’s representational skills, also the objects’ physical shapes or outlines and
corresponding relationships they create within the painting. For Brusati and for Hecht, it is the skill in representation that is at the core of still life painting, and this is what stimulates us even today.
What we can gain from this above discussion of the varying theories is that the quintessence of representation around Dutch still life is iconography and symbolism, realism and naturalism and perspective. These are important factors within the discussion of still life still under debate today. The opposing views presented provide us with means to evaluate the still life vanitas. But, the failing in each is that it embodies only one view or view point, and
78 Brusati; Frantis 1997, p. 157
79 Brusati; Frantis 1997, p. 150; Brueghel the Younger’s work is explored, and in the realism showcased, one
can see the veins of the petals, the details are so acute, the flowers depicted is said to triumph over nature.
25 because it is a singular vantage point, the above authors all come to different conclusions. However, these mutually exclusive conclusions, neither of which are a particularly erroneous, only partially interpret a work of art. The idea of providing a combined analysis is not
explored. The notion earlier set forth by Haverkamp-Begemann that realism and symbolism could possibly exist together is not addressed by the current theories of art history explored above. The illusionistic quality of Dutch still life, which as I observed negates any realism per se within these works, is also not a focus in much of the art history methodology discussion above.
In Chapter four and five a series of Dutch artist and their still life paintings are explored. It will be viewed from the perspective of combining both realism (in its varying nuances) and symbolism.
26 Chapter 4 – Still life source media
This chapter briefly outlines the variety of the portraits used in vanitas, and the proximity artists might have had to their source material. It will help establish the four types of portraiture looked at within this thesis and how those elements might have been part of the artists’ realm both in Netherlands and in other relevant geographies. The four objects are: Printed or graphic portraits, painted portraits, sculpture busts, and tronies.81
In Het Schilderboek in 1604, Van Mander saw history paintings at the apex of the painting pyramid, but conceded in relation to portrait painting, “…a face being the noblest part of the human body provides a fine opportunity to make manifest and provide the virtue and powers of Art.”82 Portraiture was a significant tradition, and many contemporary artists
were involved in the creation of portraits, not only for financial gain, but perhaps also for its popularity, the virtuosity and the skill required to create such a work of art.83
In the Netherlands, the training of an artist took place at an early age. Young men (they were mostly men with only a few women artists recorded in the seventeenth century) were instructed by a master painter in a guild environment on the technical aspects of painting: learning to mix pigments, stretch canvas, and the rudiments of the creation of art. The artistic training began with the copying of drawings and prints, and the next step was to learn to draw from plaster casts such as antique figures or fragments of human figures
(fig.13).84 Subsequently came the theoretical studies, such as perspective and anatomy. Kahr states that only when the young man was adept at drawing, he was allowed to graduate to painting; copying first the pictures of his master or other artists provided by his teacher, and then later painting from a live model. Van Hoogstraten, who was under the tutelage of Rembrandt (1606 – 1669), mentions the varied collection of art and artifacts that his master had about him, alluding to the variety of source material for artistic training. Rembrandt, it is noted, purchased a print of Lucas van Leyden (1494 – 1533) for a very large sum, and this led Van Hoogstraten to counsel in his writings that artists should indeed set an example by
buying, trading and exchanging prints and drawings. In order to learn from other artists, but also to support and cultivate the arts and encourage others to do the same. He said, “Who will
81 Portrait medals are excluded from this analysis. Namely because the quality of the images at the RKD did not
allow for a more detailed visual analysis of the smaller objects represented, such as medals.
82 Haak 1984, p. 128; Depauw 1999, p. 73
83 For example, Anthony van Dyck as employed in England to paint portraits of the monarchy, which
subsequently were made into prints, as did much of his portrait work. He was considered a virtuoso in portraiture.
27 develop a desire for art unless painters themselves first show the way?”85 The popular art of
portraiture was not only taught to young apprentice painters, but later it was also encouraged that they use the various artistic media to cultivate their own talents.
In the seventeenth century, it was fashionable to have one’s portrait engraved in the form of a bust, usually placed within a border or a niche. A school of engravers specialized in promoting the monarchy, as there were numerous prints made with the likeness of
European monarchs.86 Engravers and printmakers took artistic license. For example, the
borders became stylistic innovations, as engravers used the borders to embellish and also add iconographic elements. Engravers and printmakers also placed iconographic elements within the print portrait, a deviation from the original painting or later added by the painter into the painting, in the prevalent replication system from painting to print, and sometimes back from print to painting. In the case of King James I (fig. 14) he is portrayed with the attributes of Solomon or Caesar, and these embellishments or innovations became imbued into his person, giving him a similar sense of authority or grandeur as Caesar.87 It should be noted that the prints were all identifiable, as they contained a title and an explanation, so the historical figure always had a name to the face. Many of the prints of monarchs were made for distribution and as a collectors’ item. Those of other famous people such as Desiderius Erasmus (ca. 1466 – ca. 1536) would be used as calling cards or a memento, and in a manner also used for distribution.88
Susan Lambert in her book The Image Multiplied puts forth a historical analysis of what the print as a mechanical reproductive art has meant to the history of art. She claims that in certain genre an image could be adapted in reproduction from a painting into print.89 This suggests that painting and print formed a symbiotic relationship. In short, paintings were created or drawings were made after which the print or print portraits were engraved for publishing and the print makers were free to embellish or change aspects of the print,
according to their stylistic considerations or simply to make elements fit within the
85 Brusati 1995, p. 3
86 Lambert 1987, p. 14; Lambert’s focus in on the English monarchy. However, it may be extended to other
European leaders, as prints of the various European monarchies appear in the vanitas paintings.
87 Lambert 1987, p. 14; Depauw 1999, p. 81; Depauw states that Van Dyck likely needed source material and he
used drawings and oil sketches for his portrait prints for his Iconography.
88 Parshall 2012, pp. 24-25; Parshall does not directly talk about Erasmus, but he notes that there is evidence that
important historical figures would commission their likeness, and then distribute their printed image. There is also evidence that receivers and buyers would use them within their album books.
28 constraints of printmaking.90 The term reproductive print is used to in the strict sense of the word, for prints that reproduce independent paintings, whether in a highly faithful or
somewhat freer manner, as long as its dependence on the painted model remains clear and definitive. This can be thought of as the first level of transfer within the reproduction process.
The success of the reproductive print in art circles is attributed to a number of elements. Growing tastes and other social developments contributed to its popularity.
Professional art dealers dealt with prints and paintings. Art dealers liked to own reproductive prints as a means of driving up the price of the original painting, offering a foretaste of a more expensive painted version. Art lovers contributed to the demand, as in this elite group were also collectors.91 Van Hoogstraten and Lairesse noted that artists could achieve greater name recognition through reproductive prints of their originals.92 This led to artists such as Anthony Van Dyck (1599 – 1641) and Peter Paul Rubens (1577 – 1640), to recreate their works in print. The validation that reproductive portrait prints of public figures were popular in the seventeenth century, regardless of whether they were based on a painted prototype, created a larger market for print and led the way for a shift in taste of the print buying public.93
Elizabeth Harvey-Lee states that the print portrait at first was a vehicle to create portraits of scholars and statesmen, preceding the active creation of artists’ likenesses and artists’ self-portraits in print. Printed series of artists’ portraits date from the second half of the sixteenth century. The genre was further extended in the seventeenth century when engraved portraits came into vogue, as artists such as Van Dyck began creating print portraits of his contemporaries for his Iconography. The resulted in portrait copies both in print and in oil being crafted after the portraits present in Iconography.94 Both Van Dyke and Rembrandt established themselves as portraits painters as well as prolific print makers. Rembrandt, the “serial” self-portraitist, inspired other artists to follow suite.95 Harvey-Lee in her essay
ascertains that the self- portraits in various media created by Rembrandt might be attributed to artistic statements, as self-promotion, as a record of a significant period in his life or as
90 Lambert 1987, pp. 13 – 14; Reproductive prints were close to their source, but examples are provided where
the print maker does take certain licenses to create a variant as needed.
91 Depauw 1999, pp. 9 – 11, p.79 92 Diels 2009, p. 73
93 Diels 2009, p. 73 94 Depauw 1999, p. 88 95 Harvey-Lee 2000, p. 4
29 exercises to practice different expressions.96 This generalization may be extended to other artists who created print self-portraits in this timeframe, and can explain the proliferation of prints of etched or engraved portraits. Further, in the mid-1660s in Italy, Leopold de’Medici (1717 – 1675), started to amass a collection of artist self-portraits at the Uffizi, and such commissions to obtain images of successful artists became an ongoing tradition well into the twentieth century.
In the seventeenth century, painted portraits can also be attributed to self-awareness, and the fact that the artists were being elevated in society.97 The painted
self-portrait also rose in popularity as the depicted artist grew his position in society. Artists from the Renaissance onwards were gaining more social ground, they were distinguished,
considered even to be genius, as they converted natural material into works of art.98 Artists were portrayed similarly to scholars, sometimes with identifiable tools of the trade, such as maulstick or brushes, but always dignified, self-assured, and as a virtuoso.99
Tronies, which are individual faces removed from any narrative context, literally translated as “face” or “head” from seventeenth-century Dutch, may be clearly seen in this example by Luttichuys (figs. 15, 16), where he artfully places tronie prints after Jan Lievens (1607 – 1674) and Rembrandt. Tronies were rendered as drawings, engravings or etchings and largely popular in the Rembrandt and Lievens circles in Leiden and Amsterdam. They are busts of older figures without being a portrait, and they had a great market among the wealthy burgers.100 The term tronie differentiates it from a portrait, because the person portrayed is not recognizable or specific; it is generic.101 A portrait for instance would bear an actual, recognizable likeness and would provide context such as social standing,
profession and other secondary attributes via clothing or objects (figs. 4, 11). The
proliferation of tronies suggests it was a means to practice emotions, poses, and archetypes of faces.
The sculptures used within the vanitas paintings were mostly from the classical or antiquarian era or reproductions of those works. No identifiable examples of contemporary busts or sculpture were found in the seventeenth-century paintings explored for this thesis. The sculptures tended towards philosophers and classical themes of gods or goddesses and 96 Harvey-Lee 2000, p. 4 97 Fuchs 1978, p. 83 98 Lambert 1987, p. 7 99 Depauw 1999, p. 76 100 Van Straten 1992, p. 132
101 Rembrandt possibly created tronies of his parents, as noted by Van Straten in examining the painting of
