Chasity Janet Clarke Art and Theory in Baroque Europe
February 17, 2003
Adriaen van der Spelt
A Trompe l’Oeil with a
Flower Piece and a Curtain
Seventeenth Century Trompe L’Oeil
The artistic device known as trompe l’oeil remains one of the most frequently used techniques throughout the history of art, yet it is often only given attention for its significance as a mere detail. Its importance is usually only discussed in the context of another topic such as style of painting and tends to be looked at during several different periods. It is usually referenced as background information during discussions of aspects of realistic painting or still life work. In fact, little attention has been paid directly to the use of the technique of trompe l’oeil or its historical development in art. Regardless of its typical view as a secondary factor, trompe l’oeil is a highly influential technique during the seventeenth century and throughout the following centuries.
Trompe l’oeil is an important and frequently used term that is often convoluted. It is frequently used to describe a work that is actually illusionistic, but not an example of trompe l’oeil. It is very important to understand the differences between these two terms to narrow the definition of what may be classified as an example of trompe l’oeil. Illusionism is a very broad and ancient term in comparison to trompe l’oeil which is a relatively recent term (not being used in print until 1803). “Illusionism appeals predominantly to the imagination, as its magic is always in some measure ‘in the eye of the beholder’, and it might even be defined as poetic illusion in visual form”. Trompe l’oeil, a more specific term, can be translated to mean, “that which fools the eye”. It “. . . strives relentlessly to achieve perfect duplication of reality to the point of delusion.” In truth, the term should only be used to describe a set art form rather than a detail or aspect of a painting. This art form was very popular in the seventeenth century, and involved a very precise form of still life study. One of the most significant distinctions is that illusionistic works are imaginary and require the voluntary participation of the viewer. However, trompe l’oeil works deceive the viewer, a term that implies that the onlooker has not consented to see something that does not exist, but does without knowing so.[1] It is important to understand the distinctions between trompe l’oeil and other forms of illusionism.
Illusionism had long experienced popularity becoming even more useful during the Italian Renaissance. “Pictorial illusionism had been assigned the task of providing the universal man with a setting worthy of him- not one which simulated reality but one which created an idealized pseudoreality”. However, the situation was vastly different in the North. These Franco-Flemish artists were more interested in objective observation of their surroundings and were not as influenced by the philosophy of a need to idealize visual images. Northern artists gave great care and time studying and depicting items from life as realistically as possible with no greater purpose.[2] “By the second half of the sixteenth century, while the artists of the South were painting the glory and bliss of the Christian paradise, their Northern counterparts were busily engaged in looking through the other end of the spyglass, focusing their attention of the precise and the minute”.[3] While the Italian artists created monumental depictions of the world which often involved architectural illusionism, northern artists concentrated on detailed and realistic studies of minutia. Finally, in the seventeenth century, the artists of the North would hone their talents and study an object they began a new form of art.[4] The extreme desire for realism in painting made the use of oil paints essential. Northern artist excelled at using oils which were necessary to create a supreme impression of reality.[5] Although Trompe l’oeil artists are primarily from North of Italy, they do come from a variety of backgrounds.
Among the many great seventeenth century trompe l’oeil artists is Juan Sánchez Cotán (1560-1627). He was born in Orgaz, a town near Toledo. This Spanish artist worked with religious subjects as well as portraits, but among his most famous works are those referred to as lienzos de fruta or canvases of fruit. An inventory of his possessions was completed in August 1603 when he entered the Cartuja in Granada. In this inventory, there is a mention of a painting referred to as “un lienzo adonde estan un menbillo, melon y un repollo”. The detail of the description is a very telling factor. “The identification of the painting not simply as a still life, but rather as a painting of two specific fruits and two vegetables, suggests both the novelty of this genre within Spain at this time, as well as the success of the artist’s precision in depicting the objects, each of which commands our attention individually”. He completed this work, translated, Quince, Cabbage, Melon, and Cucumber in 1602. The various fruits and vegetables are depicted on a stone shelf set against a black background. This space is a cantarero, a primitive larder where food items such as these were stored to prevent them from spoiling.[6] There is a light source seemingly coming from the viewer’s space onto the parapet on which the slice of melon and cucumber rest. These items hang slightly over the surface into the viewer’s space. The cabbage and apple are hanging by threads that extend to the top of the painting. Due to the use of light, these items seem to be dangling in the darkness. “For all the naturalism with which they are depicted, the isolation of each object, heightened further by the black background, makes each of them seem extremely artificial and lend them a monumental, almost sculptural gravity”.[7] There are many potential meanings associated with these types of images. Some have associated it with his religious affiliation and his semi-monastic lifestyle. They believe the image reveals a “transfiguration of the commonplace” drawn from a form of meditation similar to the Spiritual Exercises of Saint Ignatius Loyola. “A more practical alternative is to examine these paintings in light of a late sixteenth century interest in natural history, and in competition with the still-life paintings from antiquity that are mentioned in the writings of Pliny and other authors”.[8] His work is a wonderful and well-known example of trompe l’oeil imagery.
Quince, Cabbage, Melon, and
Cucumber
1602
Oil on canvas
68.9 x 84.5
San Diego Museum of Art
Samuel van Hoogstraten (1627-1678) is another example of a sixteenth century artist who excelled at trompe l’Oeil work. He was born in Dordecht Holland, the eldest of seven children. Not only was he a Dutch painter, but he was also an established draughtsman, engraver, writer, poet, man of letters, courtier, and well-known citizen. He became a pupil of Rembrandt in approximately 1642.[9] He would go on to create many types of works including many well-known trompe l’oeil paintings. A wonderful example is his Bearded Man at Window completed in 1653. In this work, his depiction of a man at a window is so deceivingly realistic it makes a perfect example of the appearance of a trompe l’oeil artwork. The artist’s rendering of the old man’s wrinkles and graying beard is superb. His brow is furrowed and his head is slightly angled. The artist has also depicted the window in great detail and placed a small vase on the ledge which emphasizes depth. This ledge is formed by a stone wall surrounding the window. The man’s head protrudes from one of the panes in the window and appears to be coming out towards the viewer’s space. As an onlooker glances at Hoogstraten’s work, they may be startled by the feeling that they are being watch by an elderly gentleman. When the artist was twenty four he was awarded the highest court honor, an imperial medallion and gold chain from the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand III for his impressive work.[10] He continued with this success throughout his life making many more trompe L’oeil works.
Bearded Man at Window
1653
Oil on canvas
Trompe l’Oeil work was also being done by a seventeenth century German artist named Georg Hinz (1630-1688). He was trained as a painter in Hamburg after deciding to settle there in 1663. In fact, today he is known as the founder of the Hamburg school of still life painting where he trained many important pupils. The taste of the Netherlands was very influential to the art market of Hamburg as many Protestant refugees from the Netherlands made up one quarter of the population. In fact, the area also attracted another important trompe l’oeil artist, Gijsbrecht, who would influence Hinz’s work. However, Hinz’s work is distinguished by the orderliness of the objects as well as an absence of doors or hinges on his cabinets. One example of his work is Curiosity Cabinet with Pistols (1666). In this work, the artist has given great attention and realism to several objects including a large ewer with a handle of agate glass, a red lacquer box, two pocket watches, red dice, and a facon de Venise lidded goblet with ornamentation drawn from the engraving by Jean Le Pautre. The skulls, pocket watches and dice are most likely vanitas admonitions warning against earthy riches. “Through this use of real or seemingly real things and naturalistic shadows and reflections Hinz suggests that this is a real cabinet”. In fact, a 1698 inventory bears proof of its success as a supreme example of trompe l’oeil. The author mistakenly refers to it as an actual box instead of a painting. Onlookers would admire the luxurious items they thought were part of the curiosity collection in Brandenburg without the slightest idea they were really viewing a Hinz painting.[11] This is a perfect example of the convincing realism of trompe l’oeil works.
Curiosity Cabinet with Pistols
1666
Oil on canvas
127.5 x 102
Flemish painter Cornelis Gijsbrechts (1659-1675) was one of the most famous artists of trompe l’oeil. This artist, who began to paint in Denmark, depicted numerous scenes of his painting instruments placed against a wooden backdrop. One characteristic example is his Studio Wall with Vanitas Still Life finished in 1668. Images like this one emphasize the ephemerality of life. The fragile nature of life is symbolized by the skull and soap bubbles. However, the artist’s inclusion of corn symbolizes the hope of resurrection. This association is made because the corn must be buried, like Christ, in order to grow again. This point emphasizes the need to accept and follow Christian morals and guidelines. One of the most remarkable aspects of this work is the artist's handling of light. The way in which the light reflects off the metal jug on the edge of the ledge protruding into the viewer’s space is deceptively realistic. The way the top corner of the painting folds back onto itself and the red maulstick in front of it is also misleading. His work was so successful that it was placed in the Danish Royal collection and then acquired by King Ferdinand III. This provided the artist with a wonderful reputation and he would later refer to himself as the court painter to his Majesty the King of Denmark.[12] This artists celebrated work serves as a great example of the importance of trompe l’oeil technique.
Studio Wall with Vanitas Still Life
1668
Oil on canvas
152 x 118
Trompe l’oeil was an important style of working during the seventeenth century which involved the most extreme version of realism. These images were so realistic that they deceived the viewer into believing they existed not as a painting but as reality. Northern artists, being well know for their ability to study and convey minute details, excelled at this form of art. Their understanding and careful rendering of fabrics, metals, and fine details made them well suited for this style. Realism had long been an important aspect of art, but during the seventeenth century it was brought to supremacy in trompe l’oeil works.