.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
We are grateful to Professor Susan Koslow for confirming the attribution of this hitherto unrecorded panel to Frans Snyders. The leading Flemish still life and animal painter of his generation, Frans Snyders' career only seems to have blossomed after his return from Italy in 1609, and after a productive association with Rubens. By the next decade his pre-eminence was acknowledged by connoisseurs and he remained in demand for most of the rest of his life. Susan Koslow in her comprehensive analysis of his art (Frans Snyders, Antwerp, 1995, pp. 184-185) points out that Snyders quickly distanced himself from mannerism and the subsequent additive still life manner, developing a more robust style. He was to ignore later still life developments, as introduced in Holland or by Jan Davidsz. de Heem in Antwerp. She stated: 'Successful with the picture types he had created, the seigneurial larders and the small fruit pieces which can properly be called "rural gifts" or (the Classical) xenia, Snyders probably recognised that a change in style would have made his work less readily identifiable and therefore less desirable. But equally important was surely his aesthetic sensibility and his philosophical orientation, committing him to the significance of the individual object as an example of God's craft and wisdom.'
The present picture is related to the slightly larger work on canvas in the North Carolina Museum of Art, Raleigh, North Carolina (H. Robels, Frans Snyders, Stillelben-und-Tiermaler, Munich, 1989, no. 143, pp. 270-1). As Koslow has commented, the compositions are very similar: both have a central basket laden with grapes, a tazza and a Wan-li 'Kraak' porselein bowl all to the left of the basket, with game birds to the right, a red table cloth and a grey-green background, with a dark oblong area (door/window) to the right. However, unlike the present panel, the Raleigh canvas has additional motifs, including a grey parrot, a bowl filled with blackberries, and with plums and apricots on the tazza, as opposed to the sumptuous figs depicted here. Koslow notes that in every respect the Raleigh picture, which at best is generally acknowledged to have studio participation (Robels, loc. cit.) is inferior to the present work, which Koslow considers to be of outstanding quality. The pentiments in this picture clearly indicate that it is the prime version of the composition, and she dates it to the 1630s, when Synders rarely signed his works. Koslow goes on to note: 'A somewhat unusual feature of the grapes is the generous use of light (whiteish)-green grapes; generally, Snyders reserves a larger area for blue grapes which he places adjacent to medium tone red grapes, with lighter green ones inserted as a kind of highlight; the purpose of this type of arrangement is to create volume. In this picture, the large lighter can be read as flat, which is what occurs in the Raleigh picture. But let me be clear, the grapes in the Hotton [Hall] picture are not flat. Another unusual feature of the fruit basket is that grapes alone are depicted. The more characteristic fruit basket is one where various fruit are loaded together. The base of the gilt tazza is imperfectly drawn, but this is not exceptional. Finally, more painting medium is used for the grapes than is generally the case, but this is what contributes to the lushness of the picture' (private correspondence, 26 May 2005). She concludes: 'The Hotton Hall work is beautiful in every respect, richly, even juicily painted, and what gives it special distinction is its vibrant animation that endows inert matter with, dare I say, life. Paradoxical but true'.
The present picture is related to the slightly larger work on canvas in the North Carolina Museum of Art, Raleigh, North Carolina (H. Robels, Frans Snyders, Stillelben-und-Tiermaler, Munich, 1989, no. 143, pp. 270-1). As Koslow has commented, the compositions are very similar: both have a central basket laden with grapes, a tazza and a Wan-li 'Kraak' porselein bowl all to the left of the basket, with game birds to the right, a red table cloth and a grey-green background, with a dark oblong area (door/window) to the right. However, unlike the present panel, the Raleigh canvas has additional motifs, including a grey parrot, a bowl filled with blackberries, and with plums and apricots on the tazza, as opposed to the sumptuous figs depicted here. Koslow notes that in every respect the Raleigh picture, which at best is generally acknowledged to have studio participation (Robels, loc. cit.) is inferior to the present work, which Koslow considers to be of outstanding quality. The pentiments in this picture clearly indicate that it is the prime version of the composition, and she dates it to the 1630s, when Synders rarely signed his works. Koslow goes on to note: 'A somewhat unusual feature of the grapes is the generous use of light (whiteish)-green grapes; generally, Snyders reserves a larger area for blue grapes which he places adjacent to medium tone red grapes, with lighter green ones inserted as a kind of highlight; the purpose of this type of arrangement is to create volume. In this picture, the large lighter can be read as flat, which is what occurs in the Raleigh picture. But let me be clear, the grapes in the Hotton [Hall] picture are not flat. Another unusual feature of the fruit basket is that grapes alone are depicted. The more characteristic fruit basket is one where various fruit are loaded together. The base of the gilt tazza is imperfectly drawn, but this is not exceptional. Finally, more painting medium is used for the grapes than is generally the case, but this is what contributes to the lushness of the picture' (private correspondence, 26 May 2005). She concludes: 'The Hotton Hall work is beautiful in every respect, richly, even juicily painted, and what gives it special distinction is its vibrant animation that endows inert matter with, dare I say, life. Paradoxical but true'.