Breakfast Piece with Cheese, Ham and Goblets
Artist/Maker
DatesMade: 1630s
Material / Technique
Dimensionsh x w: Mått 50 x 84 cm h x w x d: Ram 73 x 106 x 6 cm
Inventory numberNM 1146
AcqusitionBequeathed in 1872 by Carl Leonard Kinmanson
Other titlesTitle (sv): Frukoststycke med ost och pokaler Title (en): Breakfast Piece with Cheese, Ham and Goblets Label (en): Breakfast Piece with Cheese and Goblets
DescriptionDescription: Expensive foodstuffs such as long-lived hard cheeses, citrus fruit, white bread, meat and wine were available to the higher echelons of society, and the valuable blue-and-white porcelain dish indicates trade with China. The motif has been interpreted as a moralizing exhortation to moderation when it comes to the finer things in life. At the same time, it provides a demonstration of Jacob Fopsen van Es’ illusionistic painting technique. Catalogue raisonné: Description in Flemish paintings C. 1600-C. 1800 III, Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, 2010, cat.no. 75: Technical notes: The painting’s support is an oak panel (± 0.9–1.1 cm thick) consisting of a single radial board with a horizontal grain. Bevelling occurs along the left and right edges on the verso. The panel has a slight convex warp across the grain. Saw marks are visible on the verso, together with scattered wormholes, mainly concentrated in an area at centre right and along the upper edge (with splintered wood). Dendrochronological examination and analysis have determined a felling date for the tree between c. 1635 and 1651. The wood originates from the region of northern Germany. The verso of the panel carries the brand of the city of Antwerp – two hands and a castle – as well as the monogram “MV”, the mark of the Antwerp panel-maker Michiel Vriendt (see further below). Such panel marks were used as guarantees of quality by the St. Luke’s Guild of Antwerp, according to regulations instituted in November 1617. Inscriptions in white chalk on the verso: “534”; “48”; and “X”. The panel was prepared with a moderately thick, brush-applied, off-white ground layer containing chalk, which hides the wood grain of the support, followed by a thin buff-coloured imprimatura. Infrared reflectography detected traces of a dark underdrawing in a liquid medium used to define the outlines of objects, for example, the upper contour of the large cheese. Paint was applied in multiple opaque, semi-transparent and translucent layers. Thinly painted areas such as the wooden table, in which semi-transparent light and dark brown medium-rich paint was applied over a light grey underpaint, alternate with rich impastos in the cheese, butter, roll of white bread, slices of ham, oranges, radish leaves, in which the fluid brushwork and viscous paint applied in thick relief create pronounced and varied textural effects intended to suggest depth (see further below). For example, the texture of the orange rind was literally imitated by applying thick pointillistic touches, or blotches of wet-into-wet paint that protrude noticeably from the paint surface. Judiciously placed brilliant white and bright yellow pastose highlights were used to create the remarkable reflections of a sparkling light on the glasses, applied over the dark grey background, on the gold and silver objects and to suggest the sheen of the polished pewter plates. The uniform dark grey background and the brown stoneware jug silhouetted against it were painted over a light grey underpaint similar to that found in the table. The pewter plate on the right, the knife projecting over the table edge in the left foreground and the foot of the glass rummer on the left were painted over the brown paint of the wooden table. Penti- menti occur in the form of infrequent slight contour adjustments made during the painting stage, in the stoneware jug, the ornamented gold glass stand, the roll of white bread, the oranges. Few of the objects were painted completely before a partially overlapping object was added, except the silver-gilt foot of the nautilus cup on the right painted over the loaf of brown bread behind, the top slices of ham on the plate in the foreground then added to slightly overlap it. The painting is generally in very good condition, with few retouches in the still life objects and moderate abrasion overall. The colours have maintained their character and freshness, as have the rich impastos. A discoloured layer of old varnish is present. Retouching covers slight abrasion and small losses of the paint and ground layers along the edges. Scattered small retouches are mainly concentrated to the background at left and centre. The painting underwent conservation treatment in 1932. Provenance: Bequeathed by Carl Leonard Kinmanson in 1872. Exhibited: Paris, 1936–1937, no. 34; Stockholm 1977, no. 75; Stockholm 1995, no. 195; Stockholm 2000/2001, no. 15; Stockholm 2003/2004, no. 103; Stockholm 2004/2005, no. 21; Stockholm 2010, no. 59. Bibliography: NM Cat. 1873, p. 81; Göthe 1887, pp. 80–81; Göthe 1893, p. 99; Greindl 1956, p. 156; NM Cat. 1958, p. 69; Greindl 1983, p. 346 no. 54; NM Cat. 1990, p. 127. In this rich still life, on a wooden table stretching from side to side, are a blue-and-white Wan-li porcelain dish containing butter, stacked on top of a pewter plate with a large cheese, shown against a uniform dark grey background and in the foreground, a knife with a gilt and ivory handle projecting over the edge of the table; on the left, an unbroken roll of white bread, oranges and radishes; on the right, a pewter plate with slices of freshly cut ham and, farther back, a loaf of dark bread with a dish of sausages placed on top. Behind and in between these objects are a conical glass rummer (roemer), which seems to be empty, a glass of white wine on an ornamented gilt stand, a stoneware jug with a pewter lid, two delicate façon-de-venise goblets of varied heights, one filled with red wine and an opulent nautilus cup with gilt mount and figures (Triton; Cupid) Apart from a few floral bouquets and some garlands of flowers and fruit, Jacob van Es mainly painted still lifes of foodstuffs, dinner items and drinking glasses. This painting is a good example of a type of still life that can be said to occupy an intermediate position between his more elaborate, larger scale works depicting sumptuous meals (banketjes) and his frequent, compositionally more restrained, smaller scale, nearmonochromatic breakfast pieces (ontbijtje). Banquet and breakfast pieces such as this, depicting sumptuously “laid tables” that call to mind the richness and bounty the Netherlands had come to enjoy, developed as an independent sub-category of still life in Antwerp and Haarlem in the first two decades of the 17th century from the 16th century market and kitchen scenes of Pieter Aertsen, Joachim Beuckelaer and their successors. These do not depict tables with actual meals set out on them, but rather elegant sideboards or “showpiece tables” laid out on special occasions such as weddings, christenings, or for distinguished visitors. The most sumptuous items in the house, combined with select fruit and delicacies, were placed on these sideboards. In the present work the China dish, the elaborate Venetian style glasses, the rich ivory knife-handle and exquisite nautilus cup, all valuable possessions of a kind owned by a small elite, suggest a certain level of luxury. Similarly, the foods depicted, large long-lived hard cheeses, exotic imported fruit (oranges), white bread, meat and wine, were usually reserved for consumption by the upper classes. Depictions of freshly cut slices of ham, rolls of white bread, stoneware jugs and oranges are frequently recurring motifs in Van Es’ paintings. That the items on this table do not represent a specific meal becomes quite clear when one compares them with other still lifes in which like elements are found in similar arrangements.1 Still lifes featuring a variety of cheeses and a dish of butter as part of a laid table was a frequent motif in Dutch and Flemish painting of the first decades of the 17th century. The motif, when found in Dutch still lifes, has been given a wide range of interpretations.2 One reading views “dairy products as symbols of national economic prosperity: then as now, cheese and butter were valuable commodities, both within the Netherlands and for export throughout Europe”. 3 While it seems likely the cheeses in such still lifes referred to the riches of Holland, some of the other frequently depicted items, such as the exotic fruit, Wan-li porcelain bowls and Venetian style glasses, were not native products. A different interpretation, focusing on the motif of stacked cheese and butter, “invokes the aphorism ‘zuivel op zuivel is ‘t werk van den duivel’ (‘butter with cheese is the devil’s fare’), viewing the abundance and variety of dairy products as an admonition against wanton luxury and profligate consumption”. 4 As suggested by Chong, the cheeses in these still lifes should perhaps be compared to those found in paintings such as Hendrick Goltzius’ Lot and His Daughters of 1616 (Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum), which, “accompanied by plentiful wine, represent intemperance”. 5 Perhaps the present painting should thus be seen “as an exhortation to moderation, to uphold temperantia”. Although it might well be that in his choice of objects Van Es similarly strove to provide a moralizing message, the opulence of a lavish table and a demonstration of the mastery of difficult painterly problems were undoubtedly among his principal aims. In his cabinet-size breakfast and banquet pieces, Van Es – especially early on in his career – was influenced by his older colleague, Osias Beert I, the leading master in the first generation of Antwerp still life painters, who specialized in elegant “laid tables”. Later on, the artist moved away from Beert’s more “additive” approach to composition, developing a looser arrangement and more restricted selection of objects and a somewhat more unified and organic conception. His handling became more accomplished, the vantage point was lowered and, generally, his seemingly casual, elegant compositions became less cluttered with objects, less photographically detailed and more painterly. In the present picture Van Es has attained full mastery of textures, shapes, space and light. The artist here opted for a fairly restrained palette, though still brighter, with a wider range of colours than in his smaller scale, near-monochromatic “simple” breakfast pieces. The uniform dark grey background acts as a foil for the narrow range of colours, from creamy yellow to dark brown. The blue-and-white dish and gilded vessels and a few red, orange and green accents enrich the colour scheme. The objects – carefully arranged so as not to overlap too much – are depicted in a diffuse light that is bright at the front, but causes dark shadows to be cast toward the back. Like Beert, Van Es often set his glass vessels against very dark backgrounds and introduced marvellous reflections in the glasses, the gilded silver and polished pewter plates. The knife and bread roll teeter dangerously on the edge of the table creating a trompe-l’oeil effect, a motif favoured by artists such as Pieter Aertsen and already part of the standard visual repertoire by Van Es’ time. The exquisite rendering of textures is one of the hallmarks of Van Es’ still lifes, his direct and sturdy but subtle handling of impasto creating the impression of freshness characteristic of his work. These thick applications of paint that protrude noticeably from the paint surface were intended to suggest depth. The textured surface (kenlijkheyt) not only imitates the real surface of the object, but also gives the eye something on which to focus, therefore making the object appear closer.6 Only very rarely did Van Es date his works, which makes it difficult to establish a chronology. His known work shows little evidence of dramatic stylistic shifts or a radical sense of development. The painting carries, on the verso of the panel, the personal mark of the Antwerp panel-maker Michiel Vrient (active 1615– 1637), who died in 1637.7 His date of decease coincides with the earliest felling date of the tree (1635) from which the panel was cut, as determined by dendrochronological analysis (see Technical Notes), plus the minimum two years of seasoning of the wood, thus establishing a terminus post quem of 1637 for the painting. A comparable still life, slightly more restrained in composition, is the Still Life of Cheese, Fish, and Bread (present whereabouts unknown),8 and another, of approximately the same size and very similar in style and execution, the Still Life of Oysters, a Jug, and a Wine Glass, on the British art market in 1984 (formerly Coll. Jean Gismondi, Antibes).9 CF 1 The same façon-de-Venise glasses recur in several signed paintings, among them one that was on the art market in the early 1990s, Still Life with Bread, Shrimps, Olives and Drinking Glasses, oil on copper, 32.2 x 40 cm, signed; present whereabouts unknown, formerly with David Koetser Gallery, Zürich, the painting appeared in a sale New York, Christie’s, 31 May 1991, lot 83, colour repr. See also Meijer 2003, under no. 30, illus. The identical stoneware jug recurs, for example, in a painting, Still Life with Oysters, a Jug, and a Wine Glass, that was on the British art market in the 1980s (London, Christie’s, 11 December 1984, lot 106) and in a signed piece, Still Life with Cheese, Fish, and Bread (present whereabouts unknown), while a similar plate of slices of ham can be seen in signed still lifes in Luxemburg (Musée National d’Histoire et d’Art) and in a Swiss private collection; for all of the above see the photographs on file at the RKD, The Hague. 2 The following passage is based on Chong’s discussion of Clara Peeters’ still lifes in Amsterdam/Cleveland 1998, pp. 128–130 (under no. 9). For general survey of opinions and a new hypothesis, see also Bruyn 1996. 3 Chong in Amsterdam/Cleveland 1998, p. 128. For a discussion of the dairy industry in the Netherlands, see De Vries 1974, pp. 137–164, and the contemporary literary references cited in Chong 1988, pp. 70–71. 4 Chong in Amsterdam/Cleveland 1998, p.128, citing De Jongh in Auckland 1982, pp. 65–69 (on Clara Peeters’ Still Life with Cheeses, Amsterdam, Priv.coll.). For a Eucharistic interpretation of the motif, see Lammers 1979, pp. 404–408. 5 Chong in Amsterdam/Cleveland 1998, p.132. On Goltzius’ painting, cf. Van Thiel in Amsterdam 1993/1994, no. 217. 6 This trick was not uncommon among 17th-century Flemish and Dutch still life painters and is probably best described by Samuel van Hoogstraeten in his Inleyding tot de Hooge Schoole der Schilderkunst: anders de Zichtbare Werelt…(Rotterdam 1678): “…perceptibility [kenlijkheyt] alone makes the objects appear closer, and conversely that smoothness [egaelheyt] makes them recede, and I therefore desire that that which is to appear in the foreground, be painted roughly and briskly, and that which is to recede be painted more neatly and purely the further away it lies…” (p. 307). 7 On Michiel Vrient, see Gepts 1954–1960; Schuster-Gawlowska 1989; Van Damme 1990, 223–26; and Wadum 1998. 8 Oil on wood, 55.0 x 73.5 cm; see photo on file at the RKD. 9 Oil on wood, 52.0 x 72.0 cm, sold at Christie’s, London, 11 December 1984, lot 106; see Greindl 1983, no. 63, pl. 30.[End] Elegantly laid tables are a constant theme in Van Es’s still life paintings. Here everything is carefully arranged. In the middle is a large cheese reflected in a shiny pewter bowl. Among bread, oranges, and slices of ham, various expensive items are visible—a Chinese bowl, Venetian glassware, a knife with an ivory handle, and a nautilus trophy. These kinds of depictions of luxury and opulence have often been interpreted as having some sort of moralizing import. But perhaps the artist just wanted to show off his dazzling illusionistic technique.Description in Flemish paintings C. 1600-C. 1800 III, Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, 2010, cat.no. 75: Technical notes: The painting’s support is an oak panel (± 0.9–1.1 cm thick) consisting of a single radial board with a horizontal grain. Bevelling occurs along the left and right edges on the verso. The panel has a slight convex warp across the grain. Saw marks are visible on the verso, together with scattered wormholes, mainly concentrated in an area at centre right and along the upper edge (with splintered wood). Dendrochronological examination and analysis have determined a felling date for the tree between c. 1635 and 1651. The wood originates from the region of northern Germany. The verso of the panel carries the brand of the city of Antwerp – two hands and a castle – as well as the monogram “MV”, the mark of the Antwerp panel-maker Michiel Vriendt (see further below). Such panel marks were used as guarantees of quality by the St. Luke’s Guild of Antwerp, according to regulations instituted in November 1617. Inscriptions in white chalk on the verso: “534”; “48”; and “X”. The panel was prepared with a moderately thick, brush-applied, off-white ground layer containing chalk, which hides the wood grain of the support, followed by a thin buff-coloured imprimatura. Infrared reflectography detected traces of a dark underdrawing in a liquid medium used to define the outlines of objects, for example, the upper contour of the large cheese. Paint was applied in multiple opaque, semi-transparent and translucent layers. Thinly painted areas such as the wooden table, in which semi-transparent light and dark brown medium-rich paint was applied over a light grey underpaint, alternate with rich impastos in the cheese, butter, roll of white bread, slices of ham, oranges, radish leaves, in which the fluid brushwork and viscous paint applied in thick relief create pronounced and varied textural effects intended to suggest depth (see further below). For example, the texture of the orange rind was literally imitated by applying thick pointillistic touches, or blotches of wet-into-wet paint that protrude noticeably from the paint surface. Judiciously placed brilliant white and bright yellow pastose highlights were used to create the remarkable reflections of a sparkling light on the glasses, applied over the dark grey background, on the gold and silver objects and to suggest the sheen of the polished pewter plates. The uniform dark grey background and the brown stoneware jug silhouetted against it were painted over a light grey underpaint similar to that found in the table. The pewter plate on the right, the knife projecting over the table edge in the left foreground and the foot of the glass rummer on the left were painted over the brown paint of the wooden table. Penti- menti occur in the form of infrequent slight contour adjustments made during the painting stage, in the stoneware jug, the ornamented gold glass stand, the roll of white bread, the oranges. Few of the objects were painted completely before a partially overlapping object was added, except the silver-gilt foot of the nautilus cup on the right painted over the loaf of brown bread behind, the top slices of ham on the plate in the foreground then added to slightly overlap it. The painting is generally in very good condition, with few retouches in the still life objects and moderate abrasion overall. The colours have maintained their character and freshness, as have the rich impastos. A discoloured layer of old varnish is present. Retouching covers slight abrasion and small losses of the paint and ground layers along the edges. Scattered small retouches are mainly concentrated to the background at left and centre. The painting underwent conservation treatment in 1932. Provenance: Bequeathed by Carl Leonard Kinmanson in 1872. Exhibited: Paris, 1936–1937, no. 34; Stockholm 1977, no. 75; Stockholm 1995, no. 195; Stockholm 2000/2001, no. 15; Stockholm 2003/2004, no. 103; Stockholm 2004/2005, no. 21; Stockholm 2010, no. 59. Bibliography: NM Cat. 1873, p. 81; Göthe 1887, pp. 80–81; Göthe 1893, p. 99; Greindl 1956, p. 156; NM Cat. 1958, p. 69; Greindl 1983, p. 346 no. 54; NM Cat. 1990, p. 127. In this rich still life, on a wooden table stretching from side to side, are a blue-and-white Wan-li porcelain dish containing butter, stacked on top of a pewter plate with a large cheese, shown against a uniform dark grey background and in the foreground, a knife with a gilt and ivory handle projecting over the edge of the table; on the left, an unbroken roll of white bread, oranges and radishes; on the right, a pewter plate with slices of freshly cut ham and, farther back, a loaf of dark bread with a dish of sausages placed on top. Behind and in between these objects are a conical glass rummer (roemer), which seems to be empty, a glass of white wine on an ornamented gilt stand, a stoneware jug with a pewter lid, two delicate façon-de-venise goblets of varied heights, one filled with red wine and an opulent nautilus cup with gilt mount and figures (Triton; Cupid) Apart from a few floral bouquets and some garlands of flowers and fruit, Jacob van Es mainly painted still lifes of foodstuffs, dinner items and drinking glasses. This painting is a good example of a type of still life that can be said to occupy an intermediate position between his more elaborate, larger scale works depicting sumptuous meals (banketjes) and his frequent, compositionally more restrained, smaller scale, nearmonochromatic breakfast pieces (ontbijtje). Banquet and breakfast pieces such as this, depicting sumptuously “laid tables” that call to mind the richness and bounty the Netherlands had come to enjoy, developed as an independent sub-category of still life in Antwerp and Haarlem in the first two decades of the 17th century from the 16th century market and kitchen scenes of Pieter Aertsen, Joachim Beuckelaer and their successors. These do not depict tables with actual meals set out on them, but rather elegant sideboards or “showpiece tables” laid out on special occasions such as weddings, christenings, or for distinguished visitors. The most sumptuous items in the house, combined with select fruit and delicacies, were placed on these sideboards. In the present work the China dish, the elaborate Venetian style glasses, the rich ivory knife-handle and exquisite nautilus cup, all valuable possessions of a kind owned by a small elite, suggest a certain level of luxury. Similarly, the foods depicted, large long-lived hard cheeses, exotic imported fruit (oranges), white bread, meat and wine, were usually reserved for consumption by the upper classes. Depictions of freshly cut slices of ham, rolls of white bread, stoneware jugs and oranges are frequently recurring motifs in Van Es’ paintings. That the items on this table do not represent a specific meal becomes quite clear when one compares them with other still lifes in which like elements are found in similar arrangements.1 Still lifes featuring a variety of cheeses and a dish of butter as part of a laid table was a frequent motif in Dutch and Flemish painting of the first decades of the 17th century. The motif, when found in Dutch still lifes, has been given a wide range of interpretations.2 One reading views “dairy products as symbols of national economic prosperity: then as now, cheese and butter were valuable commodities, both within the Netherlands and for export throughout Europe”. 3 While it seems likely the cheeses in such still lifes referred to the riches of Holland, some of the other frequently depicted items, such as the exotic fruit, Wan-li porcelain bowls and Venetian style glasses, were not native products. A different interpretation, focusing on the motif of stacked cheese and butter, “invokes the aphorism ‘zuivel op zuivel is ‘t werk van den duivel’ (‘butter with cheese is the devil’s fare’), viewing the abundance and variety of dairy products as an admonition against wanton luxury and profligate consumption”. 4 As suggested by Chong, the cheeses in these still lifes should perhaps be compared to those found in paintings such as Hendrick Goltzius’ Lot and His Daughters of 1616 (Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum), which, “accompanied by plentiful wine, represent intemperance”. 5 Perhaps the present painting should thus be seen “as an exhortation to moderation, to uphold temperantia”. Although it might well be that in his choice of objects Van Es similarly strove to provide a moralizing message, the opulence of a lavish table and a demonstration of the mastery of difficult painterly problems were undoubtedly among his principal aims. In his cabinet-size breakfast and banquet pieces, Van Es – especially early on in his career – was influenced by his older colleague, Osias Beert I, the leading master in the first generation of Antwerp still life painters, who specialized in elegant “laid tables”. Later on, the artist moved away from Beert’s more “additive” approach to composition, developing a looser arrangement and more restricted selection of objects and a somewhat more unified and organic conception. His handling became more accomplished, the vantage point was lowered and, generally, his seemingly casual, elegant compositions became less cluttered with objects, less photographically detailed and more painterly. In the present picture Van Es has attained full mastery of textures, shapes, space and light. The artist here opted for a fairly restrained palette, though still brighter, with a wider range of colours than in his smaller scale, near-monochromatic “simple” breakfast pieces. The uniform dark grey background acts as a foil for the narrow range of colours, from creamy yellow to dark brown. The blue-and-white dish and gilded vessels and a few red, orange and green accents enrich the colour scheme. The objects – carefully arranged so as not to overlap too much – are depicted in a diffuse light that is bright at the front, but causes dark shadows to be cast toward the back. Like Beert, Van Es often set his glass vessels against very dark backgrounds and introduced marvellous reflections in the glasses, the gilded silver and polished pewter plates. The knife and bread roll teeter dangerously on the edge of the table creating a trompe-l’oeil effect, a motif favoured by artists such as Pieter Aertsen and already part of the standard visual repertoire by Van Es’ time. The exquisite rendering of textures is one of the hallmarks of Van Es’ still lifes, his direct and sturdy but subtle handling of impasto creating the impression of freshness characteristic of his work. These thick applications of paint that protrude noticeably from the paint surface were intended to suggest depth. The textured surface (kenlijkheyt) not only imitates the real surface of the object, but also gives the eye something on which to focus, therefore making the object appear closer.6 Only very rarely did Van Es date his works, which makes it difficult to establish a chronology. His known work shows little evidence of dramatic stylistic shifts or a radical sense of development. The painting carries, on the verso of the panel, the personal mark of the Antwerp panel-maker Michiel Vrient (active 1615– 1637), who died in 1637.7 His date of decease coincides with the earliest felling date of the tree (1635) from which the panel was cut, as determined by dendrochronological analysis (see Technical Notes), plus the minimum two years of seasoning of the wood, thus establishing a terminus post quem of 1637 for the painting. A comparable still life, slightly more restrained in composition, is the Still Life of Cheese, Fish, and Bread (present whereabouts unknown),8 and another, of approximately the same size and very similar in style and execution, the Still Life of Oysters, a Jug, and a Wine Glass, on the British art market in 1984 (formerly Coll. Jean Gismondi, Antibes).9 CF 1 The same façon-de-Venise glasses recur in several signed paintings, among them one that was on the art market in the early 1990s, Still Life with Bread, Shrimps, Olives and Drinking Glasses, oil on copper, 32.2 x 40 cm, signed; present whereabouts unknown, formerly with David Koetser Gallery, Zürich, the painting appeared in a sale New York, Christie’s, 31 May 1991, lot 83, colour repr. See also Meijer 2003, under no. 30, illus. The identical stoneware jug recurs, for example, in a painting, Still Life with Oysters, a Jug, and a Wine Glass, that was on the British art market in the 1980s (London, Christie’s, 11 December 1984, lot 106) and in a signed piece, Still Life with Cheese, Fish, and Bread (present whereabouts unknown), while a similar plate of slices of ham can be seen in signed still lifes in Luxemburg (Musée National d’Histoire et d’Art) and in a Swiss private collection; for all of the above see the photographs on file at the RKD, The Hague. 2 The following passage is based on Chong’s discussion of Clara Peeters’ still lifes in Amsterdam/Cleveland 1998, pp. 128–130 (under no. 9). For general survey of opinions and a new hypothesis, see also Bruyn 1996. 3 Chong in Amsterdam/Cleveland 1998, p. 128. For a discussion of the dairy industry in the Netherlands, see De Vries 1974, pp. 137–164, and the contemporary literary references cited in Chong 1988, pp. 70–71. 4 Chong in Amsterdam/Cleveland 1998, p.128, citing De Jongh in Auckland 1982, pp. 65–69 (on Clara Peeters’ Still Life with Cheeses, Amsterdam, Priv.coll.). For a Eucharistic interpretation of the motif, see Lammers 1979, pp. 404–408. 5 Chong in Amsterdam/Cleveland 1998, p.132. On Goltzius’ painting, cf. Van Thiel in Amsterdam 1993/1994, no. 217. 6 This trick was not uncommon among 17th-century Flemish and Dutch still life painters and is probably best described by Samuel van Hoogstraeten in his Inleyding tot de Hooge Schoole der Schilderkunst: anders de Zichtbare Werelt…(Rotterdam 1678): “…perceptibility [kenlijkheyt] alone makes the objects appear closer, and conversely that smoothness [egaelheyt] makes them recede, and I therefore desire that that which is to appear in the foreground, be painted roughly and briskly, and that which is to recede be painted more neatly and purely the further away it lies…” (p. 307). 7 On Michiel Vrient, see Gepts 1954–1960; Schuster-Gawlowska 1989; Van Damme 1990, 223–26; and Wadum 1998. 8 Oil on wood, 55.0 x 73.5 cm; see photo on file at the RKD. 9 Oil on wood, 52.0 x 72.0 cm, sold at Christie’s, London, 11 December 1984, lot 106; see Greindl 1983, no. 63, pl. 30.[End] Elegantly laid tables are a constant theme in Van Es’s still life paintings. Here everything is carefully arranged. In the middle is a large cheese reflected in a shiny pewter bowl. Among bread, oranges, and slices of ham, various expensive items are visible—a Chinese bowl, Venetian glassware, a knife with an ivory handle, and a nautilus trophy. These kinds of depictions of luxury and opulence have often been interpreted as having some sort of moralizing import. But perhaps the artist just wanted to show off his dazzling illusionistic technique.Description in Flemish paintings C. 1600-C. 1800 III, Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, 2010, cat.no. 75: Technical notes: The painting’s support is an oak panel (± 0.9–1.1 cm thick) consisting of a single radial board with a horizontal grain. Bevelling occurs along the left and right edges on the verso. The panel has a slight convex warp across the grain. Saw marks are visible on the verso, together with scattered wormholes, mainly concentrated in an area at centre right and along the upper edge (with splintered wood). Dendrochronological examination and analysis have determined a felling date for the tree between c. 1635 and 1651. The wood originates from the region of northern Germany. The verso of the panel carries the brand of the city of Antwerp – two hands and a castle – as well as the monogram “MV”, the mark of the Antwerp panel-maker Michiel Vriendt (see further below). Such panel marks were used as guarantees of quality by the St. Luke’s Guild of Antwerp, according to regulations instituted in November 1617. Inscriptions in white chalk on the verso: “534”; “48”; and “X”. The panel was prepared with a moderately thick, brush-applied, off-white ground layer containing chalk, which hides the wood grain of the support, followed by a thin buff-coloured imprimatura. Infrared reflectography detected traces of a dark underdrawing in a liquid medium used to define the outlines of objects, for example, the upper contour of the large cheese. Paint was applied in multiple opaque, semi-transparent and translucent layers. Thinly painted areas such as the wooden table, in which semi-transparent light and dark brown medium-rich paint was applied over a light grey underpaint, alternate with rich impastos in the cheese, butter, roll of white bread, slices of ham, oranges, radish leaves, in which the fluid brushwork and viscous paint applied in thick relief create pronounced and varied textural effects intended to suggest depth (see further below). For example, the texture of the orange rind was literally imitated by applying thick pointillistic touches, or blotches of wet-into-wet paint that protrude noticeably from the paint surface. Judiciously placed brilliant white and bright yellow pastose highlights were used to create the remarkable reflections of a sparkling light on the glasses, applied over the dark grey background, on the gold and silver objects and to suggest the sheen of the polished pewter plates. The uniform dark grey background and the brown stoneware jug silhouetted against it were painted over a light grey underpaint similar to that found in the table. The pewter plate on the right, the knife projecting over the table edge in the left foreground and the foot of the glass rummer on the left were painted over the brown paint of the wooden table. Penti- menti occur in the form of infrequent slight contour adjustments made during the painting stage, in the stoneware jug, the ornamented gold glass stand, the roll of white bread, the oranges. Few of the objects were painted completely before a partially overlapping object was added, except the silver-gilt foot of the nautilus cup on the right painted over the loaf of brown bread behind, the top slices of ham on the plate in the foreground then added to slightly overlap it. The painting is generally in very good condition, with few retouches in the still life objects and moderate abrasion overall. The colours have maintained their character and freshness, as have the rich impastos. A discoloured layer of old varnish is present. Retouching covers slight abrasion and small losses of the paint and ground layers along the edges. Scattered small retouches are mainly concentrated to the background at left and centre. The painting underwent conservation treatment in 1932. Provenance: Bequeathed by Carl Leonard Kinmanson in 1872. Exhibited: Paris, 1936–1937, no. 34; Stockholm 1977, no. 75; Stockholm 1995, no. 195; Stockholm 2000/2001, no. 15; Stockholm 2003/2004, no. 103; Stockholm 2004/2005, no. 21; Stockholm 2010, no. 59. Bibliography: NM Cat. 1873, p. 81; Göthe 1887, pp. 80–81; Göthe 1893, p. 99; Greindl 1956, p. 156; NM Cat. 1958, p. 69; Greindl 1983, p. 346 no. 54; NM Cat. 1990, p. 127. In this rich still life, on a wooden table stretching from side to side, are a blue-and-white Wan-li porcelain dish containing butter, stacked on top of a pewter plate with a large cheese, shown against a uniform dark grey background and in the foreground, a knife with a gilt and ivory handle projecting over the edge of the table; on the left, an unbroken roll of white bread, oranges and radishes; on the right, a pewter plate with slices of freshly cut ham and, farther back, a loaf of dark bread with a dish of sausages placed on top. Behind and in between these objects are a conical glass rummer (roemer), which seems to be empty, a glass of white wine on an ornamented gilt stand, a stoneware jug with a pewter lid, two delicate façon-de-venise goblets of varied heights, one filled with red wine and an opulent nautilus cup with gilt mount and figures (Triton; Cupid) Apart from a few floral bouquets and some garlands of flowers and fruit, Jacob van Es mainly painted still lifes of foodstuffs, dinner items and drinking glasses. This painting is a good example of a type of still life that can be said to occupy an intermediate position between his more elaborate, larger scale works depicting sumptuous meals (banketjes) and his frequent, compositionally more restrained, smaller scale, nearmonochromatic breakfast pieces (ontbijtje). Banquet and breakfast pieces such as this, depicting sumptuously “laid tables” that call to mind the richness and bounty the Netherlands had come to enjoy, developed as an independent sub-category of still life in Antwerp and Haarlem in the first two decades of the 17th century from the 16th century market and kitchen scenes of Pieter Aertsen, Joachim Beuckelaer and their successors. These do not depict tables with actual meals set out on them, but rather elegant sideboards or “showpiece tables” laid out on special occasions such as weddings, christenings, or for distinguished visitors. The most sumptuous items in the house, combined with select fruit and delicacies, were placed on these sideboards. In the present work the China dish, the elaborate Venetian style glasses, the rich ivory knife-handle and exquisite nautilus cup, all valuable possessions of a kind owned by a small elite, suggest a certain level of luxury. Similarly, the foods depicted, large long-lived hard cheeses, exotic imported fruit (oranges), white bread, meat and wine, were usually reserved for consumption by the upper classes. Depictions of freshly cut slices of ham, rolls of white bread, stoneware jugs and oranges are frequently recurring motifs in Van Es’ paintings. That the items on this table do not represent a specific meal becomes quite clear when one compares them with other still lifes in which like elements are found in similar arrangements.1 Still lifes featuring a variety of cheeses and a dish of butter as part of a laid table was a frequent motif in Dutch and Flemish painting of the first decades of the 17th century. The motif, when found in Dutch still lifes, has been given a wide range of interpretations.2 One reading views “dairy products as symbols of national economic prosperity: then as now, cheese and butter were valuable commodities, both within the Netherlands and for export throughout Europe”. 3 While it seems likely the cheeses in such still lifes referred to the riches of Holland, some of the other frequently depicted items, such as the exotic fruit, Wan-li porcelain bowls and Venetian style glasses, were not native products. A different interpretation, focusing on the motif of stacked cheese and butter, “invokes the aphorism ‘zuivel op zuivel is ‘t werk van den duivel’ (‘butter with cheese is the devil’s fare’), viewing the abundance and variety of dairy products as an admonition against wanton luxury and profligate consumption”. 4 As suggested by Chong, the cheeses in these still lifes should perhaps be compared to those found in paintings such as Hendrick Goltzius’ Lot and His Daughters of 1616 (Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum), which, “accompanied by plentiful wine, represent intemperance”. 5 Perhaps the present painting should thus be seen “as an exhortation to moderation, to uphold temperantia”. Although it might well be that in his choice of objects Van Es similarly strove to provide a moralizing message, the opulence of a lavish table and a demonstration of the mastery of difficult painterly problems were undoubtedly among his principal aims. In his cabinet-size breakfast and banquet pieces, Van Es – especially early on in his career – was influenced by his older colleague, Osias Beert I, the leading master in the first generation of Antwerp still life painters, who specialized in elegant “laid tables”. Later on, the artist moved away from Beert’s more “additive” approach to composition, developing a looser arrangement and more restricted selection of objects and a somewhat more unified and organic conception. His handling became more accomplished, the vantage point was lowered and, generally, his seemingly casual, elegant compositions became less cluttered with objects, less photographically detailed and more painterly. In the present picture Van Es has attained full mastery of textures, shapes, space and light. The artist here opted for a fairly restrained palette, though still brighter, with a wider range of colours than in his smaller scale, near-monochromatic “simple” breakfast pieces. The uniform dark grey background acts as a foil for the narrow range of colours, from creamy yellow to dark brown. The blue-and-white dish and gilded vessels and a few red, orange and green accents enrich the colour scheme. The objects – carefully arranged so as not to overlap too much – are depicted in a diffuse light that is bright at the front, but causes dark shadows to be cast toward the back. Like Beert, Van Es often set his glass vessels against very dark backgrounds and introduced marvellous reflections in the glasses, the gilded silver and polished pewter plates. The knife and bread roll teeter dangerously on the edge of the table creating a trompe-l’oeil effect, a motif favoured by artists such as Pieter Aertsen and already part of the standard visual repertoire by Van Es’ time. The exquisite rendering of textures is one of the hallmarks of Van Es’ still lifes, his direct and sturdy but subtle handling of impasto creating the impression of freshness characteristic of his work. These thick applications of paint that protrude noticeably from the paint surface were intended to suggest depth. The textured surface (kenlijkheyt) not only imitates the real surface of the object, but also gives the eye something on which to focus, therefore making the object appear closer.6 Only very rarely did Van Es date his works, which makes it difficult to establish a chronology. His known work shows little evidence of dramatic stylistic shifts or a radical sense of development. The painting carries, on the verso of the panel, the personal mark of the Antwerp panel-maker Michiel Vrient (active 1615– 1637), who died in 1637.7 His date of decease coincides with the earliest felling date of the tree (1635) from which the panel was cut, as determined by dendrochronological analysis (see Technical Notes), plus the minimum two years of seasoning of the wood, thus establishing a terminus post quem of 1637 for the painting. A comparable still life, slightly more restrained in composition, is the Still Life of Cheese, Fish, and Bread (present whereabouts unknown),8 and another, of approximately the same size and very similar in style and execution, the Still Life of Oysters, a Jug, and a Wine Glass, on the British art market in 1984 (formerly Coll. Jean Gismondi, Antibes).9 CF 1 The same façon-de-Venise glasses recur in several signed paintings, among them one that was on the art market in the early 1990s, Still Life with Bread, Shrimps, Olives and Drinking Glasses, oil on copper, 32.2 x 40 cm, signed; present whereabouts unknown, formerly with David Koetser Gallery, Zürich, the painting appeared in a sale New York, Christie’s, 31 May 1991, lot 83, colour repr. See also Meijer 2003, under no. 30, illus. The identical stoneware jug recurs, for example, in a painting, Still Life with Oysters, a Jug, and a Wine Glass, that was on the British art market in the 1980s (London, Christie’s, 11 December 1984, lot 106) and in a signed piece, Still Life with Cheese, Fish, and Bread (present whereabouts unknown), while a similar plate of slices of ham can be seen in signed still lifes in Luxemburg (Musée National d’Histoire et d’Art) and in a Swiss private collection; for all of the above see the photographs on file at the RKD, The Hague. 2 The following passage is based on Chong’s discussion of Clara Peeters’ still lifes in Amsterdam/Cleveland 1998, pp. 128–130 (under no. 9). For general survey of opinions and a new hypothesis, see also Bruyn 1996. 3 Chong in Amsterdam/Cleveland 1998, p. 128. For a discussion of the dairy industry in the Netherlands, see De Vries 1974, pp. 137–164, and the contemporary literary references cited in Chong 1988, pp. 70–71. 4 Chong in Amsterdam/Cleveland 1998, p.128, citing De Jongh in Auckland 1982, pp. 65–69 (on Clara Peeters’ Still Life with Cheeses, Amsterdam, Priv.coll.). For a Eucharistic interpretation of the motif, see Lammers 1979, pp. 404–408. 5 Chong in Amsterdam/Cleveland 1998, p.132. On Goltzius’ painting, cf. Van Thiel in Amsterdam 1993/1994, no. 217. 6 This trick was not uncommon among 17th-century Flemish and Dutch still life painters and is probably best described by Samuel van Hoogstraeten in his Inleyding tot de Hooge Schoole der Schilderkunst: anders de Zichtbare Werelt…(Rotterdam 1678): “…perceptibility [kenlijkheyt] alone makes the objects appear closer, and conversely that smoothness [egaelheyt] makes them recede, and I therefore desire that that which is to appear in the foreground, be painted roughly and briskly, and that which is to recede be painted more neatly and purely the further away it lies…” (p. 307). 7 On Michiel Vrient, see Gepts 1954–1960; Schuster-Gawlowska 1989; Van Damme 1990, 223–26; and Wadum 1998. 8 Oil on wood, 55.0 x 73.5 cm; see photo on file at the RKD. 9 Oil on wood, 52.0 x 72.0 cm, sold at Christie’s, London, 11 December 1984, lot 106; see Greindl 1983, no. 63, pl. 30.[End] Elegantly laid tables are a constant theme in Van Es’s still life paintings. Here everything is carefully arranged. In the middle is a large cheese reflected in a shiny pewter bowl. Among bread, oranges, and slices of ham, various expensive items are visible—a Chinese bowl, Venetian glassware, a knife with an ivory handle, and a nautilus trophy. These kinds of depictions of luxury and opulence have often been interpreted as having some sort of moralizing import. But perhaps the artist just wanted to show off his dazzling illusionistic technique.Description in Flemish paintings C. 1600-C. 1800 III, Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, 2010, cat.no. 75: Technical notes: The painting’s support is an oak panel (± 0.9–1.1 cm thick) consisting of a single radial board with a horizontal grain. Bevelling occurs along the left and right edges on the verso. The panel has a slight convex warp across the grain. Saw marks are visible on the verso, together with scattered wormholes, mainly concentrated in an area at centre right and along the upper edge (with splintered wood). Dendrochronological examination and analysis have determined a felling date for the tree between c. 1635 and 1651. The wood originates from the region of northern Germany. The verso of the panel carries the brand of the city of Antwerp – two hands and a castle – as well as the monogram “MV”, the mark of the Antwerp panel-maker Michiel Vriendt (see further below). Such panel marks were used as guarantees of quality by the St. Luke’s Guild of Antwerp, according to regulations instituted in November 1617. Inscriptions in white chalk on the verso: “534”; “48”; and “X”. The panel was prepared with a moderately thick, brush-applied, off-white ground layer containing chalk, which hides the wood grain of the support, followed by a thin buff-coloured imprimatura. Infrared reflectography detected traces of a dark underdrawing in a liquid medium used to define the outlines of objects, for example, the upper contour of the large cheese. Paint was applied in multiple opaque, semi-transparent and translucent layers. Thinly painted areas such as the wooden table, in which semi-transparent light and dark brown medium-rich paint was applied over a light grey underpaint, alternate with rich impastos in the cheese, butter, roll of white bread, slices of ham, oranges, radish leaves, in which the fluid brushwork and viscous paint applied in thick relief create pronounced and varied textural effects intended to suggest depth (see further below). For example, the texture of the orange rind was literally imitated by applying thick pointillistic touches, or blotches of wet-into-wet paint that protrude noticeably from the paint surface. Judiciously placed brilliant white and bright yellow pastose highlights were used to create the remarkable reflections of a sparkling light on the glasses, applied over the dark grey background, on the gold and silver objects and to suggest the sheen of the polished pewter plates. The uniform dark grey background and the brown stoneware jug silhouetted against it were painted over a light grey underpaint similar to that found in the table. The pewter plate on the right, the knife projecting over the table edge in the left foreground and the foot of the glass rummer on the left were painted over the brown paint of the wooden table. Penti- menti occur in the form of infrequent slight contour adjustments made during the painting stage, in the stoneware jug, the ornamented gold glass stand, the roll of white bread, the oranges. Few of the objects were painted completely before a partially overlapping object was added, except the silver-gilt foot of the nautilus cup on the right painted over the loaf of brown bread behind, the top slices of ham on the plate in the foreground then added to slightly overlap it. The painting is generally in very good condition, with few retouches in the still life objects and moderate abrasion overall. The colours have maintained their character and freshness, as have the rich impastos. A discoloured layer of old varnish is present. Retouching covers slight abrasion and small losses of the paint and ground layers along the edges. Scattered small retouches are mainly concentrated to the background at left and centre. The painting underwent conservation treatment in 1932. Provenance: Bequeathed by Carl Leonard Kinmanson in 1872. Exhibited: Paris, 1936–1937, no. 34; Stockholm 1977, no. 75; Stockholm 1995, no. 195; Stockholm 2000/2001, no. 15; Stockholm 2003/2004, no. 103; Stockholm 2004/2005, no. 21; Stockholm 2010, no. 59. Bibliography: NM Cat. 1873, p. 81; Göthe 1887, pp. 80–81; Göthe 1893, p. 99; Greindl 1956, p. 156; NM Cat. 1958, p. 69; Greindl 1983, p. 346 no. 54; NM Cat. 1990, p. 127. In this rich still life, on a wooden table stretching from side to side, are a blue-and-white Wan-li porcelain dish containing butter, stacked on top of a pewter plate with a large cheese, shown against a uniform dark grey background and in the foreground, a knife with a gilt and ivory handle projecting over the edge of the table; on the left, an unbroken roll of white bread, oranges and radishes; on the right, a pewter plate with slices of freshly cut ham and, farther back, a loaf of dark bread with a dish of sausages placed on top. Behind and in between these objects are a conical glass rummer (roemer), which seems to be empty, a glass of white wine on an ornamented gilt stand, a stoneware jug with a pewter lid, two delicate façon-de-venise goblets of varied heights, one filled with red wine and an opulent nautilus cup with gilt mount and figures (Triton; Cupid) Apart from a few floral bouquets and some garlands of flowers and fruit, Jacob van Es mainly painted still lifes of foodstuffs, dinner items and drinking glasses. This painting is a good example of a type of still life that can be said to occupy an intermediate position between his more elaborate, larger scale works depicting sumptuous meals (banketjes) and his frequent, compositionally more restrained, smaller scale, nearmonochromatic breakfast pieces (ontbijtje). Banquet and breakfast pieces such as this, depicting sumptuously “laid tables” that call to mind the richness and bounty the Netherlands had come to enjoy, developed as an independent sub-category of still life in Antwerp and Haarlem in the first two decades of the 17th century from the 16th century market and kitchen scenes of Pieter Aertsen, Joachim Beuckelaer and their successors. These do not depict tables with actual meals set out on them, but rather elegant sideboards or “showpiece tables” laid out on special occasions such as weddings, christenings, or for distinguished visitors. The most sumptuous items in the house, combined with select fruit and delicacies, were placed on these sideboards. In the present work the China dish, the elaborate Venetian style glasses, the rich ivory knife-handle and exquisite nautilus cup, all valuable possessions of a kind owned by a small elite, suggest a certain level of luxury. Similarly, the foods depicted, large long-lived hard cheeses, exotic imported fruit (oranges), white bread, meat and wine, were usually reserved for consumption by the upper classes. Depictions of freshly cut slices of ham, rolls of white bread, stoneware jugs and oranges are frequently recurring motifs in Van Es’ paintings. That the items on this table do not represent a specific meal becomes quite clear when one compares them with other still lifes in which like elements are found in similar arrangements.1 Still lifes featuring a variety of cheeses and a dish of butter as part of a laid table was a frequent motif in Dutch and Flemish painting of the first decades of the 17th century. The motif, when found in Dutch still lifes, has been given a wide range of interpretations.2 One reading views “dairy products as symbols of national economic prosperity: then as now, cheese and butter were valuable commodities, both within the Netherlands and for export throughout Europe”. 3 While it seems likely the cheeses in such still lifes referred to the riches of Holland, some of the other frequently depicted items, such as the exotic fruit, Wan-li porcelain bowls and Venetian style glasses, were not native products. A different interpretation, focusing on the motif of stacked cheese and butter, “invokes the aphorism ‘zuivel op zuivel is ‘t werk van den duivel’ (‘butter with cheese is the devil’s fare’), viewing the abundance and variety of dairy products as an admonition against wanton luxury and profligate consumption”. 4 As suggested by Chong, the cheeses in these still lifes should perhaps be compared to those found in paintings such as Hendrick Goltzius’ Lot and His Daughters of 1616 (Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum), which, “accompanied by plentiful wine, represent intemperance”. 5 Perhaps the present painting should thus be seen “as an exhortation to moderation, to uphold temperantia”. Although it might well be that in his choice of objects Van Es similarly strove to provide a moralizing message, the opulence of a lavish table and a demonstration of the mastery of difficult painterly problems were undoubtedly among his principal aims. In his cabinet-size breakfast and banquet pieces, Van Es – especially early on in his career – was influenced by his older colleague, Osias Beert I, the leading master in the first generation of Antwerp still life painters, who specialized in elegant “laid tables”. Later on, the artist moved away from Beert’s more “additive” approach to composition, developing a looser arrangement and more restricted selection of objects and a somewhat more unified and organic conception. His handling became more accomplished, the vantage point was lowered and, generally, his seemingly casual, elegant compositions became less cluttered with objects, less photographically detailed and more painterly. In the present picture Van Es has attained full mastery of textures, shapes, space and light. The artist here opted for a fairly restrained palette, though still brighter, with a wider range of colours than in his smaller scale, near-monochromatic “simple” breakfast pieces. The uniform dark grey background acts as a foil for the narrow range of colours, from creamy yellow to dark brown. The blue-and-white dish and gilded vessels and a few red, orange and green accents enrich the colour scheme. The objects – carefully arranged so as not to overlap too much – are depicted in a diffuse light that is bright at the front, but causes dark shadows to be cast toward the back. Like Beert, Van Es often set his glass vessels against very dark backgrounds and introduced marvellous reflections in the glasses, the gilded silver and polished pewter plates. The knife and bread roll teeter dangerously on the edge of the table creating a trompe-l’oeil effect, a motif favoured by artists such as Pieter Aertsen and already part of the standard visual repertoire by Van Es’ time. The exquisite rendering of textures is one of the hallmarks of Van Es’ still lifes, his direct and sturdy but subtle handling of impasto creating the impression of freshness characteristic of his work. These thick applications of paint that protrude noticeably from the paint surface were intended to suggest depth. The textured surface (kenlijkheyt) not only imitates the real surface of the object, but also gives the eye something on which to focus, therefore making the object appear closer.6 Only very rarely did Van Es date his works, which makes it difficult to establish a chronology. His known work shows little evidence of dramatic stylistic shifts or a radical sense of development. The painting carries, on the verso of the panel, the personal mark of the Antwerp panel-maker Michiel Vrient (active 1615– 1637), who died in 1637.7 His date of decease coincides with the earliest felling date of the tree (1635) from which the panel was cut, as determined by dendrochronological analysis (see Technical Notes), plus the minimum two years of seasoning of the wood, thus establishing a terminus post quem of 1637 for the painting. A comparable still life, slightly more restrained in composition, is the Still Life of Cheese, Fish, and Bread (present whereabouts unknown),8 and another, of approximately the same size and very similar in style and execution, the Still Life of Oysters, a Jug, and a Wine Glass, on the British art market in 1984 (formerly Coll. Jean Gismondi, Antibes).9 CF 1 The same façon-de-Venise glasses recur in several signed paintings, among them one that was on the art market in the early 1990s, Still Life with Bread, Shrimps, Olives and Drinking Glasses, oil on copper, 32.2 x 40 cm, signed; present whereabouts unknown, formerly with David Koetser Gallery, Zürich, the painting appeared in a sale New York, Christie’s, 31 May 1991, lot 83, colour repr. See also Meijer 2003, under no. 30, illus. The identical stoneware jug recurs, for example, in a painting, Still Life with Oysters, a Jug, and a Wine Glass, that was on the British art market in the 1980s (London, Christie’s, 11 December 1984, lot 106) and in a signed piece, Still Life with Cheese, Fish, and Bread (present whereabouts unknown), while a similar plate of slices of ham can be seen in signed still lifes in Luxemburg (Musée National d’Histoire et d’Art) and in a Swiss private collection; for all of the above see the photographs on file at the RKD, The Hague. 2 The following passage is based on Chong’s discussion of Clara Peeters’ still lifes in Amsterdam/Cleveland 1998, pp. 128–130 (under no. 9). For general survey of opinions and a new hypothesis, see also Bruyn 1996. 3 Chong in Amsterdam/Cleveland 1998, p. 128. For a discussion of the dairy industry in the Netherlands, see De Vries 1974, pp. 137–164, and the contemporary literary references cited in Chong 1988, pp. 70–71. 4 Chong in Amsterdam/Cleveland 1998, p.128, citing De Jongh in Auckland 1982, pp. 65–69 (on Clara Peeters’ Still Life with Cheeses, Amsterdam, Priv.coll.). For a Eucharistic interpretation of the motif, see Lammers 1979, pp. 404–408. 5 Chong in Amsterdam/Cleveland 1998, p.132. On Goltzius’ painting, cf. Van Thiel in Amsterdam 1993/1994, no. 217. 6 This trick was not uncommon among 17th-century Flemish and Dutch still life painters and is probably best described by Samuel van Hoogstraeten in his Inleyding tot de Hooge Schoole der Schilderkunst: anders de Zichtbare Werelt…(Rotterdam 1678): “…perceptibility [kenlijkheyt] alone makes the objects appear closer, and conversely that smoothness [egaelheyt] makes them recede, and I therefore desire that that which is to appear in the foreground, be painted roughly and briskly, and that which is to recede be painted more neatly and purely the further away it lies…” (p. 307). 7 On Michiel Vrient, see Gepts 1954–1960; Schuster-Gawlowska 1989; Van Damme 1990, 223–26; and Wadum 1998. 8 Oil on wood, 55.0 x 73.5 cm; see photo on file at the RKD. 9 Oil on wood, 52.0 x 72.0 cm, sold at Christie’s, London, 11 December 1984, lot 106; see Greindl 1983, no. 63, pl. 30.[End] Elegantly laid tables are a constant theme in Van Es’s still life paintings. Here everything is carefully arranged. In the middle is a large cheese reflected in a shiny pewter bowl. Among bread, oranges, and slices of ham, various expensive items are visible—a Chinese bowl, Venetian glassware, a knife with an ivory handle, and a nautilus trophy. These kinds of depictions of luxury and opulence have often been interpreted as having some sort of moralizing import. But perhaps the artist just wanted to show off his dazzling illusionistic technique.
Exhibited
Motif categoryStill life
Collection
TechniquePainting
Object category
Keyword
Extern ID