Image Not Available
for Jan Davidsz de Heem
Jan Davidsz de Heem
Dutch, 1606 - 1683/84
Born as Johannes van Antwerpen, the painter called himself Johannes de Heem but has always been mentioned as Jan Davidsz. de Heem in the literature. His father, a musician, died in 1612. His mother, two sisters and stepfather moved to Leiden in 1625. The following year Jan married Aletta van Weede (d 1643), who bore him three children, including Cornelis de Heem. During the early 1630s Jan moved to Antwerp, where he spent most of the rest of his life. He married Anna Ruckers in 1644, the year after his first wife died. Six children were born of this second marriage, including Jan Jansz. de Heem. Jan the elder went to Utrecht quite often and lived there from 1667 until 1672, when he returned to Antwerp. He had a workshop in Utrecht with collaborators and pupils, the most famous being Abraham Mignon.
1. Work.
Jan Davidsz.’s early works, produced in Leiden in the late 1620s, show the influence of interiors by Rembrandt and Jan Lievens, both active locally, as well as of tonal fruit-pieces by Balthasar van der Ast from Utrecht and ‘monochrome’ banquet-pieces by Pieter Claesz. from Haarlem. During the 1630s de Heem integrated elements of the local Antwerp painters of monumental kitchen-pieces and still-lifes Frans Snyders and Adriaen van Utrecht and later of the flower garlands and cartouches of Daniel Seghers.
De Heem’s paintings include fruit-pieces, vanitas still-lifes and flower-pieces, but he became most famous for his ornate or sumptuous still-lifes (pronkstilleven; e.g. Still-life with Parrot, c. 1650; Vienna, Akad. Bild. Kst and Still-life with a Glass and Oysters, c. 1640; New York, Met.). Like the book still-life, a special type of vanitas painting produced in Leiden, the sumptuous still-life, which de Heem started in his Antwerp period, was one of his own inventions. Several other subjects painted by him, even if only occasionally, constitute new iconographic forms, for instance a stable-piece (1631; Leiden, Stedel. Mus. Lakenhal) and herb-pieces (i.e. paintings with flowers or fruit in the open air, a ruin or a grotto). Characteristic of Jan Davidsz.’s work, however, are combinations of several types into one complex composition, such as a flower bouquet with fruit and vanitas objects. The sumptuous still-lifes are, in fact, examples of such combinations. They include precious objects, such as gold- and silversmith’s work, Venetian glass and exotic shells, beside fruit and other food. The meaning of several of the paintings is made explicit by inscribed texts, usually referring to vanitas and Christian symbolism. Proverbs about moderation (e.g. ‘Not how much, but how noble’) are contrasted with the abundance of the sumptuous still-lifes.
De Heem’s innovations are not limited by theme and combination only. Already in his earliest paintings he experimented with composition, brushstroke, light and colour. The compositions are given depth by means of architectural features in the background and foreground and through the effects of highlights and shadows. This can be seen, for example, in the Sumptuous Still-life with a Great Tit (The Hague, Rijksdienst Beeld. Kst, on loan to Utrecht, Cent. Mus.), which shows a chair and a small table with objects on a terrace; depth is suggested by the sky in the vista and the curtain-covered wall and pillars behind the table. This picture also features de Heem’s subtly refined repetitions of basic shapes, such as triangles and ovals (e.g. the striped lute and melon). As far as technique is concerned, he sometimes painted broadly but also used delicate glazes, often in the same painting. The skimming light is concentrated on essential objects. Harmonious colour pattern with subtle transitional shades is the result of a development from ‘monochrome’ and ‘tonal’ approaches using shades of grey and brown. De Heem integrated the large and colourful Flemish style, with its strong contrasts, with the relatively small, simple, sober and intimate paintings more typical of the northern Netherlands.
2. Critical reception and posthumous reputation.
No painter had such an influence on the development of Netherlandish still-life painting during the 17th century as Jan Davidsz. de Heem. His large sumptuous still-lifes of the 1640s made a particularly profound impression. Nearly all the still-life painters since, including great figures such as Willem Kalf and Abraham van Beyeren, were affected by him, and many tried to imitate his work. The impact of his art was strongest in three centres: Antwerp, Utrecht and Leiden. Only a small number of pupils are documented, among them Alexander Coosemans (1627–89) in Antwerp. Joris van Son (1623–67) was one of the most successful followers there. Important followers in Utrecht were Jacob Marrell (1614–81) and, especially, Abraham Mignon, who collaborated on several of de Heem’s paintings. Local substitutes in Leiden included Pieter de Ring (1615–60) and a circle around him. Foremost among de Heem’s collaborators, however, were his sons Cornelis and Jan Jansz. de Heem. A Flower-piece with a Crucifix and Vanitas Objects (Munich, Alte Pin.) is signed by Jan Davidsz. de Heem, Jan Jansz. de Heem and the Antwerp still-life painter Nicolaes van Veerendael. Jan Davidsz. de Heem’s influence was still apparent throughout the 18th century, for instance in works by the still-life painters Rachel Ruysch and Jan van Huysum.
Jan Davidsz. de Heem was also considered one of the greatest painters by his contemporaries. He was well paid for his work: a portrait of Prince William III surrounded by a cartouche of flowers and fruit (Lyon, Mus. B.-A.) was sold for 2000 guilders, one of the highest prices ever paid for a painting during the Golden Age. His works have been appreciated ever since, both in the literature and on the art market. They are among the most expensive Dutch paintings.
Sam Segal. "Heem, de." In Grove Art Online. Oxford Art Online, http://www.oxfordartonline.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/subscriber/article/grove/art/T037157pg1 (accessed May 8, 2012).
Person TypeIndividual
