Introduction
Painting was a major endeavor in ancient times. Artists were admired, and meaning, symbolism, and cultural significance were extracted from their works. For example, Pieter Aertsen painted "Meat Still Life" and Willem Claesz Heda painted "Still Life with Oyster, Rum, Glass, and Silver Cup," respectively. Despite being many centuries old, these two paintings nevertheless draw attention due of their timing and the reputation of their creators. Although painted close to a century apart, these two paintings bear striking similarities as well as differences in terms of stylistic and cultural contexts, as well as their symbolism as this paper demonstrates.
First Painting: "Meat Still Life" by Pieter Aertsen
The first painting, "Meat Still Life" by Pieter Aertsen was created in 1551 (Northern Renaissance era), a time when the Dutch were embroiled in a war for political emancipation (Craig 3). The desire for separation was partly informed by religious orientation, as the Dutch preferred Protestantism to Catholicism, which dominated Spain (Limberger 26). Aertsen thus endeavored to include an element of religion in the background, indicative of its importance at the time. Additionally, the overwhelming display of raw meat and a farmer in the middle ground effectively captures the dominance of agrarian activities in the 16th century Antwerp (Limberger 31). Further, in the top right corner of the painting, a land sale sign depicts the rampant land transactions taking place among Antwerp citizens at the time.
Second Painting: "Still Life with Oyster, Rum, Glass, and Silver Cup" by Willem Claesz Heda
The second painting on the other hand, "Still Life with Oyster, Rum, Glass, and Silver Cup," was created by Heda in 1634 in Amsterdam (Stott 139). At the time of creating the painting, the Dutch were undergoing a golden age. In Heda's painting, this era is captured symbolically in with the impression of a hurriedly taken breakfast, which in light of the golden era, could mean that residents of Amsterdam were a busy lot and had little time to spare for meals. Additionally, the abundance enjoyed by the Dutch during the golden era is vivid in the painting. Further, a reference to the importance of religion to the Dutch in the 17th century has been made via the display of lifeless oysters, a half-peeled orange and a broken glass. The painting aptly captures the socio-economic status of the Dutch at the time, as well as their religious standing.
Stylistic Differences
From a stylistic perspective, Aertsen's painting was a pioneer of the inverted still life approach. It broke away from the long established tradition of placing the narrative elements of a painting in the foreground and the other elements in the background. In this painting, still-life elements dominate the foreground, leaving the background for the narrative elements. His medium was oil on a wooden panel. This is also a departure from the prominent oil on canvas approach. Overall, Aertsen's style in this painting falls within the mannerism style, which lasted until the emergence of the baroque style. Heda, for his part, employs the baroque style in painting "Still Life with Oyster, Rum, Glass, and Silver Cup." Although categorized as a still life painting, Heda’s piece lacks a background narrative, characteristic of the still life paintings of his contemporaries. He seems to have chosen to tweak the conventions to come up with this piece. The hallmark of still life paintings was a dominant rendition of everyday objects in the foreground and a distant narrative in the background (Stott 140). However, Heda’s painting does not follow this requirement. He also used oil on a wooden panel.
Narrative Elements
Narratively, Aertsen does a good job. The 16th century was a time when the image of a slaughtered animal depicted the killing of believers ("Aertsen, Pieter" par. 1). Therefore, the assortment of carcasses and raw meat in the foreground and fleeing Virgin Mary offering alms to peasants and the prodigal son in the background constitute a plausible religious narrative. One could interpret the painting as representation of the tough experience of believers at the time. Alternatively, one could interpret it as showing that the less important physical food in the foreground taking prominence over the very important spiritual food in the background. This painting is rich in meaning and can have numerous meanings drawn from it. The same can be said of Heda’s painting. Its symbolism is rich in meaning and can be deciphered in many different ways to give different narratives. For instance, one thing that comes out clearly from the painting is the abundance it portrays. The table as set in the painting signifies wealth. No peasant can afford such utensils. Moreover, a peasant is unlikely to leave uneaten food on a table due to scarcity. Other meanings such as the fragility of life can also be drawn from the painting as well as numerous meanings hidden in it; the only distinguishing factor is the imagination of the person looking at it.
Similarities and Differences
In looking at the two paintings together, several similarities can be noted. Firstly, both paintings were done using oil on a wooden panel. This means that despite the over 80 years separating the paintings, this medium was still in use when Heda’s painting was created. Secondly, both paintings embraced the still life style despite falling in different artistic eras. Aertsen was a mannerist while Heda was in the baroque period. The third similarity is that both painters demonstrate an element of defiance in their paintings. Aertsen departs from conventional still life painting to create inverted still life, while Heda leaves out the typical narrative-in-the-background requirement of still life, yet his painting still falls in the category. Another key similarity between the paintings is their symbolism. They both use common everyday items, displayed in a manner that depicts abundance, to convey an underlying message about the time of their creation.
On the flip side, the paintings exhibit a number of differences. The first difference is that the two paintings fall in different artistic eras. Aertsen’s painting falls in the renaissance period while Heda’s painting falls in the baroque period. However, since these two eras were adjacent, some elements of similarity cut across them. Secondly, Aertsen’s painting captures Netherlands at a time of struggle and need as depicted by the peasants receiving alms from the Virgin Mary. Heda’s painting, on the other hand, captures Netherlands during its golden age when most of its people were wealthy. This is shown through the grandeur of the utensils on the table, and the barely eaten, but abandoned meal. Finally, the two paintings, although skillfully painted, are different in terms of what they portray. Aertsen’s painting is dominated by raw meat, which creates a grim impression while Heda’s painting displays beautiful silverware, giving an impression of grandeur.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the similarities and differences between the two paintings in terms of their cultural, stylistic, and symbolic orientations are vivid. The paintings were largely from the same culture, but were created at different times in history. Thus, they bear similarities such as the medium used, style, painters’ approach, and symbolism. They also bear differences such as the artistic eras in which they fall, their socio-economic contexts, and their face value portrayals. The similarities and differences aside, these paintings are a testimony to the artistic prowess of the Dutch in ancient times. They make for a good comparison since most of the variables that would skew their comparability are the same.
Works Cited
“Aertsen, Pieter.” WebMuseum: Aertsen, Pieter: Butcher’s Stall with the Flight into Egypt. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Aug. 2017. https://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/aertsen/.
Craig, Kenneth M. “Pieter Aertsen and ‘The Meat Stall.’” Oud Holland, vol. 96, no. 1, 1982, pp. 1–15.
Limberger, Michael. Sixteenth-century Antwerp and Its Rural Surroundings: Social and Economic Changes in the Hinterland of a Commercial Metropolis (ca. 1450 – Ca. 1570). Turnhout: Brepols, 2008. Print.
Stott, Rebecca. Oyster. London: Reaktion Books, 2004. Print.
