lower left on parapet: J.D. De Heem f.
Vase of Flowers, c. 1660
Alexandra Libby, Arthur K. Wheelock Jr., “Jan Davidsz de Heem/Vase of Flowers/c. 1660,” Dutch Paintings of the Seventeenth Century, NGA Online Editions, https://purl.org/nga/collection/artobject/46097 (accessed November 08, 2023).
Close
Archived Version(s)
Close
| Version | Link |
|---|---|
| Mon Dec 09 00:00:00 EST 2019 Version | |
| Thu Apr 24 00:00:00 EDT 2014 Version | |
| Sun Jan 01 00:00:00 EST 1995 Version |
You may download complete editions of this catalog from the catalog’s home page.
Object Menu
- Overview
- Entry
- Inscription
- Provenance
- Exhibition History
- Technical Summary
- Bibliography
- Related Content
- Related Terms
Overview
The Dutch and Flemish took extraordinary delight in depictions of the natural world as an expression of God’s everlasting blessing. The flower paintings of Jan Davidsz de Heem celebrate the beauty of flora while at the same time exemplifying the concept of Ars longa, vita brevis (art is long, life is short) embodied in the Dutch still-life paintings of the seventeenth century. De Heem’s paintings also reflected the great interest in botany at that time, and this work includes exotic flowers and plants brought back from faraway places, such as the tulip, originally imported into Europe from Turkey in the 1550s.
De Heem was one of the most gifted, versatile, and influential still-life artists of his age. His refined technique allowed him to portray a great variety of textures that captured the very essence of the objects, including the petals of exotic flowers; long bent reeds of wheat; minute creatures such as butterflies, ants, snails, and caterpillars; and finally, the reflective surfaces of glass. In this work, De Heem creates a harmonious arrangement by balancing the colors and shapes of thirty-one types of flowers, vegetables, and grains. Despite the illusion of reality, this bouquet could have never actually existed, as the various flowers would have bloomed in different seasons. De Heem often included specific animals and flowers in his work for their symbolic meanings. Representing darkness and decay, a salamander stares hungrily at a spider, while a snail, a moth, and some ants crawl on the marble shelf. The memento mori (rememeber that you will die) images are counterbalanced by the wheat stalks symbolizing the Eucharist, and by the caterpillar and butterfly on the white poppy, which evoke redemption and resurrection.
Entry
The extraordinary delight the Dutch and Flemish took in the richness of the visual world is nowhere better expressed than in the flower paintings of Jan Davidsz de Heem. In his Vase of Flowers, the brightly colored blossoms, fruits, vegetables, and grains that seem to burst forth from the glass vase are painted with such sensitivity that they seem almost alive. Whether it be in the translucency of the petals, the sheen of dew drops on the leaves, or the minute insects that crawl about the stems and blossoms, De Heem has exerted painstaking care to capture the very essence of the still-life elements that make up his composition.
Other still-life painters shared De Heem’s concern with illusionism, yet none matched his ability to convey a sense of organic life. Poppies, tulips, roses, wheat, and peas reach out in dynamic rhythms, while insects crawl and flutter about as though the air around them were rife with the varied smells of the richly laden bouquet. Through his artifice, De Heem has allowed the viewer not only to enjoy the beauty of the individual forms but also to imagine the richness of their fragrances. He has done so, moreover, with an arrangement of flowers, fruits, and vegetables that would never have been placed together in the same bouquet, for they grow at different seasons of the year.
While De Heem’s ability to seize the full range of one’s sensual experiences in appreciating flowers is exceptional, the underlying attitude in his work reflects concerns that had been fundamental to still-life painting since the early seventeenth century. Cardinal Borromeo, the patron of Jan Brueghel the Elder (Flemish, 1568 – 1625) , for example, wrote of the pleasure he received from viewing the artist’s flowers during icy winters and imagining their odors. [1]   [1]
See Arthur K. Wheelock Jr., “Still Life: Its Visual Appeal and Theoretical Status in the Seventeenth-Century,” in Still Lifes of the Golden Age: Northern European Paintings from the Heinz Family Collection (Washington, DC, 1989), 14–15. In 1646 a Dutch poet, Joachim Oudaan, described not only the beauty of the blossoms but also the fragrance of a still-life painting. [2]   [2]
See Lawrence Otto Goedde, “A Little World Made Cunningly: Dutch Still Life and Ekphrasis,” in Still Lifes of the Golden Age: Northern European Paintings from the Heinz Family Collection (Washington, DC, 1989), 40. De Heem’s dynamic yet harmonious composition belongs to a long-standing tradition. In the early seventeenth century, Ambrosius Bosschaert (Dutch, 1573 – 1621) painted symmetrically arranged bouquets of flowers that were dominated by a large, centrally placed blossom. Stems of flowers were relatively short and flowers did not overlap. De Heem’s work has evolved from this fairly rigid format—he breaks the symmetry, overlaps his blossoms, and, in particular, creates rhythms through his greatly elongated plant stems.
Finally, as did his predecessors, De Heem includes many types of flowers from different seasons of the year. Such artfully constructed compilations of elements that could never be seen together in nature gave still-life painting a status it could never have achieved if the artist had remained servile to the specifics of the natural world. Such a composition as this, while built upon careful observation of God’s wonders, emphasized the importance of the role of the artist’s imagination. The symbolic associations De Heem brought to the work confirm that such a still life was far more than a mere display of craft. The transient beauty of flowers, for example, was a common metaphor used to remind the viewer of the temporality of life. The bugs and snails that climb about the blossoms were understood allegorically to represent forces that help hasten the demise of temporal beauty. While De Heem clearly wished to convey this concept, by including such a wide range of seasons he also sought to make a statement about the value of art. These flowers will continue to blossom after nature’s flowers have withered and died. Indeed, the concept Ars longa, vita brevis was fundamental to seventeenth-century Northern still-life painting.
De Heem’s flower still lifes often had specific moral, and even religious, connotations. Occasionally this Catholic artist included a skull and the words memento mori adjacent to a flower piece [fig. 1]   [fig. 1] Jan Davidsz de Heem, Memento Mori, c. 1653, oil on canvas, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Dresden. Photo: Hans-Peter Klut ; in other instances he added a crucifix. In such cases, careful analyses of the flowers and grains he has included in his composition indicate that they were chosen because of the religious symbolism associated with them. [3]   [3]
For an analysis of the Flower Piece with Shell and Skull in Dresden, see Sam Segal and Liesbeth M. Helmus, Jan Davidsz. de Heem en zijn kring (Utrecht, 1991), no. 28, 181–184. The question then arises whether the flowers and other plants in paintings with no explicit symbols of death or resurrection still carry similar associations. [4]   [4]
For the identification of the plants and animals in this painting, see Sam Segal and Liesbeth M. Helmus, Jan Davidsz. de Heem en zijn kring (Utrecht, 1991), 187. In the case of the National Gallery’s painting the answer is most certainly yes.
This bouquet was not only a compilation of the beauties of God’s creations, a statement of the value of art, and a reminder of the transience of life, but it also put forth the hope of salvation and resurrection. Although no crucifix appears in this work, the allusion to the cross in the reflection of the window on the glass vase serves the same purpose. Within such a context the prominent position of the white poppy upon which a butterfly alights has to be understood symbolically. [5]   [5]
Much has been written on the symbolism of flowers in Dutch art. For an excellent overview of the problem, see Sam Segal, “The Symbolic Meaning of Flowers,” in A Flowery Past: A Survey of Dutch and Flemish Flower Painting from 1600 until the Present (Amsterdam, 1982), 12–25; see also Sam Segal and Liesbeth M. Helmus, Jan Davidsz. de Heem en zijn kring (Utrecht, 1991), 182–184. The poppy, which was associated with sleep and death, often alluded to the Passion of Christ, and the butterfly to the Resurrection. Other flowers, grains, fruits, and vegetables reinforce this message. The morning glory, for example, symbolizes the light of truth, for it opens at the break of day and closes in the evening. The bramble, believed to be the burning bush in which the angel of the Lord appeared to Moses, was associated with divine love that cannot be consumed. Grains of wheat can allude to the bread of the Last Supper, but they can also symbolize resurrection because the grain must fall to earth to regenerate. Like wheat, or peas, man must die and be buried before achieving eternal life.
Vase of Flowers is signed but not dated. Although De Heem’s chronology is not easy to reconstruct, he probably executed this painting in Utrecht around 1660. [6]   [6]
For a similar De Heem composition, also undated, see E. U. Fechner, Hollandskii naturmort XVII weka (Moscow, 1981), 28, 169, pls. 62–63. The painting has more elaborate rhythms in its forms and a more complex iconography than does De Heem’s similar composition in the Norton Simon Museum, Pasadena, also entitled Vase of Flowers, which is signed and dated 1654. However, it cannot date too much later than the Dresden painting from the mid-1650s [fig. 1]   [fig. 1] Jan Davidsz de Heem, Memento Mori, c. 1653, oil on canvas, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, Dresden. Photo: Hans-Peter Klut , which contains many like elements, including a poppy at the top of the composition and the image of a cross in the reflection on the vase. In any event, the composition must have been known by Abraham Mignon (German, 1640 – 1679) in Utrecht, for after he joined De Heem’s workshop in 1669 he executed a Vase of Flowers that shares many similar elements. [7]   [7]
For this painting, see Fred G. Meijer, Stillevens uit de Gouden Eeuw (Rotterdam, 1989), no. 23, 94–95.
While the relationship between De Heem and Mignon is clear, the blue hyacinth seen in the upper left of De Heem’s Vase of Flowers has sparked debate about the possible involvement of another flower painter, Jan van Huysum (1682–1749). Fred Meijer has noted that certain flowers—including the hyacinth, hollyhock, and auricula in the upper left, the red-and-white carnation in the lower left, and the pink rosebud in between—are virtually identical to those found in Van Huysum’s Still Life of Flowers and Fruit in a Niche, c. 1717, in the Speelman collection (fig. 2), leading him to conclude that they were added by Van Huysum. Recent cross-section analysis of the Washington painting has confirmed the presence of a non-pigmented resinous or oil-resin layer between the blue hyacinth and an earlier paint layer, which is not present in cross-sections taken elsewhere. However, while a resinous or oil resin layer in one cross-section may suggest that the flower was added at a later time, there was no dirt layer found on top of it to confirm such a passage of time. [9]   [9]
See Technical Summary.
It is possible that this non-pigmented layer is an oiling out layer—a technique often used by artists to saturate an area as they work. The broader and more generalized articulation of the petals are, moreover, more characteristic of De Heem’s touch than Van Huysum, who employed highly refined brushwork and an exacting attention to detail. Van Huysum also subtly varied the thickness of his paint to create slight relief in his flower petals, thereby giving them their convincing sense of three-dimensionality.
Because these blossoms do not open at the same time of year, artists relied heavily on drawings to build their compositions. It is therefore not impossible that Van Huysum may have come into possession of drawings by De Heem, though no such drawings are known. Indeed, at this time it was common practice for artists to freely borrow discrete elements from each other’s work. Although the exact reason for the connection between these two paintings is unclear, close comparison of Van Huysum’s and De Heem’s flowers reveal how each artist applied their own distinct painting techniques to a shared visual vocabulary.
Original entry by Arthur K. Wheelock Jr., April 24, 2014.
Revised by Alexandra Libby to incorporate information from a new technical examination.
December 9, 2019
Flowers in a Crystal Vase, c. 1882
Offered by the artist as a New Year’s gift to “Mme X.” [1] M and Mme Jules Féral, Paris, by 1932 until at least 1938.[2] Possibly (Galerie Charpentier, Paris) in 1951. [3] Capt. Edward H. Molyneux [1891-1974], Paris, by 1952;[4] sold 15 August 1955 to Ailsa Mellon Bruce [1901-1969], New York; bequest 1970 to NGA.
[1]According to Paul Jamot and Georges Wildenstein, Manet, Paris, 1932, no. 508.
[2]Lent by Féral to exhibitions in London in 1932 and Amsterdam in 1938. Eugène and Jules Féral [died c. 1949] acted as experts at sales at Hôtel Drout and elsewhere, the former betweeen c. 1876-1901 and the latter in the 1920s.
[3] A 1949 sale of objects from Jules Féral’s collection held at the Galerie Charpentier did not include the NGA picture. However the picture was included in an 1951 exhibition held at Charpentier, with no owner listed, and was probably sold to Charpentier by Mme Féral by that time.
[4]Lent by Molyneux to the National Gallery of Art in 1952.
Associated Names
1932 Exhibition of French Art 1200-1900, Royal Academy of Arts, London, 1932, no. 561 1932 Manet, Musée de L’Orangerie, Paris, 1932, no. 87a 1933 Het Stilleven, Kunsthandel J. Goudstikker, Amsterdam, 1933, no. 206, repro. 1933 Tentoonstelling van 115 Stillevens 1480-1933, Museum Boymans, Rotterdam, 1933, no. 60. 1938 Honderd Jaar Fransche Kunst, Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, 1938, no. 162 1951 Natures mortes françaises, Galerie Charpentier, Paris, 1951, no. 105, repro. 1952 French Paintings from the Molyneux Collection, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.; Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1952, unnumbered checklist. 1961 French Paintings of the Nineteenth Century from the Collection of Mrs. Mellon Bruce, California Palace of the Legion of Honor, San Francisco, 1961, no. 24, repro 1966 French Paintings from the Collections of Mr. and Mrs. Paul Mellon and Mrs. Mellon Bruce, National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1966, no. 45, repro 1986 Capolavori Impressionisti dei Musei Americani, Museo e Gallerie Nazionali di Capodimonte, Naples; Pinacoteca di Brera, Milan, 1986-1987, no. 26, repro. 1989 Impressionisti della National Gallery of Art di Washington, Ala Napoleonica e Museo Correr, Venice; Palazzo Reale, Milan, 1989, unnumbered catalogue, repro. 1999 Around Impressionism: French Paintings from the National Gallery of Art, Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 1999, no cat. 1999 Masterpieces from the National Gallery of Art, Washington, Kyoto Municipal Museum of Art; Tokyo Metropolitan Art Museum, 1999, no. 18, repro. 2000 Cézanne-Manet-Schuch. Drei Wege zur autonomen Kunst [Cézanne-Manet-Schuch. Three Paths toward Autonomous Art], Museum für Kunst und Kulturgeschichte der Stadt Dortmund, 2000, no. 17, repro. 2000 Manet: The Still-Life Paintings, Musée d’Orsay, Paris; The Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, 2000-2001, pl. 80. 2001 Impressionist Still Life, The Phillips Collection, Washington, D.C.; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 2001-2002, pl. 64. 2003 Manet en el Prado, Museo Nacional del Prado, Madrid, 2003-2004, no. 110, repro. 2004 Andy Warhol Museum 10th Anniversary, The Andy Warhol Museum, Pittsburgh, 2004, no cat. 2011 In the Presence of Things: Four Centuries of European Still Life Painting, Part Two: 19th-20th Centuries (1840-1955), Fundaçäo Calouste Gulbenkian, Temporary Exhibitions Gallery, Lisbon, 2011-2012, no. 6, repro. 2013 Letzte Bilder: Von Manet bis Kippenberger [Final Works. From Manet to Kippenberger], Schirn Kunsthalle Frankfurt, 2013, unnumbered catalogue, repro. 2014 Working among Flowers: Floral Still Life in the 19th Century, Dallas Museum of Art; Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, Richmond; Denver Art Museum, 2014-2015.
1928 Ausstellung Edouard Manet, Galerie Matthiesen, Berlin, 1928, no. 84 [in catalogue but according to Wildenstein 1932, no exhibited]. 1931 Tabarant, Adolphe. Manet: histoire catalographique. Paris, 1931: no. 406. 1932 Jamot, Paul, and Georges Wildenstein. Manet. Paris, 1932: no. 508, repro. 1938 Rey, Robert. Manet. New York and Paris, 1938:163, no. 153. 1947 Tabarant, Adolphe. Manet et ses oeuvres. Paris, 1947:462, no. 437 1970 Orienti, Sandra. The Complete Paintings of Manet. London, 1970:411H, repro. 1975 European Paintings: An Illustrated Summary Catalogue. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1975: 212, repro. 1975 Rouart, Denis and Daniel Wildenstein. Edouard Manet, catalogue raisonné 2 vols. Lausanne and Paris, 1975:I:no. 420. 1978 Small French Paintings from the Bequest of Ailsa Mellon Bruce. Exh. cat. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 1978: 22, repro. (continuing exhibition beginning in 1978). 1980 Kelder, Diane. The Great Book of French Impressionism. New York, 1980: 436, repro. 1984 Walker, John. National Gallery of Art, Washington. Rev. ed. New York, 1984: 453, no. 656, color repro. 1985 European Paintings: An Illustrated Catalogue. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1985: 246, repro. 1986 Gordon, Robert and Andrew Forge. The Last Flowers of Manet. New York, 1986:15, repro. 1997 Kelder, Diane. The Great Book of French Impressionism, 1997, no. 98, repro. 1997 Southgate, M. Therese. The Art of JAMA: One Hundred Covers and Essays from The Journal of the American Medical Association. St. Louis, 1997: 86-87, 204, color repro. 1998 Whelan, Richard. Impressionist Flowers: Art of the Bouquet. Cobb, California, 1998.
