Look at Heda’s paintings. In Figure 1 Still-life with Gilt Goblet, 1635 (Oil on wood, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
Firstly What Do we See?
We see a table with two table cloths one dark, almost black and spread. The other is white and has been partially pulled away. On the table are three ornately painted and glazed china plates. On the plates are small pieces of oysters, other shellfish and bread. At the back is a large pewter goblet with its lid still open. Next to it, forming the apex of a pyramidal diagonal axis with the other objects on the table stands a gilt one with its lid shut.
A salt-cellar and a cruet, possibly of vinegar stand next to a glass that takes up the centre of the composition. It contains a standard measure of wine. Another empty glass stands further over on the left. Oysters still in their shells are scattered on the table. A peeled lemon is on the right by another overturned glass goblet. In the centre left a gilt goblet with a shallow rim (called a tazza) has been cast on its side. Its position focuses on the embossed metalwork on its side, a pattern that is caught up in the chased guild cup on the table. A knife lies in the third plate wrapped in the white table-cloth. Its large handle seems poised to fall as do two of the plates.
Secondly, What Is Associated with What we See?
The colours are monochrome and yet sparkle with a gleam that carries from the dented, or reflecting pewter jug to the intricate detail of the lemon with its dangling spongy peel. These colours are also associations to what we see. Everyday objects made enchanting in subtle counter positions of light and shade. Precious glass and pewter rendered sombre in monochrome style. We are aware all the time that what we see has aspects passing into an invisible past. The memento mori of a skull. The hour-glass, the clock, a candle, lit or snuffed, could all convey time passing. Other painters show us a crown, a sceptre etc., or a purse, or coins. The iconologists tell us they could symbolise power and possessions. Just as a knife or a sword could sum up futile valour and aggression. Powerless flowers decay.
An occasional symbol too may be slipped in the still-life. Here the peeled lemon symbolizes Deceptive Appearance: beautiful to look at, a lemon yet tastes sour. Other associations could be symbolic too. For instance, the bowl conveys a sense of emptiness or the transience of human sensual desire. The wine close to the bread could have a Christian significance. Yet what this picture represents also is a meal just eaten. Heda’s realism even puts a curl of paper containing pepper into the picture. Lemon was advised to be eaten with oyster to avoid the less healthy properties of the seafood.
Thirdly what is the Specific Visual Aspect?
If we follow Gombrich and not Sterling then we need to assert the primacy of a genre, but as Paul Ziff says genres happen. We call this tradition. It is here that we need to research, but only within a rage of alternative meanings stemming from the tradition of vanitas.
The critics present many alternatives for recognising and what the picture specifically represents. Panovsky referred to the Dutch Still Life tradition as ‘disguised symbolism.’ He traced it back to Dutch religious painting of the previous century. Gombrich preferred to think of it as arising out of Renaissance realism in Northern Europe. Sam Segal emphasised the themes of transience and temperance related again to earlier religious themes. De Jongh would prefer to leave symbolism to expectation. Vroom refers to the still life painters as “writers of the Annals of daily life”.
Fourthly what Set of Visual Attributes Is Associated with Vanitas?
The banketje genre conveyed a banquet with Chinese porcelain, Damask cloths, Venetian glass and green, glass roemers, with their studded holder, a bekerschroef. Sometimes the pictures take on the theme of tabakje, a smoking still life,with theirsufurated nettle stems as pipe cleaners or zwavelstockje that tell uslife is smoke. In contrast there can be the pronkstilleve a style to show off with nautilus wedding goblets and rich foods.
- Sources:
- Bergström, Ingvar. Dutch Still-Life Painting in the Seventeenth Century. Translated by Christina Hedström and Gerald Taylor. London, 1956: 123-124.
- Bryson, Norman. Looking at the Overlooked; Four Essays in Still Life Painting, (Reaktion Books) Chicago, University of Chicago Press 2004
- Croce, Benedetto. Aesthetic as Science and Expression of General Linguistic, 1902 10th ed. tr. Douglas Ainslie. Noonday Press 1964
- De Jongh, Eddy. The Interpretation of Still Lifes. Possibilities and Limits in Still Life in the Age of Rembrandt, Aukland, City Art Gallery 1982
- Gombrich, E.H. Meditations on a Hobby Horse. London 1963
- Grimm, Claus. Stilleben, Belser 2001
- Jameson, Jamie Pop Art London, Phaidon 1996
- Lacan, Jacques: Seminar Eleven: The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis. NY & London, W.W. Norton and Co.1978’
- Panofsky, Erwin. Early Netherlandish Painting New York Harper and Row 1953
- Schama, Simon, The Embarrassment of Riches, An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age. New York, Knopf 1987
- Schrevelius, T. Harlemias: Of, de eerst stichting der stad Haarlem. Haarlem, 1648: 390. Van der Willigen 1870, 156-157.
- Segal, Sam. A Prosperous Past. Ed. William Jordan. Exh. cat. StedelijkMuseum Het Prinsenhof, Delft; Fogg Art Museum, Cambridge, Massachusetts; Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth. The Hague, 1988: 121-140.
- Van Gelder, Henrik Enno. W. C. Heda, A. van Beyeren, W. Kalf. (Paletserie) Amsterdam, n.d.[1941].
- Vroom, Nicolaas Rudolph Alexander. A Modest Message. 2 vols. Schiedam, 1980: 1: 53-78, 2: 65-80, nos. 324-392.
- Wheelock, Jr., Arthur K. Dutch Paintings of the Seventeenth Century. The Collections of the National Gallery of Art Systematic Catalogue. Washington, D.C., 1995: 99.
- Ziff, Paul. ‘On What A Painting Represents’ in Philosophical Turnings. London, 1966.
Duncan McGibbon - By contributing writer, Bath (UK) Institute Convenor and Wells Festival Prize-Winner, Duncan McGibbon
