|
The aesthetically
conservative principle of tables arranged strictly parallel to the
horizontal edges of the painting was followed by Nicolaes Gillis and
Floris Claesz van Dijck. (Predecessors were probably family paintings
such as Marten van Heemskerck’s.) Their still-lifes are classified as ‘ontbijtjes’
(breakfast still-lifes). Onbijt(je) was a light meal which could be
taken at any time of the day.
All these artists show a
table with a table runner and a carefully ironed, white damask
tablecloth whose creases, regardless of the laws of perspective, run in
parallel lines towards the back of the painting. A relatively high
viewpoint was also chosen, apparently to afford a good overall survey of
the objects, which are arranged side by side, or in a circle, hardly
ever touching or overlapping. The precious drinking vessels and pieces
of textile show very clearly that the arrangement is that of a
privileged household.
In the early 1630s Heda
began to use the compositional structures developed by Nicolaes Gillis
and Floris van Dijck. Unlike those artists, however, he placed the white
tablecloth on the left or right-hand edge of the table, so that the
middle of the table is not covered and is no longer symmetric. In
subsequent ‘banketjes’ (banquet pieces), the tablecloth was pushed
further and further aside – as early as 1638 in Heda’s paintings – until
it was actually crumpled. Whereas for quite some time food was shown as
almost untouchable, precious and just for display, increasing traces of
consumption are now visible. The objects were no longer merely intended
to embody status-defining values, but became evidence of spontaneous
acts which disrupted the festive structures of the framework.
|
|
