Social Commentary in Dutch Still Life Paintings:

An adequate theory of representation must take into account the culturally

specific circumstances in which visual images function. . . . Works of art

embody the collective psychology of entire nations and epochs in

perceptible form.

--Claire Farago

The topic of Renaissance art often draws to mind the master figures of

Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo; with their sweeping effects on their

own time and influence on artists who followed, they left behind some of

the world's most beloved and appreciated pieces of art. Though certainly

lesser known, two seventeenth-century Dutch artists each created a

respectable body of work in the Renaissance period as well: Pieter

Gerritsz and Pieter Claesz. Their works consist of primarily still-life

paintings; those commonly placed in monographs include Gerritsz' Still

Life of the Paston (Yarmouth) Collection and Claesz' Still Life with

Turkey-Pie. The painting by Gerritsz, now found in the Castle Museum in

Norwich, England, portrays an uruly accumulation of both exotic and

domestic items gathered by Sir William Paston throughout the seventeenth

century. Claesz' work, alternately, now in London's Hallsborough Gallery,

displays a dinner table laden with half-consumed victuals and various

decorations. Despite the seemingly simple and straightforward subjects of

these respective still-life paintings, the items exhibited therein

manifest a wide-reaching social commentary of the Renaissance, from

changes in philosophical beliefs to the re-stratification of both economic

and social classes.

Before examination of the social explications and implications of

Gerritsz' Still Life of the Paston (Yarmouth) Collection and Claesz Still

Life with Turkey-Pie, it is important to acknowledge the great worth both

paintings hold in their own right. The Paston painting, immense in detail

and splended in scope, heralds the growth of the British Empire and

records key pieces of Renaissance culture. In Still Life with Turkey-Pie,

Claesz gives one example of the dozens of still life paintings he created

over his lifetime, inspiring younger artists to follow his example in

subject matter and in the fine quality and attention to minute aspects of

artistry. While it would be worthwhile to note the various techniques and

innovations used by Gerritsz and Claesz as representatives of the

Renaissance, another examinatin of merit lies in what Erwin Panofsky

defines as "iconography in a deeper sense" (8). It is grappling "with a

work of art as a symptom of something else . . . and we interpret its

compositional and iconographical features as more particularized evidence

of this 'something else'" (Panofsky 8). The "something else" in regard to

Gerritsz and Claesz falls into the category of various aspects of

Renaissance society and ways in which it developed from the preceding

medieval era. These two artists powerfully impact views of the Renaissance

time period through their disparate works of art.

Gerritsz' Paston painting was commissioned by an English nobleman fond of

travel overseas, which accounts for the exotic nature and international

flavor of many pieces within the work (Kemp 177). This exoticism gives in

itself a commentary on an aspect of Renaissance society, namely the

seeming expansion of European thought from contact with other cultures and

peoples. In regard to such subjects as the African boy, the monkey, the

oversized lobster, and the parrot, Gerritsz pays heed to the fascination

with foreign lands prevalent in the Renaissance. The idea of land abroad

"touched the imagination of Renaissance Englishmen and acted like a heady

drug to spur them to a new interest in the realms beyond the sea" (Wright

508). The Paston display of exotic subjects would lend easily to the idea

of European ideological growth from interaction with a variety of people

and learning from the body of knowledge unique to their culture and

geographical location; however, the notion of displaying objects based on

their exoticism or foreignness casts doubt on any truly meaningful contact

with foreign people. Gerritsz heaps the subjects in a manner of disarray

for his painting, portraying a certain disrespect for that which he is

representing; in addition, painting animals, objects, and a person as a

record of collection speaks more to personal vanity and self-centeredness

than to true appreciation for the constitution of the collection. Whether

the decision of the artist or he who commissioned the work, the Still Life

of