Dutch and Flemish Old Master Paintings, Catalogue Seventeen, Johnny Van Haeften Limited, London, 2009, no. 23. 

On a profiled stone table with a round edge, partly covered with an oriental tablecloth, stand an elaborately decorated silver basin and ewer, with a kraak porcelain bowl of fruit, including peaches, an orange and a half-peeled lemon. A halved peach rests on the basin. In the background there are a rummer, a flute wine glass and a wineglass à la façon de Vénise, and in the left foreground there is a watch in an open case and a knife with a handle of semi-precious stones.

Many Dutch and Flemish paintings from the seventeenth century are the product of more than one hand. The majority of those works were intended as such: they are the collaboration of two specialists, for instance, that of a landscape painter and a figure painter in the case of a landscape with figures, or that of a history painter and a still-life painter who could produce paintings of such subjects as Christ in the House of Martha and Mary, a biblical scene enlivened with lush still-life motifs. In other cases – more often than expected or even recognised – paintings have been adapted to the aesthetics of a later period, like in the case of a flower painting by Jan Davidsz. de Heem from the 1660s which was apparently considered to look somewhat ‘empty’ during the early eighteenth century, upon which several ‘fresh’ flowers were added to the composition by Jan van Huysum.[i] 

The still life discussed here is also the work of two painters, but it does not fall into either category mentioned above. Although the two artists in question, Simon Luttichuys and Willem Kalf, both worked in Amsterdam and most probably knew each other personally, it was never intended as a collaborative work. In contrast, it must be considered as an unfinished work by Luttichuys, which was elaborated upon and finished by Kalf. The two hands are clearly separately recognisable in the painting: Luttichuys started out by painting and fully finishing the elaborate silver ewer and its basin in the centre, most probably some time during the later 1650s, and left the rest of the painting unfinished. Virtually everything else was added by Kalf, probably during the first half of the 1660s, as we shall see below. 

We know from the inventory that was made up after Simon Luttichuys’ death in 1661 that, among other things, he left no fewer than thirty-one unfinished still lifes.[ii] In all likelihood, the present picture was one of them.[iii] Unfortunately, we have no record of how it landed on the easel of Willem Kalf somewhat later. Was it acquired from Luttichuys’ estate by a collector or art dealer who brought it to Kalf to be finished? Or was it Kalf’s own decision to work on the painting?[iv] The latter seems less likely, however, since it would have been infinitely easier for Kalf to make up a composition of his own, rather than to work his way around Luttichuys’ rather prominent ewer and basin. This painting does appear to tell us, however, that Kalf – who is now justly considered one of the greatest Dutch still-life painters of his time – must have appreciated the work of the lesser known Simon Luttichuys at least to such a degree that he took upon himself the task of turning the artist’s unfinished work into an attractive finished product.[v] 

As mentioned above, the ewer and its basin can easily be recognised as the work of Simon Luttichuys, not only on the basis of the way they have been painted – somewhat broader and more painterly than Kalf’s contribution, and in a different palette – but also these same objects appear identically in a  still life  by Luttichuys from 1657[vi] as well as in an unsigned still life by the artist which was also finished by another hand.[vii] The date, 1657, on the first painting – incidentally one of the largest still lifes in the artist’s oeuvre – and the fact that the other work including these objects apparently was also left unfinished reconfirm that Luttichuys’ ewer and basin in the present painting should probably be dated to the late 1650s. 

Dating of Kalf’s undated works is not an easy task due to the fact that his style and handling were rather consistent after he settled in Amsterdam, and also because he dated very few of his still lifes. However, comparing his additions to Luttichuys’s composition – the oriental table cloth, the porcelain bowl, the fruit and the wine glasses – with dated works from around 1663, we can observe numerous similarities in handling and subject matter. For instance, in Kalf’s painting from 1662 in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin[viii], we find a highly similar oriental tablecloth, lemon and orange, as well as a very similar and similarly handled cased watch and knife. In both paintings the key to the watch hangs down from a ribbon, glittering under the table. Many similarities in motifs and handling can also be observed with three paintings, all dated 1663, in the museums in Schwerin and Cleveland Ohio[ix]. The fact that Kalf’s first dated still life after 1663 is from 1669 makes it difficult to follow his stylistic development in much detail, but it would appear that his handling became somewhat less soft and atmospheric. In all, the features of Kalf’s contributions to this still life strongly indicate that they were done one or two years after the unfinished painting came out of Luttichuys’ estate.

Simon Luttichuys was born to Dutch parents in London, where he was baptised on 16 March 1610. We do not know when exactly he moved to Holland, but he probably followed his brother Isaack, a portrait painter, who was first recorded in Amsterdam in September of 1639. He most likely settled in Amsterdam straight away, living and working there until his death in November of 1661. A few portraits by Simon Luttichuys are known, but his main subject was still life, mainly of costly objects and fruit. Luttichuys himself, too, is known to have reworked a still life by another artist: in an archival document from September 1661, he attested to the fact that he had ‘overschildert en vermeerdert’ (overpainted and added to) a vanitas still life that was begun by Jan Jansz. Treck (1605/06-1652).[x] Unfortunately, that work can not be identified now.[xi] 

Willem Kalf was the son of a Rotterdam cloth merchant and member of the local government. He was baptised there on 3 November 1619. Kalf’s earliest subjects were barn interiors. Most of those paintings, usually on small panels and occasionally on copper, were produced during the artist’s sojourn in Paris, where he worked from c.1641, returning to Holland in 1645 or early `46. Kalf was living in Hoorn at the time of his marriage to Cornelia Pluvier in 1651, but had moved to Amsterdam by 1653, where he remained until his death on 31 July 1693. He is reported to have given up painting in his later years and is believed to have devoted himself to art dealing instead. Such an early end to his painting career appears to be corroborated by the fact that his last known dated work is from 1680. As far as we know, Kalf painted still lifes only – even though his early barn interiors and farmyards border on genre, they also make it clear that figure painting was not the artist’s forte. 

Willem Kalf is best known for his still lifes of luxury items, displayed against a dark – if not black – background, often on a table covered with an opulent eastern rug. Despite the high quality and luxury status of the objects he rendered, the compositions of those still lifes are often restricted in their opulence. Kalf would concentrate on a few items per painting, which he would render to their best advantage – perfectly arranged and dramatically lit. This he had in common with Simon Luttichuys, who also appears to have preferred still-life composition with a restricted number of objects. More often than not, Kalf’s lighting had the effect of modern spotlights. His earliest experiments in the field of the luxury still life date back to his sojourn in Paris, where some of his more elaborate still lifes originated, but most of them were painted during his years in Amsterdam, where he was highly successful and lauded by critics and poets.

Dr. Fred G. Meijer