In the Master’s thesis in Art History that I defended in September 2022, I compared depictions of sea animals in early modern Dutch still lifes with other types of images: emblems from the 16th and 17th century, scientific prints from treatises published between the end of the 14th and the 18th century, and finally drawings by still-life artists themselves. The point of this exercise was in part to find out in which way these images inspired each other, how the symbolism of the art works unfolds. But more importantly, the goal was also to uncover how artistic production relied on scientific knowledge to make more naturalist depictions or even participated in the production of this knowledge.

Because of the hierarchy of genres in arts, already present by the beginning of the 17th century, though only implicitly, little is known on the work habits and techniques of early modern Dutch still-life painters. Only a few images can give us an idea of these artists’ working process—for example, a painting by Jan Miense Molenaer, today at the Bredius Museum in The Hague, shows a painter facing a canvas and painting a group of objects spread out on a table in the background.[1] The artist is working from life, naer het leven,[2] which was the preferred way of creating artworks in 17th-century Netherlands, and which is often associated with the apparent realism of those paintings. 

But while it was easy to have musical instruments, candles, corals or shells displayed in the workshop for a longer period of time during the creative process, this would have been an odorous disaster with fish. How then, could still life painters represent fish naer het leven? Only little preparatory drawings for still life have been passed down to us, and among those, none show depictions of fish—only, eventually, of lobster or oysters. Even still, many fish still lifes show very true-to-life depictions of the animals: see, for example, Abraham van Beijeren's Still Life with Fish on a Stone Table. 

Image

Through the examination of fish still lifes, this paper aims to show how art and science could have been intertwined in early modern art. This particular genre of painting is the focus here because it allows animals to play a central role, as they are no longer relegated to the role of accessories or mere commentary on human action. Marine life is especially interesting to study in this context of painting naer het leven because, unlike many animals, it could not be observed alive in its natural environment.

This paper will first start with a reminder on recent theoretical work by historians on the importance of studying art history and history of science simultaneously. It will then turn to drawings by still life artists, before discussing painters who specialized in the field of fish paintings. The closing remarks will be preceded by a brief comparison between still lifes and the scientific illustrations circulating at that time.

Still lifes and the artists' interest for nature and science

In 1959, chemist and novelist Charles Percy Snow gave a lecture at the Senate House in Cambridge, where he explained that society is divided into two cultures: that of sciences and that of humanities, ranking sciences in the top position.[3] Since then, many scholars have contradicted this view and advocated for a joint study of both fields. In her article “Art, Science, and Visual Culture in Early Modern Europe”, Pamela H. Smith emphasizes the significance of manual and artistic skills as scientific processes, highlighting how artistic creation serves as a means of knowing the world through the imitation of nature.[4] Similarly, an article by Eric Schatzberg shows that many humanists and scientists of the modern era were indeed interested in natural knowledge and used it in their practice, thereby demonstrating the intertwining of the two fields of study.[5] Schatzberg argues that many today apparently opposing pairs of concepts are in fact complementary, such as practical knowledge and theoretical knowledge, technique and technology—pairings that point to deep links between the sciences and the humanities. Francis Bacon is notably cited as challenging “this separation between contemplative knowledge and instrumental knowledge. Bacon sought to make natural philosophy useful to the arts." Still, as Rens Bod and Julia Kursell noted in 2015,  despite the criticisms directed at Snow over the past half-century, the historiographies of the two disciplines have continued to develop separately, with the efforts toward reunion coming mostly from the humanities.[6]

In art history more specifically, several authors have explored the scientific aspects of representations of animals. In diverse articles as well as in her recent book, Picturing Animals in Early Modern Europe: Art and Soul, Sarah R. Cohen points out that the growing number of images of animals produced during the modern period reflects an increasing interest in the sciences.[7] The development of printing and engraving techniques in the 15th and 16th centuries allowed for less restricted access to scientific resources and a wide dissemination of knowledge, leading to collaborations and emulations among scientists. These historical developments are also the focus of Marrigje Rikken’s PhD dissertation, which examines the network that emerged in Flanders at the end of the 16th century among humanists, scientists, and artists for the representations of animals in general.[8] This organisation would also be found in the Netherlands in the following century, partly due to the immigration of many Flemish artisans to the Dutch Republic.

Image

This can be exemplified by the works of Clara Peeters, a Flemish painter who immigrated to Amsterdam in 1612. The way her motifs spread, particularly her depictions of fish, indicates that the interest in meticulous representations of animals was the same in the Netherlands as in Flanders. Indeed, there was a constant exchange of motifs between the two territories, as shown by Fred Meijer in the catalog of the exhibition Slow Food.[9] Peeters' work displays a keen attention to detail, especially in the freshwater fish depicted, as well as a thorough anatomical study of crabs, presented from multiple angles, much like in anatomical plates. This technique of multiple representation of the same species was frequently employed by painters to showcase their talent and their deeper understanding of their subjects.[10]

The genre of fish still lifes developed further in the Netherlands, establishing its own codes. These are typically pyramid-like constructions, very dynamic, as seen in a painting by Isaac van Duynen now in a private collection.[11] While the structure is pyramidal, there is also a wave-like movement that enhances the dynamism of the composition and underscores the liveliness of the piece. Two "codes" are mixed here: those of the so-called pronk still lifes, associated with luxury, and those of classic fish still lifes showing the catch of the day, like Van Beijeren’s painting from Copenhagen. Each depicted animal is treated with particular attention to its textures, whether it is the flesh of the salmon or white fish, the shiny skin of the sturgeon and cod, or the water-filled interior of the molluscs. Amid this cascade of fluids, the rich blue cloth and the ornate foot of the table stand out, emphasizing the fish not as food but as objects of study, suddenly placed on a pedestal. The species are clearly distinguishable and represented in their most precise details. While the fish, having been taken out of the water, are likely all dead, the lobster in the foreground is still blue, indicating that it might still be alive. The lobster, in general, is of particular interest to us as it is one of the few marine animals present in drawings of compositions.

The remaining drawings

As mentioned earlier, as of this writing, no drawings of fish still lifes have been found. Overall, very few drawings of Dutch still lifes have been preserved, which makes it difficult to understand how the painters who worked in this genre. A few surviving drawings by Willem Kalf are preserved in Europe (Berlin, Gemäldegalerie and Paris, Fondation Custodia), but none correspond exactly to executed compositions. On the other hand, several drawings by Jan Davidsz. de Heem have come down to us, and one of them, kept in the Staatliche Graphische Sammlung in Munich and depicting oysters, matches perfectly with a painted work in the National Gallery, London. 

Image

Image

Others drawings by De Heem are at more sketched stages, and while no exact corresponding works could be found, they are interesting to mention in this article for their depiction of lobsters.

The drawings are broad compositions that include elements found in other works by the master, such as the curtain and columns opening onto a landscape, the bottle box, the bulbous cup, and an abundance of fruit. The lobsters are also present in painted works, and the comparisons show the significant exploration of light effects, particularly in the drawing from the Albertina, with rays from the window illuminating the lobster directly.

From a technical perspective, drawings are much quicker to produce than paintings and may have been done from life to serve as resources for the oil paintings, which would take much longer to complete. The wash drawing from the P.de Boer collection, is very schematic and feels more like a preparatory sketch, while the other sheet is likely a work in itself, particularly due to its framing.

Image

Two other very interesting depictions of sea animals in works on paper can be found in watercolours by Jacques de Gheyn II. The first of those is overlaid on a drawing of a witchcraft scene. It depicts a hermit crab without its shell, which is a curiosity since hermit crabs are generally shown in their shells, like in Balthasar van der Ast’s Still life with fruits and flowers in the Rijksmuseum.[12]

Image

The second drawing is part of an album held at the Custodia Foundation, which served as a repository of motifs for de Gheyn, allowing him to showcase his talent in depicting natural specimens. These albums can be found more or less frequently among still life painters of the early century: the Fondation Custodia holds those of Balthasar van der Ast, while the Rijksmuseum regularly exhibits those of German-born painter Jacob Marrel. For both artists, the albums primarily contained representations of tulips, enabling them to immortalize perishable and costly specimens as well as to compose their painted bouquets. They also feature studies of shells which later appear in paintings, more frequently in van der Ast’s work than in Marrel’s. This dual use of albums by artists of successive generations can make us wonder: is the crab only a loose depiction in De Gheyn’s album? Or could there be an unknown work by Jacques de Gheyn containing the same motif? Research still needs to be done on this aspect, as well as on the exact species of the crab, which might provide more information regarding the production of this image. 

Life-stories: fishers and painters

While searching for the visual sources used by fish-still-life painters, it is important to also consider the painters’ biographies. Isaac van Duynen is believed to have been the son of a wealthy fishmonger from Dordrecht, which could explain his focus on representations and idealizations of fish. His other works are not as oriented toward the pronk style as the aforementioned one, but they regularly feature the same motifs, such as a crab on its back or a live lobster, a turbot with its mouth attached to its tail by a hook, sliced fish, and incised cod. This could indicate that he was quite familiar with fishmonger practices and may have had easier access to species in relatively fresh conditions through his family connections.

Similarly, Jacob Gillig is said to have started working as a prison guard right next to the fish market in Utrecht, allowing him to observe fresh arrivals on a daily basis.[13] Most of his works depict freshwater fish, as Utrecht is one of the inland cities in the country, but a few paintings featuring fish caught offshore can be found in the collections of the Centraal Museum in Utrecht.

Image

Abraham van Beijeren’s focus on fish still lifes has been linked by some authors to his marriage to the daughter of the fish painter Pieter de Putter. However, Fred Meijer believes that De Putter's influence on Van Beijeren was only minimal.[14] It is still interesting to note the closeness that the painter maintained not just with fish merchants, but rather with fishermen: in 1649, he painted a votive painting for the church of Maasluis, near Rotterdam, commissioned by four captains on behalf of the local fishermen's guild. This work testifies to a direct contact that occurred while the painter was still primarily focused on marine subjects rather than still lifes. Sailors were also directly depicted in some of his paintings: while most still lifes do not feature humans, Julie Berger Hochstrasser has highlighted in an article the frequent presence of fishermen at work in the background of Van Beijeren's paintings, adding a social aspect to his works and bringing visibility to sailors, who were one of the most disadvantaged social classes.[15]

We can see that painters who specialized in representations of fish often had a genuine closeness to their subjects through professional or familial ties. In the absence of drawings, it can be assumed that these painters primarily had a trained eye for the motifs. One final path to explore is the existence of other visual sources, namely the scientific illustrations found in treatises published during the modern period.

Comparison with Scientific Illustrations  

It is only from the 1550s onward that illustrations in treatises take on a more scientific tone and are claimed to be "true" or "from life," as seen in the works of Pierre Belon. In general, the animals depicted in scientific works appear more rigid and frontal than those seen in still lifes. Cod and haddock have two major traditions of representation: the first is notably found in Belon's works, showcasing a detailed profile of the fish, with fins clearly visible and detached from the body. 

Image

Image

In contrast, the second tradition, marked among others by Petrus Nylandt, who adapted engravings from the Flemish artist Adriaen Collaert, gives the impression that the fish have just emerged from the water, with their fins pressed against their scales and a more natural texture. The positioning of the bodies is also less rigid, revealing anatomical elements that can also be found in certain still lifes. 

A painting by Abraham Vosmaer from the Stedelijk Museum Het Prinsenhof in Delft features the two species we see in the engraving. It is clear that this is not an exact copy, so the illustrations did not serve as a direct model for the painter; however, there are similarities in treatment. For example, the engravings pay particular attention to textures and the reflection of light on the scales, which we also find in Vosmaer’s pannel. 

Image

Roughly the same results can be found concerning crustaceans, which are often depicted more rigidly in scientific works than in still lifes. Crabs and lobsters are generally represented from above or completely from below, as seen in Jan Jonston’s treaty, while still life painters favor a viewpoint that can be likened to a ¾ perspective, as for both lobsters and crabs in Ryckhals's work.

There is still no clear and definitive answer regarding the models used by the painters. The most likely scenario is a broad visual culture, a blend of their everyday life and the images they encountered through the world of publishing and engraving. Fish painters generally maintained close contacts with the fishing community. This contact provided them with opportunities to observe motifs in real life, even though we lack drawn records of such interactions. The repetition of motifs across their works demonstrates a strong interest in the anatomy of the fish.

---

 

Notes

[1] Jan Miense Molenaer. Schilder in zijn atelier, 1630—1635.  https://museumbredius.nl/collectietype/schilderijen/#collectie-44 

[2] The concept of Naer het leven (“naar het leven” in modern Dutch) is treated at length by the painter and art theorist Karel van Mander in his Het Schilder-Boeck (1604). 

[3] C. P. Snow, The Two Cultures: And a Second Look: An Expanded Version of the Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Univ. Pr., 1965).

[4] Pamela H. Smith, ‘Art, Science, and Visual Culture in Early Modern Europe’, Isis 97, no. 1 (2006): 83–100.

[5] Eric Schatzberg, ‘From Art to Applied Science’, Isis 103, no. 3 (2012): 555–63, https://doi.org/10.1086/667979.

[6] Rens Bod and Julia Kursell, ‘Introduction: The Humanities and the Sciences’, Isis 106, no. 2 (June 2015): 337–40, https://doi.org/10.1086/681993.

[7] Sarah R. Cohen, ‘Life and Death in the Northern European Game Piece’, in Early Modern Zoology: The Construction of Animals in Science, Literature and the Visual Arts (2 Vols.), ed. Karl A. E.. Enenkel and Mark S. Smith (BRILL, 2007), 603–39, https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004131880.i-657; Sarah R. Cohen, Picturing animals in early modern Europe: art and soul (London, Belgique, Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d’Irlande du Nord: Harvey Miller publishers, 2021).

[8] Marrigje Rikken, "Dieren verbeeld: diervoorstellingen in tekeningen, prenten en schilderijen door kunstenaars uit de Zuidelijke Nederlanden tussen 1550 en 1630," PhD diss., (Leiden University, 2016).

[9] Fred G. Meijer, ‘Meal Still Lifes in the Southern and Northern Netherlands: Reciprocal Inspiration?’, in Slow food: Dutch and Flemish meal still lifes, 1600-1640 (Zwolle, Pays-Bas: Waanders Publishers, 2017), 33–45. 

[10] Julie Berger Hochstrasser, ‘Feasting the Eye: Painting and Reality in Seventeenth-Century “Bancketje”’, in Still-Life Paintings from the Netherlands, 1550-1720 (Zwolle : Waanders Publishers, 1999), 73–85, http://archive.org/details/stilllifepaintin0000chon 

[11] Isaac Van Duynen. Still Life with Fish on a Table. 1628—1679/81. https://hoogsteder.com/painting/#painting-31 

[12] Balthasar van der Ast. Stilleven met veruchten en bloemen. 1620—1621. http://hdl.handle.net/10934/RM0001.COLLECT.5832 

[13] "Gillig, Jacob or Jakob." Benezit Dictionary of Artists. 31 Oct. 2011; Accessed 3 Mar. 2025.

[14] Adriaan van der Willigen and Fred G. Meijer, A dictionary of Dutch and Flemish still-life painters working in oils, 1525-1725 (Leiden, Pays-Bas: Primavera press, 2003).

[15] Berger Hochstrasser, ‘Feasting the Eye: Painting and Reality in Seventeenth-Century “Bancketje”’.