BE 317

 

PIETER CLAESZ.

c.1597 – 1660 Haarlem

 

A still life of a pewter flagon with an upturned roemer, a piece of salmon and a bread roll on pewter plates, with olives in a blue and white dish on a white tablecloth

 

Signed with monogram and dated centre right: PC 1650 [PC in ligature]

Panel: 26 ¾ x 20 in / 68 x 51 cm

Framed Size 38 x 25 1/2 x 2 1/2 in / 96.5 x 64.8 x 6.4 cm

 

Provenance:

Victor Decock;

his sale, Galerie Charpentier, Paris, 12^th May 1948, lot 36, where acquired by a French private collector;

by descent to her grandchild

 

Literature:

Martina Brunner-Bulst, Pieter Claesz., Lingen 2004, p.308, no.179, illus.

 

 

Pieter Claesz. was most likely born in Flanders.[i] In fact, he is probably identical with the Pieter Clasens who was registered as a master painter by the Antwerp guild in 1619/20.[ii] Little is known about his life. In October 1620, when his son Nicolaes (Berchem) - the future landscape painter - was baptised, Claesz. was first recorded in Haarlem. He appears to have remained there for the rest of his life; he was buried in Haarlem on 1^st January 1661. Dated paintings by Pieter Claesz. from 1621 to 1660 are known. His earliest works are strongly related to the ‘banquet piece’ type by Floris van Dijck and other early Haarlem still-life painters, but his style soon changed to a more personal one. Towards 1630, Pieter Claesz. and Willem Claesz. Heda created a type of semi-monochrome 'banquets', which was particularly popular in Haarlem, but also had some following in other Dutch cities, as well as in Antwerp. After c.1640 Claesz.’s pictures became somewhat less monochromatic again and his manner more painterly.

 

This still life of a variety of victuals and drinking vessels is a good example of Pieter Claesz.’s mature style of the late 1640s and early 1650s, even though the vertical format is less common in his oeuvre. During the first decade of his activity as a still-life painter, the 1620s, Pieter Claesz. appears to have painted horizontal compositions only. Vertical formats start to appear in 1630, initially featuring only a single large rummer flanked by some lesser objects. During the 1630s, the number of his vertical still lifes is still quite small, but from the 1640s the artist reverted to the vertical format more often. Nevertheless, the majority of his compositions remained horizontal ones. In this painting, through the vertical composition of sturdy objects, Claesz. has attained a greater monumentality than in most other examples of his still lifes from the period.

 

Although by the later 1640s he had stepped away from the subdued monochromatic palette of the 1630s, this painting is still quite tonal, despite the more colourful accents of the pink salmon, yellow lemon and the orangey hue of the bread. It also shows the broader and more painterly manner that Claesz. had adopted by that time. Later on, during the 1650s, this approach would occasionally lead to a certain wear and even sloppiness in his handling, but here it mainly results in a display of force and sturdiness. And while his technique at that time was indeed broad and painterly, much attention has been paid to details such as the seasoned salmon, the substance of the freshly-baked bread and the reflections in the rummers. The way in which the artist has juxtaposed quite different textures – the soft bread and the hard pewter jug and dish, and the smooth, shiny cups of the rummers and the lush leaves of the vine – add considerably to both the subtlety and the strength of the image.

 

In her monograph on Claesz. published in 2004, Martina Brunner-Bulst lists eight painting by Claesz. from 1650 (of which five are distinctly dated, including the present work). In his book from 1980, N.R.A. Vroom counted only two examples.[iii] Even though he missed out on several that were already known, this shows that examples of Claesz.’s work are still turning up. Taking a certain loss over time into account, as well as a small number of pictures still in hiding, plus some undated examples that may be from 1650, a production of at least some twenty pictures by Claesz. in that year seems realistic. This impressive produce is testament to Claesz.’s success as an artist, as well as of his relatively quick way of painting.[iv] Most probably, he had several still lifes lined up for completion at the same time. Apart from occasional collaborations with Roelof Koets, who would supply his characteristic clusters of grapes to Claesz.’s still lifes, Pieter Claesz. seems to have done all his own work and did not employ studio hands to assist him. While he may well have had assistants who prepared his panels and canvases and mixed paints, it seems that he did not allow them to touch his still lifes once they were set up and on their way to be finished.

 

Like the example discussed here, most of Claesz.’s still lifes from 1650 depict at least one or two recurring studio props. The knife with the twisted handle – or another example of the same type – already appeared in still lifes from 1630s (cf. Brunner no. 79), while a very similar small dish of Wanli kraak porcelain already featured in still lifes from 1627 (cf. Brunner no. 25).[v] A still life from the previous year, 1649, which is closely related to this one in contents and type is in the National Gallery in London.[vi] It features the same knife and the bread roll and the salmon fillet in it look almost identical. The spouted pewter jug shown here received its epithet ‘Jan Steen jug’ probably during the nineteenth-century, due to the fact that such jugs occur frequently in Steen’s paintings. However, the type of jug existed well before Steen was born; the earliest examples probably date from the second half of the sixteenth century. The motif of a glass hanging on the spout of a Jan Steen jug is a common one in seventeenth-century Netherlandish still-life painting. It already occurs in a work by Pieter Claesz. from c.1626 in Chicago.[vii] In another, much larger painting from 1650 (Brunner no. 180, photocopy enclosed) it occurs in the same position, but reversed. The motif of the glass on the spout may be considered a specific allusion, but it may just as well have been customary to keep jug and glass together in this way.[viii]

 

Information based on a report by Fred G Meijer of the Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie, The Hague.