Still Life with Chinoiseries

object number:

1959

measurements:

78,5 × 98,5 cm

date:

1906 - 1906

Stay connected!

Always receive the latest news.

Subscribe to the newsletter

Entry

The painting depicts various objects from the Far East laid out upon a table. There are articles of clothing lying on the table top; these may be coats. On top of these are a small Chinese teapot; a Japanese wooden mask with unusually large canine teeth; a small, semi-nude male porcelain statue; a bright blue vase in which Ensor placed a Japanese fan with a painted scene; a small Chinese porcelain sculpture of a mythological figure on a lion; a second Japanese fan beneath an open-mouthed Japanese mask; a small yellow and green pot; a completely green porcelain sculpture of a large-eared dog or cat; and a red and blue sculpture of a Chinese mythological figure. At top left, hangs an image-within-an-image of a Japanese wood carving or Ukyo-e of two figures on a terrace.

The background is noteworthy and consists predominantly of a light-brown upper area with a curved, light-blue area beneath. The border between the two areas resembles torn wallpaper.

From the sixteenth century onwards, trading companies – and occasionally secret colonial initiatives by the Dutch or British East India Companies – imported tea, silk, porcelain and spices from China (an East-India Company was active in Ostend between 1722 and 1731 but this successful venture was dissolved as part of the European peace negotiations.) Fascination with Chinese culture in eighteenth-century Europe prompted Chinese decorative motifs and architectural forms to be imitated and adapted into what came to be known as chinoiseries.¹ Ensor used the term chinoiserie for all the still lifes in which he included a variety of objects from the Far East. Ensor always called his still lifes with objects from China and Japan simply Chinoiserie. In this instance, he depicted Chinese tableware and porcelain statues, including the small statue in blue and red of a Chinese deity which he had previously painted in his Large Still Life with Chinoiseries of 1880.

In 1853, a small American war fleet forced Japan to abandon its isolationism and participate in international trade. Soon after this, Japanese art started to be collected and imitated in Europe.² Ensor’s mother and aunt, Catharina and Maria (Mimi) Haegheman, ordered objects from the Far East from Siegfried Bing in Paris.³ We do not know whether Ensor personally owned the objects in this still life or whether he borrowed them from friends, such as the Rousseau-Hannon family. In this still life, he depicted two Japanese fans: the first, a sparsely decorated flat, fixed fan of bamboo and paper; and the second, a bamboo and paper folding fan which could be opened and closed and had visible ribs. He also included a Japanese print and two wooden Noh-theatre demon masks. Ensor had previously used the mask with the striking canine teeth in Accessories in 1902. The mask with the wide-open mouth also played a major role in The Intrigue of 1890.

Over the course of 60 years, Ensor painted more than 230 still lifes, amounting to a third of his painted oeuvre. With the exception of a short break around 1885/88, he painted at least one still life a year. He considered still lifes to be the most important artistic genre and the touchstone of the true colourist.⁴

In 1889, Ensor painted the first of the still lifes in which he experimented with creating a narrative relationship between the various objects depicted. From 1900 onwards, he would often create theatrical still lifes. This does not appear to have been his aim here despite the expressiveness of the masks and the cat or dog’s head. The curious form of the background creates an illusion of space behind the objects; it is as if the objects were in some sort of cave. Ensor used this background again in Pierrot and Skeletons of circa 1906, in the two other versions of this composition, and possibly for the last time in Skulls with Flowers of 1909(?). It may well be the depiction of damaged wallpaper that actually existed on a wall in Ensor’s attic studio. If so, it might be a criterion for dating other paintings.⁵

After 1900, Ensor painted three versions of these Japanese and Chinese trinkets, which at first glance appear identical. In the hand-written list of paintings and drawings that Ensor gave to Grégoire Le Roy in 1921, he included numerous unspecified still lifes after 1900, as well as 5 chinoiseries. He provided dates for two of these Chinoiseries: the smallest – the third version of the still life under discussion here – is from 1908; while he dated the Chinoiseries in the Museum Dhondt-Dhaenens 1907. The version under discussion here is the largest of the three; it may also be the first. We should perhaps identify it with the Chinoiseries of 1906 that Ensor included in his 1908 Liste de mes oeuvres.

Therefore, to make these still lifes, Ensor must have staged more or less the same objects in nearly the same manner on a marble-topped table for three years! Ensor rearranged some of the objects for the different versions of these Chinoiseries, making the composition more compact and giving greater prominence to the more expressive objects, which may be an argument for dating the Antwerp version as the earliest of the three. One of Ensor's particular inventions when conceiving pseudo-narrative still lifes was the addition of figures of apparent outsiders looming behind the still life or even intervening in the scene playing out on the table, as if this were a stage. The Japanese print and the fan take on something of this outsider role here.

When we compare these three Chinoiserie still lifes, not only do we see how Ensor rearranged the objects on each occasion but also how he manifestly changed his own position – the site of his easel – thus, for example, changing the angle at which he viewed of the most noticeable of the masks. More interesting still is the way in which the character of the Chinoiseries is fundamentally altered by fall of the light. Until 1917, Ensor mostly worked in the attic studio at his parents’ home. It had a large south-west facing window – an aspect that painters are typically advised to avoid. But Ensor seems to have enjoyed the surprises brought about by the changing intensity of the light. He painted the largest version in bright sunlight, whereas muted light made the 1907 version seem somewhat more menacing. But perhaps what mattered most to Ensor was the way in which the various types of light truly transformed the colour of the objects.⁶

Xavier Tricot, James Ensor. Leven en werk. Oeuvrecatalogus van de schilderijen, Brussel: Mercatorfonds & Pandora Publishers, 2009.
Herwig Todts, James Ensor, Occasional Modernist. Ensor’s Artistic and Social Ideas and the Interpretation of his Art, (XIX Studies in Nineteenth-Century Art and Visual Culture), Turnhout: Brepols 2018.

Entry

The background is noteworthy and consists predominantly of a light-brown upper area with a curved, light-blue area beneath. The border between the two areas resembles torn wallpaper.

Technical summary

James Ensor painted Still Life with Chinoiseries on an industrially woven, coarse linen canvas with visible slubs and small imperfections. On average, there are 12 warp threads and 14.6 weft threads per 1 cm2, but this depends on where the measurements are taken. When measuring the size of canvas he wanted, Ensor marked a pencil cutting line. He retained fairly wide tacking margins, especially at the top and bottom.

The structure of the canvas is fairly visible in the painting.
The canvas has not been lined and the tacking margins have been left untrimmed, unlike what has been done to the majority of Ensor’s paintings in the KMSKA collection. As a result, the painting is still largely in its original condition. The stretcher is made of pine and is unstamped. Labels with information about the work were attached to its wood later. The canvas is nailed to the stretcher along both sides, at the corners and on the centre batten; this may be the original tensioning.

The painting was probably commercially primed with a warm white/yellowish, lead-based ground containing a small amount of calcium. A zinc white layer was applied over most of this surface. This ground is still partly visible at the edges of the painting.

There are visible traces of a sketched oil underpainting in some places, namely around the vase. Another method of laying out the composition comprised sketched lines in fine pencil which are visible under the Chinese scene and elsewhere. No carbon-based underdrawing is visible on the infrared image.

The painting was painted in oil paint applied quite thin with the occasional impasto. Ensor only used brushes and a limited colour palette for this work, and he mixed colours directly on the canvas. He used stiff hog-bristle brushes that left visible brushstrokes, and added details with a fine brush.
He added the signature ‘ENSOR’ in black paint, overpainted it in ochre-coloured paint, and then added ‘NSOR’ on the top in pencil.

Ensor used zinc and lead white, various sorts of cadmium yellow/cadmium orange, cerulean and possibly also cobalt blue, vermilion + earth pigment, organic red lake, Emerald or Scheele’s green and a chromium-based green. Changes to the cadmium yellow as a result of oxidisation and UV exposure have caused the yellow to fade.

The paint layer does not appear to be covered by a protective layer, but some areas have a glossier look, which may be a consequence of restoration, if it was not applied during the painting process.

Surface finish

There does not appear to be any protective layer covering the paint layer. However, there are many areas which have a glossier look. These are very unevenly distributed and mostly concentrated across the entire lower half of the work. This is visible both under raking light and under UV. In some places, distinct brushmarks can be seen and elsewhere there are drip marks.

It is unclear whether this is caused by something the artist did during the painting process, possibly to accommodate the difference in sheen during painting. It may also be something added by restorers to nourish the paint layer.

History of the Painting

Acquisition history

Breckpot Art Dealers, Brussels; Alphonse Aerts; donated to the museum by Marie-Louise and Henriëtte Aerts, 1924.

Restoration history

3/06/1998 condition report: support is decent, condition of the paint layer is good except for small lacunae. There are also small lacunae in the frame.
9/11/1998 condition check – good
10/06/1999 condition check: a rare example of an original Ensor: unlined and matt. The paint layer remains vulnerable even after consolidation. The canvas is slightly deformed at top right and is sagging a little. Paint layer shows raised paint flakes, loose paint layers, small lacunae, damaged edges and cracking during drying.
20/06/1999: conservation treatment. Stabilising raised paint flakes, surface cleaning of the back of the painting, making watercolour retouches where the edges had been damaged by the rabbet and other small places where paint loss had occurred. Applying protection to the back and adding and securing stretcher keys (thickness 3.5 mm). The paint layer remains vulnerable even after consolidation. Rare, unlined work by Ensor; this is probably the original state of the painting, which is why the museum has decided not to lend it out.
11/05/2000 Treatment report: consolidation of the paint layer, surface cleaning and watercolour retouches.
22/03/2011 condition report
10/06/1999 condition report: a rare example of an original Ensor: unlined and matt. The paint layer remains vulnerable even after consolidation. The canvas is slightly deformed at top right and is sagging a little. Paint layer shows raised paint flakes, loose paint layers, small lacunae, damaged edges and cracking during drying.

Exhibition history

1921, Antwerp, Kunst van Heden. Exhibition 1921, no. 80;
1959, Krefeld, Museum Haus Lange, James Ensor (no catalogue);
1963, Basel, Kunsthalle, James Ensor, no. 79, image no. 79;
1963, Münster, Landesmuseum Münster, James Ensor, no. 79, image no. 79;
1972, Kamakura, The Museum of Modern Art, James Ensor Exhibition, no. 22, image;
1972, Nagoya, Aichi Prefectural Museum of Art, James Ensor Exhibition, no. 22, image;
1972, Fukuoka, Prefectoral Museum of Art, James Ensor Exhibition, no. 22, image;
1972/ 1973, Kyoto, The National Museum of Modern Art, James Ensor Exhibition, no. 22, image;
1983, Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen, James Ensor, no. 104;
1983, Zürich, Kunsthaus Zürich, James Ensor, no. 97;
1983/ 1984, Kobe, The Modern Museum of Art, James Ensor, no. 68, image p. 99;
1984, Kamakura, The Museum of Modern Art, James Ensor, no. 68, image p. 99;
1984, Saitama, The Museum of Modern Art, James Ensor, no. 68, image p. 99;
1984, Sendai, Miyagi Museum of Art, James Ensor, no. 68, image p. 99;
1986/ 1987, Hamburg, Kunstverein in Hamburg, James Ensor, no. 30, image p. 84;
1990, Paris, Musée du Petit Palais, James Ensor, no. 215, image p. 238;
1993/ 1994, Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen, In depot / uit depot. De modernen in het koninklijk museum;
1999/ 2000, Brussels, Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium, Ensor, no. 150, image p. 213;
2000, Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen, Mo(u)vements. Kunstenaarsbewegingen in België van 1880 tot 2000;
2005, Tokyo, Tokyo Metropolitan Teien Art Museum, James Ensor: Japonisme to Modernism, no. 34, image p. 72;
2005, Tsu City, Mie Prefectural Art Museum, James Ensor: Japonisme to Modernism, no. 34, image p. 72;
2005, Fukushima, Fukushima Prefectural Museum of Art, James Ensor: Japonisme to Modernism, no. 34, image p. 72;
2005, Kitakyushu, Kitakyushu Municipal Museum of Art, James Ensor: Japonisme to Modernism, no. 34, image p. 72;
2005, Takamatsu, Takamatsu City Museum of Art, James Ensor: Japonisme to Modernism, no. 34, image p. 72;
2010, Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen, Closing Time. Jan Vanriet, image p. 246;
2010/ 2011, Brussels, ING Culture center, Ensor unmasked, no. 230, image p. 208;
2011/ 2012, Antwerp, MAS | Museum aan de Stroom, Masterpieces in the MAS. Five centuries of images in Antwerp;

Materials and condition

Support

Canvas

Ensor painted Still Life with Chinoiseries on an industrially woven, coarse linen canvas. There are visible slubs on the canvas in many places. These are small imperfections that arise during the production process. In two places, threads have been sewn in indicating a broken weft thread, or the end of the bobbin, during the weaving process (at respectively 18/46.6cm and at 58/54cm). The latter is clearly visible through the paint layer at the front of the canvas.

On average, there are 12 warp threads and 14.6 weft threads per 1 cm2, but this is heavily dependent on where the measurement is taken. The canvas is one of a few in the KMSKA’s Ensor collection that has not been lined, and therefore provides us with information about the quality of the canvases that the painter used. Lady at the Breakwater (1880, KMSKA, inv. 3384) and The Temptation of Saint Anthony (1927, KMSKA, inv. 4003) in the KMSKA collection have also remained unlined.

Ensor marked a pencil cutting line on the canvas when measuring the size of canvas he wanted. He retained fairly tacking margins, especially at the top and bottom of the canvas.

fig 1: Detail of the back of the painting in its frame. The tacking margins of the canvas are visible. A vertical pencil line is visible on the right tacking margin. When measuring the size of canvas he wanted, Ensor marked a pencil cutting line.

Stretcher

The stretcher is made of pine with a batten down its middle. There are no maker’s stamps present. There are ten stretcher keys in total, two of which are attached to the centre batten.
Labels have been attached to the centre batten and right-hand stretcher bar (4 and 2 respectively); these show the title of the work, the museum’s ownership and various exhibition procedures. All of these labels were attached after the work had entered the museum’s possession.

Tensioning method

The canvas is nailed to the stretcher down the side bars, at the corners and on the centre batten. This seems to be the original tensioning of the canvas. The canvas has lost some of its tension and hangs limply on its stretcher; this can be clearly seen on the raking light image.

fig 2: Detail of the lower left corner of an x-ray image of the painting showing the nails used to attach the canvas to the stretcher. There is a wide tacking margin visible at the bottom and we can see how the canvas was folded to make neat corners. The folded excess canvas was nailed to the stretcher with two nails.

fig 3: The raking light photograph clearly shows how the canvas is no longer stretched taut on the stretcher, but shows undulations.

Traces of interventions can be seen on the tacking margins of the canvas to which brown kraft paper has been attached. Remains of this are still visible across the entire back of the painting, as well as down the left-hand stretcher bar. The stretcher keys have also been secured with brown paper and cellulose adhesive. The stretcher keys appear to have been secured more recently. This is a typical museum intervention.

fig 4: Detail of the back of the painting in its frame. The tacking margins at top and bottom are quite wide, while those at the sides are narrower. The excess canvas was secured to the back of the stretcher with nails.

Ground layer

The painting was probably commercially primed with a warm white/yellowish, lead-based ground containing a small amount of calcium.¹ The original colour of the ground has been preserved beneath the areas previously covered with paper on the tacking margins. It is a fairly warm, pale yellowish white. This layer has suffered significant deterioration in the areas not protected by an overlying layer of paint. On the painting itself, the ground layer is only visible at the edges.

The pXRF measurements and the UV image (green fluorescence) indicate that significant quantities of zinc (white) were applied to the entire surface of the work. Its regular distribution makes it likely that this paint layer was applied by the artist. Strictly speaking, this is not a uniform imprimatura, but nonetheless the layer is nearly everywhere, albeit in varying amounts.
This white layer is also visible under the craquelure, which suggests a fairly even presence beneath the figures.

fig 5: Detail of the paint layer with the beige ground partly visible on the right hand side. As shown on the UV image, a zinc white layer was added over this.

fig 6: Detail of the paint layer under UV light. The strong green fluorescence indicates the location of the zinc white. There is also a layer of zinc white beneath the face of the blue sculpture, visible in the cracks of the dark blue layer.

In some places, the zinc white is only used as a base layer, although Ensor also used zinc white in the paint layer of the middle ground, mixed wet on wet with lead white, blue and pink brushstrokes. At the far top left, the base layer of the Chinese scene is not a neutral white, but the zinc white is mixed with a warmer colour which acts as an undertone for the entire scene. The way it is applied is also far streakier than elsewhere in the work.

fig 7: Beige base paint layer in the Chinese scene.

fig 8: Detail of clearly streaky structure.

The ground layer shows no issues with stability or adhesion. It is slightly worn at the edges as a result of friction from the frame.

Paint layer

Technique

The painting is painted with oil paint, applied quite thin. The paint layer looks dry and brittle. There are only a few impastos; they are always in white areas or areas that are heavily mixed with white. The painting was painted with brushes only. The brushstrokes are clearly visible in many places and are predominantly made with a short-haired brush with fairly hard hog-hair bristles. The structure of the canvas plays a major role in the end result.

If we compare the backgrounds of the upper and middle parts of the work, we can see how the white, pink and blue brushstrokes at the top of the painting have been applied quite dry over an underlayer that was already dry. In the middle of the painting, the same colour of paint was applied to the background wet on wet. Furthermore, the blue tablecloth at lower centre was also predominantly painted wet on wet.

fig 13: Detail of the paint layer at the top of the painting under natural light where distinct brushstrokes can be seen in the impasto.

fig 14: Detail of the paint layer at the top of the painting under natural light where the blue, white and pink brushstrokes were painted wet on wet.

Some of the objects appear to be painted with paint that contains more oil than elsewhere; this is especially true of the blue and green colours. For example, this is the case for the lion and the rabbit on the right-hand side of the work.

The proportion of oil in the paint tubes of these colours may have been greater than that in the other colours in this work. Paint manufacturers often used different amounts and different types of oil within a single paint range to allow for the different drying times of different colours. However, Ensor may also have deliberately added more oil to these colours to achieve a particular effect.

fig 15: Detail of the paint layer in natural light in an area where it is glossier than elsewhere due to a greater proportion of binder in the paint.

He used a finer brush for finer details, like faces and outlines. He mostly painted these in very dilute paint.

fig 16: He applied fine details with a thin brush and dilute paint.

Signature

He painted ENSOR at lower right in what appears to be black paint. This signature was overpainted with a layer of transparent ochre paint. NSOR was added over this in pencil. The E of Ensor is not visible. Both signatures are clearly visible on the infrared image.

fig 17: Detail of the infrared image on which both signatures can be seen, the first in paint, ENSOR, and the second in pencil, NSOR.

fig 18: Detail of the signature in natural light. A signature was added in dark paint, overpainted with a layer of ochre-coloured paint. A second signature NSOR was added in pencil.

Pigment use

This is mostly based on the pXRF analyses carried out by Geert van der Snickt² as well as on visual research and comparisons between photographs taken under different light sources.
Ensor used a fairly limited colour palette for this work, barely mixing the colours on his palette, but applying them straight to the canvas and intermixing them wet on wet.

White: He used both zinc and lead white. The artist chose lead white for the faces of the figures in the foreground, the accents in the fan and in the Chinese scene.

Yellow: cadmium (Cd) was identified in nearly all the measurements, indicating the use of cadmium yellow. The artist used this yellow in several colour variants. The yellows of the teapot and small vase on the table are minor variants of the same yellow, while a different yellow was used for the Chinese scene, which has faded significantly (see condition of paint layer). The remaining yellow in the painting seems to be an ochre-like shade, but this colour may also have undergone changes.
A cadmium orange shade has been used for the lion’s spots. The same shade can be found in the red canvas in the left foreground, together with a darker shade of orange.

Blue: tin (Sn) as well as cobalt (Co) was detected in all the measurements taken in blue areas, indicating the use of a cerulean blue. This blue is mixed more or less with white.
The blue used at the top appears different; it is possible that a normal cobalt blue was used here. But no measurements were taken here.

Red/pink: The artist used vermilion red, as well as mixtures of vermilion and earth pigment. The pink areas were painted with a particular sort of organic red lake which showed up on Ensor’s palette around 1890. This red lake can be recognised by its strong pink fluorescence under UV light.

Green: all the measurements taken in green areas showed high concentrations of copper (Cu) and arsenic (As), indicating the use of Emerald or Scheele’s green. Additionally, signs of chromium (Cr) were also recorded in these measurements; this may indicate the presence of a chromium oxide, such as viridian green. The artist probably mixed two different greens here to create a lighter shade.

Damage and restorations

The paint layer is extremely dry, but mostly stable. Craquelure is limited to a number of impasto areas. Additional drying and shrinkage cracks have arisen, mostly in the blue areas; these are inherent to the artist's technique of applying a less oily layer over a layer of oilier paint.

Several pigments show significant changes and appear nowadays to be extremely fragile and brittle. This is predominantly the case of the yellows, where two different processes can be clearly observed.

The first phenomenon occurs in the palest yellow, as seen in the teapot where the paint layer seems powdery and fragile. This is a local change which is not found in all areas of this yellow.

fig 19: Location of the detail.

fig 20: Detail photo of the yellow paint layer under magnification.

A second change is much more widespread throughout the work, but nonetheless most concentrated at the left of the Chinese scene and in the fan. The yellow used here has faded to a greyish white and in some places darkened to brown. These two phenomena were first reported in the early days of the use of this pigment by Church and others.³ Cadmium was discovered in 1817 and used in painting from 1840. Although the pigment was praised for its stability, it was also criticised early on for its alterations. The quality of the pigment improved from 1922.

The exact cause of this phenomenon remains unclear to this day, but it is generally thought to be the result of a combination of oxidation and a reaction to UV exposure. Furthermore, impurities present during the production process could have influenced its stability.⁴

The frame clearly provided the edges of the painting with a degree of protection; the original yellow colour is better preserved there as a result.
This yellow also has a very particular fluorescence under UV light, namely red. This phenomenon was described by Leone et al. who ascribed it to impurities during the production process.⁵

fig 21: Location of the detail.

fig 22: Detail of the work showing how the tops of two streaks of paint are yellow while the rest is whitish-grey. The yellow areas had been protected by the frame and as a result are less discoloured than the white, blanched areas beneath them.

fig 23: Detail under x 25 magnification showing the cadmium yellow paint layer that has sometimes blanched and at other times darkened to brown.

fig 24: Detail of the Chinese fan under UV light. A cadmium yellow was used for the Chinese fan which has discoloured to a whitish-grey and in some places has browned. This particular yellow has a red fluorescence under UV light. Additionally, an orange/pink fluorescence is also visible; this is due to the use of red lake.

Still Life with Chinoiseries

Material technical footnotes

Art historical footnotes

Citations

Stay connected!

Material technical footnotes

Art historical footnotes

Citations