Little research has so far been done into the life and work of Laurens Craen. Strikingly only some twenty pictures by this talented master have come down to us. As far as is known at present Craen was purely active as a still-life painter. He lived and worked in Middelburg between 1646 and 1666, but had had a studio before that in The Hague.
In Middelburg he came into contact with the still-life painters Ambrosius Bosschaert and Balthasar van der Ast. And although he was indeed stimulated by these great artists, Craen nonetheless struck out on his own, experimenting with innovative
compositions and becoming a master of a highly individual and distinctive manner of painting. His originality, however, has not always been universally valued.
Dark shadow
When we first saw the Still Life with Cartouche the painterly style clearly identified it as the work of Laurens Craen. To our great surprise, however, the picture bore the signature of one of the most famous seventeenth-century Dutch still-life
painters: Jan Davidsz. de Heem. But although elements such as the curling leaves and stalks did indeed recall De Heem, the hand of Laurens Craen was unmistakable. His palette is more colourful than that of De Heem and the bright use of light in Craen’s
still lifes makes for greater tonal contrast. And whereas De Heem works in a deliberately restrained manner, Craen adds just that little bit of extra lustre; indeed the peel of the citrus fruit is, as it were, almost moulded with paint and the areas of
shadow are emphasised.
De Heem’s signature, therefore, was almost certainly added later. Experience has taught us that in such cases it is best to be wary, as it is highly likely that the picture will have been touched up in other ways. This seemed borne out by the strangely
scalloped edge of shadow at the right of the painting, the purpose of which was not clear at all. Why was there an edge there? Was it a pentimento, an earlier idea of the artist that had been revealed by over-zealous restoration? Or did this edge
of shadow form part of the original painting? But if the latter were true it was inconsistent with the well-defined outline of the painted niche. There was only one conclusion: it had been painted over. This worried us, all the more so because the work
would have to be acquired in this condition. The quality of the painting was high, the artist indisputably Craen, the scene attractive, the signature misleading ... We decided to buy.
Like snow in the sun
As soon as we got the picture in the gallery we called in our restorer. Only he would be able to throw some light on the dark niche. A careful test carried out on the left-hand side of the arch confirmed our worst fears: the top layer of paint melted like
snow in the sun. The paint was so soft that it must have been recently applied. A strange grey under-tone emerged that was not as uniform in colour as the overpainting and covered with black spots. Following that first test more paint was removed from
another part of the picture and once again those strange dark colours appeared in the grey. We began to wonder whether someone had recently painted over the background because it was damaged. If that were so, we had bought a pig in a poke. But there was
no going back and the restorer was asked to remove all the overpainting. We followed the whole process with bated breath.
What happened surpassed all expectations. The arched niche gradually disappeared and in its place appeared a sculpted stone window ornamented with shells and Baroque decoration and painted in blacks and greys. The outline of the window now precisely
matched the sculpted shadow that had so puzzled us when we were buying the picture. We were thrilled and extremely relieved with the result.
But we still needed the final proof. Once the restoration was complete would Jan Davidsz. de Heem’s signature still be visible? The same solvent was applied once again. And it turned out as we had expected: De Heem’s signature disappeared. Furthermore to
our surprise, as the restoration work progressed traces of Laurens Craen’s authentic signature emerged in the centre of the cartouche at the bottom of the painting, a spot where Craen quite often left his hallmark. There could no longer be any doubt about
it - here was an authentic still life by Laurens Craen.
Curlicues
The existence of another picture by Craen of a fruit still life set within an identical sculpted frame confirmed that such a niche with ornamental scrollwork was indeed a speciality of the artist. This work is signed at the bottom in the centre
Laurens Craen F:[ecit] and from a compositional point of view shows strong parallels with the picture in our collection. In both works the painter has used a costly silver tazza as the centrepiece around which the fruit is draped. The
painted frame reveals the same curlicues and volutes. Moreover in both canvases we see a horn-shaped ornamental motif supporting the base under the cartouche to the left and the right. Only very rarely were oval frames with ornamental scrollwork used in
still-life painting. And interestingly there is an example of this by Jan Davidsz. de Heem.
Compliment
If we compare Laurens Craen’s image with Jan Davidsz. de Heem’s still life, which is in the collection of an English art gallery, then all the pieces of the puzzle fall into place. This or a similar picture by De Heem served as a model for the earlier
overpainting in our Craen. By changing the exuberant cartouche into a smooth flat niche, while retaining the volutes and shells in the base, it was possible to pass Craen off as a more expensive De Heem. Then of course it was essential to add the final
touch: Craen’s signature had to be replaced by that of De Heem. In a way this was a compliment to Craen, as apparently the quality of his work was high enough to pass it off as that of one of the most renowned still-life painters of the Golden Age. But
Craen’s individuality was not to be denied, and it was precisely the contour of the sculpted cartouche that alerted us to the overpainting.
More energy
No other artist has used scrollwork cartouches in this particular form, therefore Craen will not have got his inspiration from De Heem. Interestingly, however, they do occur in prints, and in the first half of the seventeenth century Middelburg was a
thriving print-making centre. So it seems likely that Laurens Craen looked to his etching and engraving colleagues for this characteristic element in his pictures.
Naturally one wonders why Craen should have experimented with this rare type of niche as a frame for his still life. A good look at our painting after restoration strikingly reveals that the depiction has now more energy and more rhythm. A
highly skilled composition constantly suggests circular movements, and here the curlicues form the key. The tazza sets up the central curl which is led downwards by a sprig of leaves above and then upwards again by another sprig. At this point
the niche takes over, drawing the eye across several curls down along the entire picture edge to the bottom. The curlicues return in the ends of the sprigs of leaves, in the decoration of the drinking vessel and in such details as the snail shell. All
these elements bring a rare dynamic to the image that is seldom encountered in still lifes. Only with Laurens Craen, and he is justly now accorded the full honour formerly given to his celebrated colleague Jan Davidsz. de Heem.