5 Famous Women Still-Life Painters

The Renaissance and early modern period were both challenging and rewarding for women artists. In this period, a number of women still-life painters made a name for themselves, achieved fame, and lived off their craft. The artists mentioned in this article created works of art for a variety of buyers, ranging from common people to kings. As a genre that was on the rise, still-life paintings became an outlet for women to show their creativity and potential, contributing to the diversification of the role of women in society.

To be a woman artist was no easy task during the Renaissance and early modern period. The first obstacle was that of training. Women were not permitted to work with nude models, at least officially. In most cases, they were also prohibited from following art courses with other male students and had to take private lessons. If lucky enough to be born into a family of artists, the task of persuading one’s family to learn the craft was another challenge. After their training, finding clients, creating a network, and getting commissions was a painstaking process. Those who succeeded had both luck and ambition on their side. In this context, the still-life genre was more accessible to women artists as it didn’t depend on the study of human models but on nature.

The genre of still-life in art has fascinated the minds and eyes of countless viewers throughout the centuries. Combining various foods to create a scene where everything is static, and no human figure plays the central role, the still-life paintings offer a calm and domestic alternative. Contrary to the grandiose and dynamic paintings of the historical or religious genre that were preferred in official settings, still-life painters created pieces that triumphed in the private space.

As this genre rose in popularity, women artists began making a name for themselves, even becoming the most popular masters of their day. Let’s explore five exciting women artists who excelled in their careers as still-life painters.

1. Clara Peeters: A Master Among Women Artists

All discussions on still-life paintings must mention Clara Peeters (c. 1589–after 1657), the artist who revolutionized how both women artists and still-life painters were viewed during her time. While her earlier life and training are not certain, Peeters showcases excellent talent and technique throughout her oeuvre.

She painted impressive still-life works that showcased rare, exotic fruits and vegetables placed near exquisite serving pieces. Expensive ingredients are showcased near Wan-Li Chinese porcelain, along with chicken and plover eggs, butter, various breads, and cheeses. Her compositions stand out through the beautiful light atmosphere she creates, with the food being lit from the tabletop.

Peeters’ paintings go beyond simple, beautiful food arrangements. For example, in her painting Still Life with Crab, Shrimps and Lobster (c. 1635–1640), she incorporates the theme of the Sacrifice of Isaac from the Old Testament in the tablecloth. This gives a new layer of meaning as it can be interpreted as a way to persuade the viewer to live more modestly. Just like the figures of the Scriptures, the viewer can make small daily sacrifices to keep their soul pure by avoiding excessive attachment to the material world. The moral of this has a vanitas theme, as it hints at the ephemerality of possessions, especially that of expensive food that eventually goes bad and rots away, just like the human body.

Louise Moillon (1610–1696) was one of the still-life painters who was very admired during their lifetime, as her work was eagerly collected by King Charles I of England. Moillon grew up in the then-Protestant neighborhood of Saint-Germain-des-Près in Paris and most likely trained under her father and stepfather. Her family suffered under the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, as Protestants were once again persecuted and had their freedom restricted. Although her works cannot be directly linked with this period of her life, it is believed that it must have affected her career.

Moillon’s works stand out through their great attention to detail. The quality of the brush strokes is sober but full of meticulous attention, as most of her still-life works can be seen as part of the Dutch hyperrealism that dominated the 17th-century art scene. Many historians describe this hyperrealism as having a photographic visual quality, which can be observed in Moillon’s works that imitate nature to the smallest details.

Despite the richness of realism that her works show, they also feature a stern and modest atmosphere about them. They are not too bright or colorful but present a visual worldview specific to the art influenced by the Reformation. Contrary to Peeters’, Moillon’s paintings are not a critique of the rich tables of her compatriots but rather a reaffirmation of the beauty that lies in the simplicity of nature. The tables from her still-lifes rarely show any pompous ingredients but rather highlight the ingredients that could be accessible to a middle-class individual on a market day.

Rachel Ruysch (1664-1750) was a Dutch artist who made a name for herself among still-life painters. She was born to scientist Frederik Ruysch and learned the craft of draftsmanship from him, as her father often sketched the wonders of nature for his research. She used her father’s natural collection as her first subjects and developed her craft further.

Ruysch later apprenticed under Willem van Aelst, a prominent flower painter from Amsterdam. Van Aelst’s studio was across from that of another famous woman artist, Maria van Oosterwijck. Ruysch was probably also well-acquainted with other flower painters, such as the Moninckx couple, Alida Withoos, and Johanna Helena Herolt-Graff.

Ruysch’s still-life paintings feature primarily flower arrangements. Her style and manner are easy to recognize because of a series of qualities that set her apart; namely, her technique shows a great understanding of the masters before her, as she exhibits the results of good training.

Ruysch masters both drawing and painting, offering playful compositions that lack the statuesque stiffness of other such works. Moreover, her understanding of light and color, coupled with her asymmetric flower arrangements, gives the viewer the impression of the bouquet having been arranged on a whim, spontaneously. This reinforces the illusion that whatever the still-life painting presents is, in fact, painted after life and not staged to look a certain way.

4. Judith Leyster: More Than a Still-Life Painter

A lesser-known fact is that Judith Leyster (1609-1660), one of the most notable 17th-century women artists, also painted still-life works. Although she became most famous for portraits and genre paintings, Leyster also tried her hand at still-life paintings. Her work reflects her mastery despite being such a different genre from the ones she was likely most comfortable approaching, as per her regular commissions.

Originally from Haarlem, Leyster’s days of apprenticeship are unclear. She is thought to have learned some of the craft under Frans Pietersz de Grebber, and when her family moved to Utrecht, she is believed to have been in contact with the Utrecht Caravaggisti. After her death, her oeuvre was thought to have been made by Frans Hals, her colleague from the St. Lucas Guild in Haarlem. This confusion stemmed mainly from the high level of mastery that the two artists shared and the similar style they employed at times.

Examples of Leyster’s still-life paintings include Still Life with Apples and Grapes and Vase with Flowers (both shown above). Despite Leyster’s slightly looser brushwork in genre paintings, which is more similar to Hals, the two still-life paintings show a finer brush with an eye for detail and an overall polished work. They both perfectly match the genre trends from her time as they enact that photography-like precision.

Vase with Flowers, in particular, shows extraordinary mastery in the rendition of each flower from the vase. The small details that were put into painting them make the viewer feel as if each one of them pops up from a distance. The result is the overwhelming sight of the bouquet, which seems intoxicating and otherworldly, as if it were too much to take in at once.

Not much is known about the early life of Giovanna Garzoni (1600-1670). She was born in Ascoli Piceno to a family of Venetian origin who worked in the trade of goldsmithing. She is believed to have apprenticed under her uncle, Pietro Gaia, who was a painter. During her lifetime, she took a vow of virginity and traveled with her brother, Mattio. As an artist, Garzoni dabbed in many genres, painting religious, mythological, and natural subjects. However, her works with botanical subjects gained her popularity. She worked in a variety of mediums, using tempera and oil paints alike. Recent scholars believe her works derive inspiration from the female body and may be seen as having feminist sentiments avant la lettre.

As proof of her prolific career, Garzoni served the Medici and Florentine courts and she is believed to have known and possibly traveled with fellow artist Artemisia Gentileschi. This strengthens the general consensus that networks among women artists were more present and more intricate than previously thought.

Garzoni’s work has both artistic and scientific values, as she worked for artistic patrons and scientists alike. She was often commissioned to paint all types of botanical subjects after nature to include the images in scientific books from particular collections. Her still-life works borrow the stern and scientific description of her botanical works yet manage to enhance the artistic quality of the piece through her bright, beautiful use of a rather light palette. Because of this, the paintings have an almost translucent quality.

Besides the still-life painters mentioned so far, many more amazing women artists from the early modern period paved the way for modern and contemporary women artists who pursued this same genre.

Maria van Oosterwijck (1630-1693) was one of the renowned Dutch still-life painters of the 17th century. Her paintings depict rich bouquet arrangements and still-lifes with vanitas motifs.

The Italian artist Fede Galizia (1578-1630) worked and lived in Milan and was known for her fruit still-lifes and religious paintings. Although more sober in aspect and color palette, her brushwork shows skillful dedication to studying and depicting nature in an attractive manner. She was one of the earlier Italian artists who helped popularize this genre into the 17th century.

Another notable mention is that of the Spanish artist Josefa de Ayala, commonly called Josefa de Óbidos (1630-1684). She is the only known woman artist to be active on the territory of Portugal during the 17th century. Spanish artistic trends visibly influenced her work; she specialized in still-life paintings and religious themes. When it comes to her still-life works, her paintings’ darker, heavier, and more baroque tones are very similar to what her male counterparts created in Spain during the 17th century. This shows that she was artistically well-informed as she was trained and later on even worked with her father, who was a painter. One of her most impressive works consists of a series of 12 still-life paintings that represent the months of the year.

Despite being perceived as a male-dominated genre, as is the case with most early modern genres, the still-life theme has a generous number of women artists who achieved fame and renown during their lifetime. The great works and recognition of many women artists are lost to time, oftentimes deemed as anonymous artists during auctions, while others survived and resurfaced through their past success, coming back to claim their rightful place in art history.