From 1663 onwards van Schrieck, a painter-botanist-entomologist, specialised in painting these type of forest floor still-lifes, A Forest Floor with a Snake, Lizards, Butterflies and other Insects, being a further example of this oeuvres (fig.1). Both paintings feel as though they are set in a hidden-away corner of a forest, untouched by humans, and the isolation and darkness creates a forbidding feel in both paintings. Again, in the Rijksmuseum work, we see the familiar scene of a snake on the point of attacking its prey, which this time is a red butterfly. Van Schrieck however also includes another conflict in this painting, for at the foot of the tree, two lizards circle each other ready to fight, the one on the right on the verge of pouncing. Images such as this, or of a snake eating a butterfly, or the depiction of the decay of the forest floor, are believed to allude to the transience of life. It is a recurring theme throughout van Schrieck’s work, portraying nature in such an unsettling way, contrasted with what is often the serenity of the landscape located in background. Even in paintings such as the Fitzwilliam Museum’s Still-Life with Flowers, where the focus is centred on a specific plant, rather than the wider forest floor, the plant will inevitably be dead and drooping, and often will convey details of animal violence.

Looking at his oeuvre as a whole it is clear that van Schrieck was fascinated by the animals which he painted, and their behaviour. According to his widow, as recorded by Arnold Houbraken, the author of De Groote Schouburgh der Neder¬lantsche Konstschilders en Schilderessen (The Great Theatre of Dutch Painters), van Schrieck knew the habits of these creatures very well and is known to have bred snakes, lizards and insects himself. It therefore seems that many of the detailed flora and fauna found in his paintings were based on careful study of the various animals, insects and plants he discovered and kept in his own garden, a 'watery' domain near Diemen.¹  Early in his career, when he lived in Italy, van Schrieck was a member of the Schildersbent. This was a fraternal organisation dedicated to social fellowship and mutual assistance, founded in about 1620 by a number of Dutch and Flemish artists living in Rome. Although the society may not have contributed much to his scientific development, it is interesting to note that, according to Houbraken, it was here that van Schrieck received the nickname Snuffelaer. He was given the name, meaning a ferreter or scrounger, ‘omdat hij allerwegen naar vreemd gekleurde of gespikkelde slangen, hagedissen, rupsen, spinnen, flintertjes en vreemde gewassen en kruiden omsnuffelde’ (‘because he was all about after strangely coloured and speckled snakes, lizards, caterpillars, spiders, butterflies and strange plants and herbs’).²  This early interest in the smaller forms of nature was to dominate his painting throughout his career.

Although his subject matter may have been unusual in its specialist nature, van Schrieck’s work does reflect Dutch artistic culture in the seventeenth century, in that it is significantly informed by science. The practice of observing and then recording and registering results through pictures and texts, was fostered in even the most basic of schools, and consequently this culture was reflected in art. Several artists did engage in their own scientific experiments, and their interest is evident in their work. Jacques de Gheyn II is one such example. De Gheyn was known for his delicate watercolour studies of insects and flowers, which he often produced for private study and specific patrons, such as the Holy Roman Emperor Rudolf II. Equally, many institutions, such as the botanical gardens at Leiden and Amsterdam, and the East and West Indies Companies, published scientific texts which were often illustrated by talented artists, such as Maria Sibylla Merian. Published in 1705 her Metamorphosis Insectorum Surinamensium presented her keen researches into plants and insects. The impressive plates were based on painstaking observations, many of them made with a magnifying glass. She published them with detailed descriptions, which were written with help from the director of the botanical gardens in Amsterdam. It is not hard to imagine how the work of van Schrieck, with its acute study of animal interaction and the decay of nature, emerged from this scientific cultural backdrop.

Van Schrieck’s work is also a product of the conditions of the Dutch art market at the time. Art was a booming industry in the Netherlands, taking place on the level of arts and crafts, rather than as ‘fine art’ in the modern sense. Works of art were made for a market, as opposed to just being made on commission. One of the results of this was that painters had to strive hard to find a specific niche for themselves in this competitive market, so that not only did many of them specialise in a specific genre, such as history or portrait painting, but often they specialised within that genre. For example, the landscape painter Aert van der Neer invariably imbued his works with uncustomary light effects. This specialisation did mean that the resultant work was often of a high quality and it is clear that van Schrieck’s still-lifes were in part a product of this.

Van Schrieck’s paintings also betray an unusual working technique, with some of his paintings being characterised by the presence of various organisms, which he would apply directly onto the canvas. For example, in his Still-Life with Plants and Reptiles van Schrieck used butterfly wings to make an impression into the paint in order to achieve lifelike texture, he also implanted at least one leg of a fly onto the canvas.

According to Houbraken, early in his career van Schrieck travelled to Italy and stayed in Florence and Rome with Matthias Withoos and Willem van Aelst, the latter being his pupil at the time. Houbraken remarks that van Aelst ‘carried out many pranks’ in the company of van Schrieck. In Italy he was patronised by, amongst others, Ferdinando II de'Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany. Samuel Hoogstraten claimed that he met van Schrieck in Rome as late as 1652. About 1657 he returned with van Aelst to Amsterdam, where he had a small property and got married on the twenty-fifth of April 1664.

Van Schrieck developed the 'Forest Floor still-life’, depicting the flora, moss and fungi with reptiles, butterflies and snails in their natural habitat with extreme precision, and was one of the first painters to specialise in this sub-genre. He returned to Amsterdam in 1657 were he established a successful studio, specialising in the still-life, which was in great demand. He was much admired in his own lifetime, and his work was greatly sought after. His paintings also had a notable influence on a number of artists, including the Italian Paolo Porpora and Schrieck’s distinguished pupil, Rachel Ruysch. Ruysch’s forest still-life Flowers on a Tree Trunk, provides a particularly good example of the extent to which she was influenced by van Schrieck. As in van Schrieck's still-lifes, we are presented with a dark undergrowth, from which emerges a dried stump with knotholes surrounded by toadstools and moss. Winding around the dead tree’s trunk are brightly coloured flowers of all kinds, including roses, lilies and bindweed. They have a luminous quality which seems to emanate from within. Insects, reptiles, to fight one another, and collectively they destroy the plant-life. On the left, a toad and a small snake are attacking one another, and on the right, another toad is trying to hold a small lizard in check.

The work of van Schrieck occupies a special place among Dutch still-life painters. He was as interested in representing the interactive behaviour of animals as he was their external appearance: thus a snake tries to catch a butterfly, or two lizards attack each other. By expressing the violence of these animals, his paintings underline the transitory, fragile and precarious side of life. His compositions almost always have a narrative quality to them, whether light and pleasant, as in the Forest Floor with a Snake and a Butterfly (Fond. Custodia, Inst. Néer, Paris), or more threatening, as in A Forest Floor Still-Life with Various Fungi, Thistles, an Aspic Viper, a Sand Lizard, a Snail, a Tree Frog and Two Moths. However, although the world represented in van Schrieck’s paintings reflects the zoological and botanical interests of a well-versed science amateur, this world is still not free from religious associations. Indeed, it is the religious meaning which has determined the selection and composition of the animals and plants. The snake, the toad and the lizard are the 'unclean animals', with the serpent having negative connotations and being regarded as an incarnation of evil, and as such, was a favourite subject for depicting evil. The strong presence of death and decay in his work create an effect of drama, mild horror or fascination.

An inventory of the contents of van Schrieck’s house was made in July 1678, shortly after his death, in which more than three hundred paintings were listed. Besides his own paintings, there were works by Cornelis van Poelenburch, Simon de Vlieger, Ludolf Bakhuizen, Jan Wijnants, Lucas van Leyden and van Aelst.

¹ see A. van der Willigen & F.G. Meijer, A Dictionary of Dutch and Flemish Still-life Painters Working in Oils, 1525-1725, Leiden 2003, p. 139

² see A. Houbraken, De Groote Schouburgh der Nederlantsche Konstschilders en Schilderessen..., The Hague 1753, vol. I, p. 358

link