Floral Still Life |
FRUIT, FLOWERS AND INSECTS:
RACHEL RUYSCH
By Joan K Yanni
Rachel Ruysch, the painter of Floral Still Life (82.9), was the best
flower painter of her day and probably the greatest female painter before the
second half of the 18th century.
MAG’s painting, done in 1686, is one of the artist’s earliest known
paintings.
Ruysch was born in Amsterdam in 1664 to
highly distinguished parents. Her
mother, Maria Post, was the daughter of Pieter Post, a renowned architect, and
her father, Anthony Frederick Ruysch, was a professor of anatomy and botany as
well as an amateur painter. Her father collected scientific specimens--shells,
fossils, insects, skeletons, minerals and rare plants. Rachel helped him with
the dissections and mounting necessary for his collection and often painted
backgrounds for his displays.
Rachel’s talent was discovered
early, and when she was fifteen, she was apprenticed to Willem van Aelst, a
versatile still life artist who specialized in fruit and flower paintings. This
arrangement in itself was unusual. At this time it was not the custom for a
woman, let alone a young girl, to be apprenticed to a male painter unless he
was a relative. Luckily Rachel’s parents’ enlightened attitude helped get her
the best possible training. As would be expected, her early work shows the
influence of van Aelst.
Ruysch’s first dated works are
from 1682, when she was only 18. One is a study of insects and a thistle plant
in a landscape; the other is a painting of flowers, apples and quinces hanging
together in a bunch. She began to use
contrasting scenes of dark woodlands and brilliant flowers in her works almost
from the start. A work from 1685, Still
Life with Flowers and Insects in a Landscape, uses a shady landscape
setting as background for an impressive collection of flowers, vegetation,
rocks and reptiles, all perfectly detailed.
This practice of combining
dark and light shows her knowledge of and appreciation for the work of Otto
Marseus van Schriek, a painter of the time whose specialty was a blend of dark
settings contrasted with exotic flora and fauna. Flower painting had fallen out of favor after
the collapse of Holland ’s
tulip market in the 1630s; van Schriek’s nature paintings were a way of
reintroducing pictures of flowers--but not tulips. Ruysch sometimes used
elements of van Schriek’s paintings, rearranged and put into her own settings.
Our Floral Still Life is one of about
a dozen still lifes in nature painted early in her career. Technically, these
are not flower paintings, but woodland still lifes.
Most
of her early works differ drastically from the conventional flower painting of
flowers in a vase in the center of a composition. She has avoided the vase and
instead places plants in a dark, outdoor setting inhabited by insects, reptiles,
and amphibians. The setting in Floral
Still Life is entirely artificial, though details are realistically
presented. The
Spot
lighted roses, lilies, iris, morning glories, opium poppies and mushrooms, for
example, are painted with the same precision lavished on the trunk of the old
tree from which they appear to grow. Although some of the plants pictured grow
in or near water, the blooms are not indigenous to this environment. There are
no tulips in the composition.
In 1693 Rachel married Juriaen
Pool, a portrait painter. The two had
ten children, and it is remarkable that, despite her domestic responsibilities,
she continued to paint. She and her husband entered the Hague Painters’ Guild
together in 1701. During her years in
the Guild, Ruysch honed her skills and developed a style of her own, showing
her technical virtuosity. She
highlighted vivid flowers in a natural setting, emphasizing the contrast
between the grotesque and the beautiful in nature. When she used vases, they
contained blossoms from every growing season as well as exotic flowers she must
have seen only in Amsterdam ’s
botanical gardens where her father was supervisor.
Ruysch gained international
recognition around 1708 when she and her husband were appointed court painters
to the elector palatine, Johann Wilhelm, in Düsseldorf. The elector bought all
of the paintings she produced during her eight years in his court, and sent two
of them as a gift to his father-in-law, Cosimo III de’ Medici of Tuscany. These
paintings are now in the Uffizi in Florence .
After the elector died, Ruysch returned with her family to Amsterdam . She continued to paint until the
age of eighty-three, two years before her death.
The flowers in MAG’s Floral Still Life are arranged in an
S-curve at the right of the
canvas. They seem to be growing out of a
dead tree; a large rock anchors the tree trunk. Elements in the painting can be
seen as vanitas references,
reflecting the idea of memento mori, the transience of life: “Remember, man,
that thou art dust and into dust thou shalt return.” The morning glories and
opium poppies, standing next to each other, symbolize night and day; the
lizards, toads, and half-eaten toadstools symbolize death. The butterflies in
the composition reflect the resurrected soul.
However, the usual representations of death are absent: the skull, hour
glass, candle, or goldfinch (which feeds on thistles and represents the crown
of thorns in the Crucifixion) are lacking, suggesting that Ruysch was not
interested primarily in vanitas.
Rather, she chose blooms in an outdoor setting because she was familiar with
nature and the creatures in it. These
she pictured with an accuracy that must have come from her work with her
father.
Ruysch achieved an
international reputation in her lifetime, but interest in her works did not
decline after her death. Her works brought high prices when she was alive and
they remain sought-after today.
Source: Susan Dodge-Peters,
ed., Memorial Art Gallery, An Introduction
to the Collection; Ann Sutherland Harris and Linda Nochlin, Women Artists 1550-1950; Marianne
Berardi, “The Nature Pieces of Rachel Ruysch,” Porticus, vol. X-XI 19 87-1988
NB: Paintings by van Aelst and
van Schriek will be in the upcoming Natura
Morta exhibit coming to MAG from April 1 to May 27.
See Grant Holcomb (2001) Voices in the Gallery: Writers on Art.P.148
ReplyDelete