Pieter Aertsen, Rhyparographer
http://www.kunstpedia.com/articles/432/1/Pieter-Aertsen-Rhyparographer/Page1.html
Falkenburg, Prof.dr. R.L.
Prof. dr. R. L. Falkenburg, Professor of Art History at Leiden University, is an expert in late medieval and early modern art and author of many publications on the subject. By Falkenburg, Prof.dr. R.L.
Published on 2 April 2009
This article focuses on the rhetorical figure of the 'paradoxical
encomium' (the paradoxical eulogy) as the generic principle for the
still life paintings by the Dutch painter Pieter Aertsen (1507-1575),
the inventor of the genre. It is shown how Aertsen used the idiom of
contemporary art with an artistically and socially high Status for his
own experiments in 'rhyparography', a mode of pictorial expression
associated with the 'paradoxical encomium''.
This article focuses on the rhetorical figure of the 'paradoxical encomium' (the paradoxical eulogy) as the generic principle for the still life paintings by the Dutch painter Pieter Aertsen (1507-1575), the inventor of the genre. It is shown how Aertsen used the idiom of contemporary art with an artistically and socially high Status for his own experiments in 'rhyparography', a mode of pictorial expression associated with the 'paradoxical encomium''.
In this article I would like to take a look at the origins of the still life as an independent category in Netherlandish art of the 16th Century. Between 1550 and 1560, Pieter Aertsen (1507-1575), a painter working in Antwerp and Amsterdam, produced a number of large panels - some 1.5 metres high and metres across - which are generally considered to be the first examples of still lifes as an independent genre. The word 'independent' has a double meaning in this context. In the first place, the principal subject of the picture is made up of objects taken from ordinary, everyday life. Secondly, the term indicates that these scenes were painted on panel (later on canvas), not as part of a some larger decorative scheme, but to be hung on the wall free of any particular context, to be bought and sold and to retain their own, independent identity in any environment in which they were placed. Looking at 17th century paintings by artists such as Pieter Claesz and Jan Davidsz de Heem, we recognize these immediately as examples of the genre. Despite the differences in style and composition of the objects shown and the way in which these are presented, we have little difficulty in defining them as belonging to a homogeneous group. Later still lifes by artists such as Chardin, Van Gogh and Cezanne fit quite easily into the same category, which is hardly surprising since it is perfectly natural that these painters knew precisely 'what a still life was' and it was precisely 'this sort of work' that they intended to produce. Despite the differences between the various types, on the face of it, the still lifes produced by these artists all have a similar character. It is quite a different story when we come to examine the paintings of Pieter Aertsen. Not only do his still lifes look quite different from those of his later colleagues — to such a degree in fact, that one might even begin to doubt that they are of the same genre — but each of his still lifes are in fad quite distinct from one another. Some feature objects which one would expect to find in the home of a wealthy burgher, other paintings set objects in a rich kitchen interior or place a composition, such as a display of food, in a market scene and suggest a distinctly country environment. Some paintings have a religious theme, others are clearly secular. In some paintings the human figures take such a prominent place, even though the picture centres around a still life, that the work is more like a genre painting. In another painting, the still life motif is so dominant that the human figure comes across as quite secondary, even though the work is a portrayal of a Biblical story, as in the Meat stall with the Flight into Egypt, in Uppsala. The only constant in all these paintings is that they all show an arrangement of food and tableware and that these objects all have a prominent position in the composition, directly in the foreground. Their immediacy and the attention the artist has obviously paid to the outward appearance of each individual object makes Aertsen a painter of (proto-) still lifes.
Read Full Article >>
COPYRIGHT 1995 Prof. dr. R. L. Falkenburg , All rights reserved.
No portion of this article nor the accompanying illustrations can or may be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
In this article I would like to take a look at the origins of the still life as an independent category in Netherlandish art of the 16th Century. Between 1550 and 1560, Pieter Aertsen (1507-1575), a painter working in Antwerp and Amsterdam, produced a number of large panels - some 1.5 metres high and metres across - which are generally considered to be the first examples of still lifes as an independent genre. The word 'independent' has a double meaning in this context. In the first place, the principal subject of the picture is made up of objects taken from ordinary, everyday life. Secondly, the term indicates that these scenes were painted on panel (later on canvas), not as part of a some larger decorative scheme, but to be hung on the wall free of any particular context, to be bought and sold and to retain their own, independent identity in any environment in which they were placed. Looking at 17th century paintings by artists such as Pieter Claesz and Jan Davidsz de Heem, we recognize these immediately as examples of the genre. Despite the differences in style and composition of the objects shown and the way in which these are presented, we have little difficulty in defining them as belonging to a homogeneous group. Later still lifes by artists such as Chardin, Van Gogh and Cezanne fit quite easily into the same category, which is hardly surprising since it is perfectly natural that these painters knew precisely 'what a still life was' and it was precisely 'this sort of work' that they intended to produce. Despite the differences between the various types, on the face of it, the still lifes produced by these artists all have a similar character. It is quite a different story when we come to examine the paintings of Pieter Aertsen. Not only do his still lifes look quite different from those of his later colleagues — to such a degree in fact, that one might even begin to doubt that they are of the same genre — but each of his still lifes are in fad quite distinct from one another. Some feature objects which one would expect to find in the home of a wealthy burgher, other paintings set objects in a rich kitchen interior or place a composition, such as a display of food, in a market scene and suggest a distinctly country environment. Some paintings have a religious theme, others are clearly secular. In some paintings the human figures take such a prominent place, even though the picture centres around a still life, that the work is more like a genre painting. In another painting, the still life motif is so dominant that the human figure comes across as quite secondary, even though the work is a portrayal of a Biblical story, as in the Meat stall with the Flight into Egypt, in Uppsala. The only constant in all these paintings is that they all show an arrangement of food and tableware and that these objects all have a prominent position in the composition, directly in the foreground. Their immediacy and the attention the artist has obviously paid to the outward appearance of each individual object makes Aertsen a painter of (proto-) still lifes.
Read Full Article >>
COPYRIGHT 1995 Prof. dr. R. L. Falkenburg , All rights reserved.
No portion of this article nor the accompanying illustrations can or may be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.