Morning-Glory and Butterflies | Crocker Art Museum
Morning-Glory and Butterflies, n.d.
Otto Marseus van Schrieck (Dutch, circa 1619–1678)
Brush and watercolor with applied decoration on three separate fragments on cream laid paper, 7 9/16 in. x 6 in. (19.2 cm x 15.3 cm). Crocker Art Museum, E. B. Crocker Collection, 1871.467.

Famous for his development of the sottobosco, a specific type of still life depicting lizards, frogs, and creatures of the forest floor, Otto Marseus van Schrieck (1619/1620–1678) also painted more conventional flower pieces. The Dutch painter traveled widely, spending time in England and France before moving to Italy in the company of his pupil, Willem van Aelst (1627–after 1687) before 1652. Once there, he worked in Rome for several years before he moved on to Florence, where his meticulous botanical and zoological paintings attracted the interest of the more scientifically minded members of the Medici family.(1) Upon his return to Amsterdam in about 1656, Schrieck settled down to paint, collect art, and raise the reptiles, amphibians, and insects that feature so prominently in many of his works.(2) His followers, including Rachel Ruysch (1664–1750), carried his subject matter and techniques well into the eighteenth century.

While at first glance the Morning-Glory Vine with Three Butterflies appears to be a simple watercolor, microscopic examination reveals van Schrieck’s use of an unusual technique: he pressed real butterfly wings onto a prepared ground on paper, leaving a powdery colored residue in the pattern of the original butterfly. He then cut out these counterproofs and glued them to the sheet seen here, filling in any losses in the pattern with watercolor.(3) Van Schrieck used this technique in a number of his oil paintings, sometimes supplementing the counterproofs with real insect parts, ranging from butterfly wings to fly legs.(4) Similar practices have been detected in the works of a number of artists in van Schrieck’s circle, including Ruysch. The Morning-Glory and Butterflies proves that he used the same technique in his drawings, which are extremely rare.(5)

In contrast to the meticulous delicacy of the butterfly wings, the flowers and vine are summarily executed. Clearly this watercolor was not intended to provide the artist with an accurate visual record of the plant for later use in his paintings. Instead, it was probably conceived as a finished work of art in its own right. Van Schrieck may have considered the morning glory a prop for the butterflies, leading the viewer to focus on his unusual technique. As flowers that bloom and fade within a day, however, they could have contributed to the meaning of the image as a whole, working in harmony with the fragile butterflies to remind the beholder of the transience of life. In his larger, more elaborate sottoboschi and flower pieces, Schrieck returned a number of times to this theme, though the meanings of his still lifes are often complex and open to multiple interpretations.(6)

In addition to the present drawing, the Crocker owns a small watercolor of a frog, only recently re-attributed to van Schrieck. The Froglet and the Morning-Glory were once mounted together, along with several watercolor studies of insects by other artists.(7) The presence of similar watercolors and drawings in Schrieck’s inventory (“een party teeckeningen wesende Schetsen soo van bloemen, kruyden als anders”) indicates that he made other such sketches.(8) Additionally, he made watercolor studies of plants for the famous plant collector and gardener Agneta Block, who built up a collection of about four hundred botanical studies recording her specimens.(9) Although the Crocker drawing is not listed in her inventory, Douglas Hildebrecht notes that several of Schrieck’s watercolors for Block survive in the collection of the Earl of Derby, including a bindweed (a wild type of morning glory) with caterpillar and chrysalis.(10) The summary treatment of the plant in this watercolor diverges from the more carefully descriptive botanical illustrations by other artists that comprised most of Block’s collection. If the Crocker sheet was not intended for the collection of a horticulturalist, it attests to the burgeoning interest in natural history in seventeenth-century Europe.

Stacey Sell, in William Breazeale, with Cara Denison, Stacey Sell, and Freyda Spira, A Pioneering Collection: Master Drawings from the Crocker Art Museum, exh. cat. Sacramento and tour, 2010

Back to Collection

Notes:

(1) For Schrieck’s years in Italy, see Douglas R. Hildebrecht, Otto Marseus van Schrieck 1619/20–1678 and the Nature Piece, Art Science, Religion, and the Seventeenth-century Pursuit of Natural Knowledge, unpubl. Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 2004, pp. 47–71 and 250–282, and Fausta Franchini-Guelfi, “Otto Marseus van Schrieck a Firenze, contributo alla storia dei rapporti fra scienza e arte figurative nel seicento toscano,” in Antichità viva, part I: vol. XVI, no. 2, March–April 1977, pp. 15-26, and part II: vol. XVI, no. 4, July-August 1977, pp. 13–21.

(2) Steensma 1999 as in Literature above, pp. 10–22.

(3) For a detailed account of this technique and its use by other artists, see Steensma 1999 as in Literature above, pp. 61–67; see also Hildebrecht 2004 as in note 1 above, pp. 137–140. The technique was first discovered by Bodo Beier in the work of Johann Falch.

(4) Steensma 1999 as in Literature above, p. 61. Among the other artists to incorporate butterfly wings into paintings was Schrieck’s follower Elias van den Broeck, whose biographer claimed he was driven out of Antwerp by angry customers for the practice. See Fred G. Meijer, The Collection of Dutch and Flemish Still-life Paintings Bequeathed by Daisy Linda Ward, Oxford, 2003, pp. 184–185.

(5) Breazeale 2008 as in Literature above, pp. 527–533.

(6) For the allegorical content of other still lifes by Schrieck, see Ingvar Bergström, “Marseus, pentre de fleurs, papillons, et serpents,” in L’Oeil vol. CCXXIII, December 1974, pp. 24–29. For varying interpretations of the sottoboschi, see Steensma 1999 as in Literature above, pp. 77–79.

(7) Breazeale 2008 as in Literature above, pp. 529–533.

(8) Steensma 1999 as in Literature above, p. 105.

(9) See C. Catherina van de Graft, Agneta Block, Vondel’s Nicht en Vriendin, Utrecht, 1943. pp. 135–152 for the inventory of Block’s collection.

(10) Hildebrecht 2004 as in note 1 above, p. 76. Hildebrecht was unable to obtain photographs of the drawings, but notes that they depict “plants growing out of the soil,” like the Crocker watercolor. In addition, he cites a more vaguely worded reference to an album of Schrieck’s studies mentioned in the diary of Balthasar de Monconys (ibidem, p. 70).

Inscriptions: dark brown ink, lower left corner: O.M.S.

Marks: none

Provenance: Edwin Bryant Crocker, Sacramento, by 1871; gift of his widow Margaret to the Museum, 1885

Literature: William Breazeale, with Cara Denison, Stacey Sell, and Freyda Spira, A Pioneering Collection: Master Drawings from the Crocker Art Museum, exh. cat. Sacramento and tour, 2010, no. 24; William Breazeale, "Old Masters in Old California: the Origins of the Drawings Collection at the Crocker Art Museum," in Master Drawings, vol. XLVI, no. 2, Summer 2008, pp. 527–533, fig. 1; Susanna Steensma, Otto Marseus van Schrieck, Leben und Werk, Hildesheim and New York, 1999, no. A110, p. 105; Numa S. Trivas, Old Master Drawings from the E. B. Crocker Collection, the Dutch and Flemish Masters, unpubl. ms., Sacramento, 1942, no. 72; Numa S. Trivas, "Lesser Known American Art Collections. I. The E. B. Crocker Art Gallery of Sacramento, California, U.S.A.," in Apollo, vol. IV, December 1940, p. 137

Next Previous

ArtMix

Check out Sacramento's favorite after hours pARTy bursting with live performances, DJed music, festive food and drinks, creative artmaking, and so much more!

Learn More

Current Exhibitions

Learn more

Kids + Family

The Crocker invites families to think of the Museum as a place to learn, play, and grow.

Learn More