Paintings of flowers were popular in the Netherlands throughout the 17th Century. Meticulously painted, they feature a variety of flora and fauna. They may appear purely decorative, but evidence suggests there is more to them than meets the eye.
As a keen gardener, I’ve always had a soft spot for these small paintings of flowers, if only I could grow such blooms! Their popularity in Holland grew alongside other categories of domestic art including still-life, genre scenes and landscape all of which were bought and displayed prominently in homes. It’s easy to think that there’s little more to these works other than what one sees – a display of pretty flowers in a vase – but I would like to explore how they came to have their distinctive appearance, what influenced their popularity and how the images have been open to different interpretations.
Characteristics
I’m going to focus on four works by leading proponents of the subject – Ambrosias Bosschaert (1573-1621), Jacob Marrel (1614-1681), Jan Davidsz de Heem (1606-1683/4) and Rachel Ruysch (1664-1750). These works share many characteristics. Noticeable is the sheer variety of flowers, including roses, tulips, carnations, poppies, peonies, fritillaries, morning glory, iris and many more. The flowers are artistically arranged in a vase positioned on a table and isolated against a plain dark background. All are painted realistically with a lot of detail and include a multitude of creatures including insects, molluscs and in one case, a dead frog. However, there are many ways in which they differ. These differences can be seen to reflect the changes in approach to flower painting through the century.
Still Life with Flowers in a Wan-Li Vase painted in 1619 by Bosschaert (fig.1, below), is an example of how artists first approached the subject. There are a modest number of blooms, arranged symmetrically, with each flower isolated and forming a circular pattern as they emerge from a decorative and prominent vase. The overall effect is harmonious but rather static in its formality.
The wonderfully titled Still Life with a Vase of Flowers and a Dead Frog from 1634 by Marrel (fig.2), is also formal but somewhat playful. There are more flowers, some of which spill over the top of a quirky claw-footed vase. Lively flame patterned tulips are given prominence, a type popular with artists (for reasons discussed later) and Marrel shows off his skill in painting silky, shapely petals. This is a work that draws the eye especially with the inclusion of a dead frog!
Still Life with Flowers in a Glass Vase by Davidsz de Heem, painted between 1650 and 1683, (fig.3) has an abundance of loosely arranged flowers filling the space. The composition is full of movement with flamboyant blooms competing for attention. Davidsz de Heem was considered ‘one of the most distinguished and influential still-life and flower painters of the 17th century’[1]Meijer, 2003, p. 216 and had a large following. In this work he shows extraordinary skill in conveying the different textures of flowers and foilage and in depicting the effects of light – the light catching the white petals of the daffodil on the left is subtle and particularly beautiful. He was an experimental artist who worked on new approaches, as is evident in the choice of a glass vase to hold the flowers. The cut stems are visible in the water and a sense of depth is achieved as they are caught by the light as it passes through. The added reflection of a window gives the sense of a real environment beyond the display.
Still Life with Flowers on a Marble Tabletop, painted by Ruysch much later in 1716, (fig.4) shows a sophisticated approach. The composition is asymmetric with flowers spiralling around a diagonal axis, a style that became her hallmark. Light falls along the diagonal, helping to create depth and drawing the eye to the centre where the blooms are brighter and more concentrated. This work is painted on canvas which has helped to create a softer appearance when compared to the other works, that have a sheen characteristic of painting on copper and panel. Her work is distinguished by a ‘subtle touch and impeccable surface treatment’[2]Chadwick, 2012, p. 138 as well as a theatrical use of light. Like Davidsz de Heem she was extremely successful and for a few years she was court painter in Dusseldorf.
There is something very significant about the choice of flowers in these works. Each arrangement contains flowers which bloom at different times of the year. In nature, they would not be seen all together. For example, in general daffodils, tulips and fritillaries bloom in the spring, iris and peonies in early summer and most of the others from mid-summer. Many bloom only briefly. This shows that the artists did not set up a display to paint from life, instead they drew from a library of drawings, studies and botanical illustrations to create a montage. They were interested in creating a particular effect, which was more important than authenticity.
The Dutch Golden Age
The popularity of flower paintings in seventeenth century Netherlands, emerged from the growing interest in horticulture as a leisure pastime and industry. There was an increased interest in the natural sciences, including botany, which was fuelled by the exotic plants and knowledge brought back by explorers from voyages around the world. Ruysch was the daughter of anatomist and botanist Professor Frederik Ruysch, whose collections of skeletons, fossils and plants would have offered her much inspiration. Flower books that presented flowers as objects of beauty, developed from illustrated herbal guides. Marrel produced at least six tulip books with illustrations in watercolour on vellum. Tulips were big business in the 1630’s, when the Netherlands was gripped by ‘tulipmania’ and the demand for new or sought-after bulbs pushed prices to unprecedented levels, before the market crashed in 1637. In the works featured here, Tulips dominate Marrel’s painting reflecting their popularity at the time but are featured less in Davidsz de Heem’s work and are absent in Ruysch’s composition.
The interest in flower paintings was largely a result of the effects of dramatic social, economic and religious changes when the Netherlands emerged as a separate region after becoming independent from Spanish rule. From early in the seventeenth century the region developed to become a centre of trade, finance and shipping, with a large naval fleet and extensive colonies. The ‘Dutch Golden Age’, as the period is called, led to a prosperous middle class. Catholicism was replaced with Calvinist Protestantism, which prohibited religious iconography and restricted art to that produced for the home and secular environment. As part of a commercialised society, artists competed in an open and independent art market. The need for buyers resulted in specialisation, whereby an artist would concentrate on a particular subject, or even a single texture to show off virtuosic technical skills and increase their reputation. In the past, Catholic homes would have had images of the Virgin Mary and the suffering of Christ, but now, rather than the biblical world, it was their own world they painted. The resultant art depicts scenes and objects from everyday life, it is descriptive with a focus on detail and materiality. It has been argued how imagery of the home and domesticity became central ‘as a microcosm of the properly governed commonwealth…’[3]Ibid., p. 120 reflecting the need for an ordered society in both public and private spheres. This analogy implies that there could be deeper meanings to these ‘domestic’ works and indeed much has been written about possible interpretations.
Interpretation and hidden meanings
In the discussion about how to interpret Dutch art, two themes have become prominent concerning realism and symbolism. I will briefly describe these and try to suggest how they might relate to flower paintings in particular. Realism concerns both subject matter and the artist’s technique. In the nineteenth century when Dutch genre painting was re-evaluated, it was suggested that the images gave a realistic and unidealized portrait of urban and rural life.[4]Gaiger, 2012, p. 72 The German philosopher Georg W. F. Hegel (1770-1831) took this further by interpreting the subject matter ‘as an expression of pride in Dutch citizenship and the hard-won freedoms of civil society’.[5]Ibid., p. 68 It was also thought that the realist depiction – the artist’s technical virtuosity in the imitation of materials and the overall attention to detail – would give pleasure to the viewer and indicated the importance of a painting’s appearance over its subject matter, suggesting the idea of painting being for its own sake.[6]Ibid. Following these ideas, flower paintings could be seen as reflecting the status of the Netherlands as Europe’s leading centre for horticulture and the exotic blooms a reminder of successful Dutch explorations around the world. The skill of verisimilitude is clearly evident in the depiction of flowers and creatures and there is much to bring pleasure to the viewer. However, although the images appear realistic, they are montages and there is much artificiality in the representation of the subject – the choice of flowers, lighting, plain backgrounds and inclusion of wildlife. This suggests the realism theory has its limitations.
In more recent times, historians have come to believe that paintings from the Netherlands are loaded with symbolism and hidden meanings. Dutch historian Eddy de Jongh (b. 1931) suggests that art from the Netherlands is characterised by a ‘seeming realism’ which means although paintings look realistic, they contain hidden messages that communicate certain ideas.[7]Ibid., p. 78 He believes these ideas were related to two aspects of Dutch culture. Firstly, a predisposition to Calvinist moralising, which was concerned with living a virtuous life, whilst remembering that life and its pleasures were temporary. Secondly, the Dutch fascination with hidden meanings. There was plenty of emblematic literature available containing word play and riddles, such as the emblem books by Jacob Cats that featured a motto, picture or commentary with a hidden moral message. For Jongh, flower paintings would be understood in relation to contemporary mottos such as ‘so passes away the glory of the world’[8]Ibid., p. 82 which is a reminder of transience and the brevity of human life and which is manifest in the temporary beauty of flowers. Marrel may be accentuating this idea by painting fallen petals on the tabletop and by the not-so-subtle dead frog. Perhaps the inclusion of cut stems in Davidsz de Heem work have a life and death connotation. One could also say that the depiction of flowers which bloom in different seasons is a reference to the passing of time. Arguably, these ideas could be seen to illustrate one of the problems with the iconography theory, which is that philosophical meanings can be read into almost anything and particularly when considering ideas about nature and life, which makes it difficult to be certain whether something is a symbol or not. Some have argued that the theory of symbolism is also very limited in scope, as it assumes the works are concerned only with moral messages and that all paintings have this message.[9]Ibid., p. 84
Artistic traditions
I feel that although both these theories are valid as ways of understanding the paintings from this period, they imply that the art is from a unique period, has a unique appearance and so must have a singular meaning. They are limited because they isolate the art from that which came before. My own theory is based around the idea of the continuity of artistic practice, meaning that seventeenth century Dutch domestic art can be seen to carry on many traditions that characterised the ‘renaissance’ art of northern Europe in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. It is only the subject matter that is different.
Both religious and secular art in northern Europe was descriptive with a focus on detail and the realistic depiction of materials. Interior domestic settings were common. Sometimes a painting gave the impression of peeping into a room. Often interiors would incorporate partial views of open windows with a distant view beyond. There was a great deal of religious and moral symbolism imbued in objects that were carefully arranged to be easily seen and understood. In portraiture, backgrounds were often plain to fix the attention on the sitter. Some of these characteristics can be found in Portrait of Giovanni Arnolfini and his Wife (1434), by Jan Van Eyck (active 1422: d.1441) (fig.5) The artist has convincingly depicted many textures including fabric, fur, wood and metal. He has included details such as the intricate pattern of folds on the dress and captured light falling on different surfaces with subtle modulations of tone. The work is full of carefully placed objects – shoes, a dog, oranges, a mirror, rosary beads, a single burning candle, a brush – which act as symbols of religion, marriage, wealth and status. These same artistic traditions also characterised religious works from the period, with altarpieces produced in northern Europe distinguished from those in Italy by their composition and use of space, their attention to detail and unidealized approach.
In my view the same approach can be found in the Netherlands in the seventeenth century, by artists including Pieter de Hooch, Jan Steen and Johannes Vermeer, who continued the northern European traditions to create descriptive genre scenes infused with meanings. Flower paintings can also be seen as continuing these traditions of artistic practice. Through the realism of the technique and the carefully arranged compositions, the symbolism can be easily understood. The various elements work with each other to imbue meaning. The insects and other creatures are not an artistic whimsy but are thoughtfully chosen and carefully placed as part of an overall theme of transformation. Yet, just as in early periods when patrons used art as a form of self-aggrandizement, so in the seventeenth century both the wealthy and middleclass buyers used domestic art, including flower paintings, to show off their good taste, their moral values and most of all, their wealth – especially with a costly work by an innovative and highly skilled artist.
Clearly there is much to write about these gorgeous paintings and I feel I’ve only just touched on the subject. I’ve tried to convey something of how they may have been viewed at the time they were painted, with the consideration of multiple meanings. Armed with a richer understanding, I hope I have enabled them to be appreciated and enjoyed even more by us today.
Notes
Bibliography
Chadwick, W. (2012), Women, Art, and Society (5th edn), London, Thames & Hudson.
Dunkerton, J., Foister, S., Gordon, D., & Penny, N. (eds) (1991) Giotto to Durer, early Renaissance Painting in The National Gallery, New Haven, Yale University Press/London, The National Gallery.
Gaiger, J. (2012), ‘Meaning and interpretation: Dutch painting of the golden age’, in Barker, E. (ed) (2012) Art & Visual Culture 1600-1850, London, Tate Publishing/Milton Keynes, The Open University.
Meijer, F.G. (2003), Dutch and Flemish Still-life Paintings, Zwolle, Waanders Publishers/Oxford, Ashmolean Museum.
Online Sources
Rijksmuseum website available at https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en accessed 27th January 2021