While Balthasar van der Ast, like Bosschaert, owes much of his renown to his flower paintings, a substantial part of his oeuvre consists of still lifes of fruit, and most of his earliest paintings are indeed fruit pieces. Bosschaert, in contrast, only painted a restricted number of fruit still lifes, during the latter part of his career. Those, however, were obviously important references for van der Ast’s early efforts. An undated fruit piece by Bosschaert must predate those early van der Asts by no more than a year or two (see fig. 1). Balthasar van der Ast’s first known dated still lifes originated in 1617, the year before the example presented here was painted. It is interesting to note that these earliest works come across as those of a fully trained, professional artist, which leaves us in the dark concerning van der Ast’s artistic development prior to 1617.

Until recent cleaning, there was considerable uncertainty about the date of origin of the present painting. Bol and Bergstöm, who probably never saw it in person, quoted the date as 1610, thus rendering it the work of a child prodigy – van der Ast was only 16 or 17 in that year, and had only just entered into Bosschaert’s apprenticeship. Later authors believed it more likely to read 1619 or 1620. In fact, however, it immediately follows van der Ast’s earliest works from 1617; the date that follows the artist’s monogram after recent cleaning distinctly reads 1618.
In the year after his Bosschaert-inspired early efforts, van der Ast has clearly progressed. First of all, he has lowered the viewpoint, in order to attain a more realistic and stable image. We get the impression that the dish of fruit sits firmly on the table, rather than in the work from 1617, or in Bosschaert’s example (fig. 1), where it appears to be at risk of sliding towards us, down the sloping table top. Also, his handling has become somewhat softer and his lighting less harsh and dramatic. The composition, however, remains relatively still and austere. When we compare it with subsequent examples from 1620 and 1620/21 (see fig. 2), we see the arrangement becoming more restless and crowded, with countless small details and motifs. Apart from the prominent red admiral butterfly on the tulip, the insects in this painting – a bluebottle, a damselfly, and a little bug at the far right – are rather inconspicuous, while in the Rijksmuseum still life, bugs, grasshoppers and caterpillars play a prominent role. In contrast to this, the examples from 1617 have even fewer insects.

Although perfectly convincing and seemingly realistic images, van der Ast must have composed his paintings with the aid of preparative studies of individual flowers and fruit. The tulip which lies prominently at the front is a spring bloom, while the ripe fruits belong to the summer and autumn. The large Wanli kraak porcelain dish was a relative novelty. The Dutch East India Company had started to import such Chinese porcelain during the first years of the century and even though these ceramics were coming into the country in large numbers by 1618, such a large charger as seen in this painting was a rather costly piece, and as such lends the image an air of luxury. In addition, it allowed the artist to introduce a cool blue-and-white accent among the warm earth tones of the fruit.

Above all, still lifes such as this one were painted to delight the eye and to display the artist’s ability to create a seeming reality. Additionally, they may well be intended to celebrate the versatility of God’s creation, which is here for mankind to enjoy. Also, if one wishes, the Four Elements – which together constitute Creation – can be recognised here: the fruit and the tulip, as well as the stone ledge represent Earth, dew drops on the fruit represent Water, while the butterfly, as a flying insect, may imply Air. Finally, the porcelain charger, as a product of fire can be seen to represent that element.