Attributed to Abraham Bloemaert

Mr. H.C. Dietz, Baarn;
His sale, Amsterdam, Paul Brandt, 7/8 April 1959, lot 1 (as by Pieter Aertsen, wrongly as on panel),
Where bought by the father of the present owner.

 

M.G. Roethlisberger, Abraham Bloemaert and his sons, Doornspijk 1993, p. 507, no. H168-1, wrongly as on panel;
M.G. Roethlisberger, 'Vijf versies van één keukenstuk. Abraham Bloemaert als schilder van een populair genre', Antiek, 6, 1996, pp. 257-67, reproduced p. 258, fig. 2.

The actual painting is slightly warmer in tone than the catalogue illustration suggests. The canvas has a somewhat loose relining. Stretcher marks are slightly visible to the front and vertical creases are slightly visible on both ends. A horizontal retouched crease can be seen running through the lower centre. Two small repaired tears are visible in the centre right, and in the lower right corner. Discoloured retouchings are visible throughout, e.g. in the basket centre right, along the lower edge, to the lower right, in the man's hat, in the cabbages to the lower left. Some tiny white retouchings are visible in the woman's face and collar, in the man's coat and in the duck and jug on the lower left, as can be seen in the catalogue illustration. The paint surface is covered with a dry and dull layer of varnish, and would benefit from a clean. The craquelure pattern is rather coarse and varies in places. Inspection under ultra violet light confirms the aforementioned retouchings and reveals additional ones in the upper left corner, in the plate in the centre, and in the background above the figures. Offered in a plain black wood frame in fair condition. (MW/JD)
"In response to your inquiry, we are pleased to provide you with a general report of the condition of the property described above. Since we are not professional conservators or restorers, we urge you to consult with a restorer or conservator of your choice who will be better able to provide a detailed, professional report. Prospective buyers should inspect each lot to satisfy themselves as to condition and must understand that any statement made by Sotheby's is merely a subjective, qualified opinion. Prospective buyers should also refer to any Important Notices regarding this sale, which are printed in the Sale Catalogue.
NOTWITHSTANDING THIS REPORT OR ANY DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING A LOT, ALL LOTS ARE OFFERED AND SOLD AS IS" IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF BUSINESS PRINTED IN THE SALE CATALOGUE."

Kitchen pieces are rare in Bloemaert's oeuvre, but they are recorded in contemporary sources. The earliest mention of a kitchen still life (een Cooken) is in a letter of 24 April 1596 by Jacques Razet to Aernolt van Beresteijn in which he says he has een Cooken by Bloemaert. According to Van Mander the young Bloemaert copied a kitchen scene with an ox head by Pieter Aertsen (1509-1575), who was a specialist in this genre. Another reference to a Bloemaert kitchen piece is in the (unreliable) inventory of the imperial collection of Emperor Ferdinand II, in which no. 1039 is described as Eine grosse Kuchel vom Blomart.¹

Roethlisberger mentions five versions of the same design as the present work, but of different sizes and support.² According to Roethlisberger there are two main versions, one in a private collection in New York, on panel, 95 x 133 cm., and the painting offered here. The three remaining works are considered to be older copies. This is a revision of his opinion as expressed in Roethlisberger 1993, p. 507, no. H168, where he attributed the composition to Abraham's son Hendrick or the young Cornelis Bloemaert, based on poor photographs. After seeing three versions in person after the publication of his book, Roethlisberger comes to the following conclusion: Abraham Bloemaert invented the composition in an early stage of his career, sometime in the early 1590s. Although there are no known kitchen pieces by the artist, except for this composition, the fact they are mentioned from very early on, makes it very plausible that the young Abraham painted kitchen still lifes. Furthermore, the two figures can stylistically be linked to Bloemaert's early work, especially to the allegorical figure of Charitas of circa 1592 in the Cleveland Museum of Art that shows a striking similarity with the kitchen maid in the present painting.³ A composition of Ceres in the Faringdon Collection, Buscot Park, Oxfordshire, is similar in execution and features the same, remarkable, contorted position of the hand.⁴ 

Roethlisberger is reluctant to call one of the two paintings the primary version because of the condition of the present lot. However, one needs but to look at certain aspects in the present painting to acknowledge a superior mastery, particularly in the understanding of gravity and the graduation in space. This becomes clear when one compares the items suspended from the ceiling and the more subtle distribution of light on all the still life elements on the table. The result is a lively and convincing image that only a highly competent artist could have achieved.   

 

1. See Roethlisberger, 1993, under Literature, p. 113.  
2. idem., 1996, under Literature, pp. 257-67; see also under Literature, 1993, p. 507-8.
3. idem., 1993, vol. I, p. 86, cat. no. 37, reproduced vol. II, fig. 72.
4. idem., 1996, p. 263, fig. 7