A Painter Smoking a Pipe

Entry

A seated artist in an indeterminate interior is looking straight at the viewer while smoking a pipe and holding a smouldering wick in his left hand. A panel on the easel behind him appears to have the sketchy beginning of a painting. At the bottom it is prominently signed ‘JD . Heem’. The small Rijksmuseum piece was long considered to be an autograph self-portrait by Jan Davidz de Heem. In 2016, however, Meijer convincingly pointed out that it lacks the characteristics of a self-portrait and that the physiognomy is unlike De Heem’s, and nor does the signature correspond with any on his securely documented works.¹ Examination of the paint surface revealed that the inscription was applied at an early date, possibly even as early as the seventeenth century.²

Meijer also drew attention to an engraving by Lucas Vorsterman I with the same composition in reverse. It differs from the painting in that the figure is holding a half-filled glass and a twig with berry-like fruit (fig. a).³ The print’s title, Gustus, indicates that it is an allegory of taste and the accompanying verse warns against the excessive consumption of alcohol. It reads in translation: ‘O sweet Bacchus, merriest of men, O holy god, they can justly honour you. But you can also be severe and cruel, And visit suffering on he who abuses you’.⁴ It turns out from examination of the painting that it did indeed originally show a glass:⁵ it is visible as a dark shape to the naked eye, while the highlight at its upper edge is clearly visible in the X-radiograph. The glass was replaced by a pipe at a very early stage, for the crack pattern here corresponds with the overall craquelure, so it cannot be ruled out that the change was made by the artist himself. The hypothesis of a pentimento is reinforced by the fact that the paint used for the pipe is similar to that found in the sky on the left, which appears to be original. In this respect it is worth noting that depictions of artists smoking in their studios seem to have been a popular genre, unlike those of painters holding a glass of wine or beer. It is very possible that the area where the wick is now initially contained some fruit and was also altered early on.⁶

There is some evidence that the print was made after the Rijksmuseum panel. The engraving is reversed left for right,⁷ and in addition it is almost the same size, which supports the idea that the painting may have served as a modello.⁸ This is further supported by the print’s uncommon iconography, as reflected in the title Gustus. Sets of images in which artists act out the five senses are rare. Two such series in oil on canvas are known by Gonzales Coques. They are datable to the 1650s, and show himself and each of his four colleagues playing a role, but they are not identifiable as painters by the inclusion of attributes like palettes or easels.⁹ It is not certain that the Rijksmuseum picture should be considered a portrait at all. The combination of art and alcohol could perhaps refer to the idea – current since the Renaissance – that drink could assist artistic inspiration,¹⁰ but that is certainly not propagated by the verse on the print.

Meijer classified the painting as being a work by someone from Adriaen Brouwer’s circle, and the subject matter, the monochrome palette and the loose handling of the brush are indeed reminiscent of that artist’s mature oeuvre. The weak overall quality, though, rules out an attribution to Brouwer himself, nor can the panel be assigned to obvious Flemish followers of his, such as Joos van Craesbeeck, David Teniers II and the aforementioned Gonzales Coques. It seems equally implausible to consider Lucas Vorsterman as the inventor of the Rijksmuseum picture. In the final, second state of the engraving he is just indicated as its publisher (‘ex[cudit]’).¹¹ In both versions of the print, however, his monogram is present on the panel placed on the easel, which may be seen as identifying him as the author. Vorsterman, though, is not known to have been active as a painter. He is noted for his perfectionism in engraving, and the drawings attributed to him – all of which are modelli for prints based on works by others – are rather hesitant. Furthermore, one of his letters reveals that he was insecure about his skills as a draughtsman.¹² It is therefore highly unlikely that he was capable of conceiving an original composition, let alone of executing the spontaneous and technically competent picture in the Rijksmuseum.

In view of the assumed influence of Brouwer’s later output, it is possible that the painting was produced in the early 1630s. In that case the engraving would date from the same period, after Vorsterman’s return from London, to which he moved in 1624, to Antwerp in 1630. Interestingly enough, he had already made a series of prints of the seven deadly sins after a set of small pictures by Brouwer before 1628, probably during his English sojourn.¹³ It is doubtful that he would have done so with the Flemish master’s knowledge or even at his request, but it is likely that somehow he had access to Brouwer’s original works during his stay abroad and used them as his models.¹⁴ His reproductions proved so popular that no fewer than four series were later published by others, French as well as Dutch. Given this commercial success, Vorsterman could well have thought of issuing a further set of the five senses, but apart from the one single engraved Gustus no such series are known, nor any pictures matching the Rijksmuseum panel capable of forming an ensemble. One cannot escape the impression that both the painting and the Gustus engraving may have belonged to a project that was aborted at an early stage.

Vorsterman’s son Lucas later published a print with a comparable composition of a man holding up a glass in a landscape and mentioning Adriaen Brouwer as its inventor.¹⁵ This time it is not an allegory of taste but a depiction of the sin of luxury. What is more important, however, is that here too we are dealing with an individual scene, as no other corresponding sins are known.¹⁶

Eddy Schavemaker, 2022