You don’t need a computer, camera, photo imaging software or anything more modern than a pencil, piece of charcoal, or pen and ink to record what a leaf, flower or any other still life subject looks like. Don’t know anything specific about Van Huysum, but chances are he did detailed studies, renderings, drawings of all the subjects that he might use in a still life long before he put any paint on canvas or board. Nothing magical. No need to be a savant. Just a lot of observation and study of his subject matter. That’s my guess.

Don

I agree with all of JCannon’s points. Many today seem to think that the direct, opaque, straight from the tube method is the only way to paint. I’ve heard some say that “the only reason that glazing was used in the past is that it was the only way to get a strong color.” And “with today’s colors, you can get the exact same effect without glazing.” I’ve even heard that “the whole glazing thing is a myth” and that light penetrating the glaze layers doesn’t really happen. I will agree that the use of glazes by old masters may have been somewhat overstated by some, but to say it’s a myth is simply incorrect.

I also agree that people in general don’t appreciate the time and effort it takes to paint with the indirect method. Since the general public, and even some artists and gallery owners aren’t even aware it exists, how could they? When people see Bob Ross paint something in a half hour, they think that’s they way it works.

I found a description of the technique of Jan van Huysum. Frankly, I didn’t expect to see this, since my understanding was that he was extremely secretive.

“Jan Van Huysum painted on Mahogany panels primed with lead white oil priming, contrary to the older habit of using gypsum or chalk. Perhaps the use of oil priming on linen led to his use of it on panel. An analysis of one of his panels showed the first layer of ground to be lean lead. But the second was lead with “negligible amounts of aluminum, silicon, calcium, and iron.

“Early in his career he used a dark ground, but later switched to a lighter ground, as we find with many artists. Coincidentally, his backgrounds also changed. Early on he painted dark interior walls behind his still lifes of flowers and fruit, often lit be a band of sunlight. But later he set his works outdoors or on a window sill beyond which one could see a bright, sun-filled garden with statuary, urns, and people.

“Van Huysum executed a preliminary drawing and value study in washes of reddish brown paint (a mixture of lead white and red madder lake). He used sketchy, broad washes to determine the composition rather than to delineate specific objects.

“The painting was executed in 1 to 3 layers of paint (usually 1 to 2), usually painted opaquely and directly over the compositional washes. He then glazed with red and yellow lakes. On one occasion he layered blue in 3 layers. Van Huysum used a number of new pigments of finer grain which allowed for his highly detailed style. One of these was Prussian Blue, which has a much finer particle size than Ultramarine. The details of his work are at times so intricate (such as a bird’s feather in a nest) that it is believed he may have painted them with a single hair!

“Van Huysum painted wet-in-wet, with a linseed oil binder for his colors — no sign of other medium was identified. He worked systematically from the back of the scene to the front, following the underpainting. Because he combined flowers and fruit which had different growing seasons, he often took many months to paint a work while waiting for a particular flower to blossom, or fruit to become ripe. He therefore had to determine the composition in his mind, since he did not have all of the elements together at one time.

“Though some of his yellow lake glazes have faded, his works have remained in remarkably good condition.”

I confess, this is a rather different procedure than I would have presumed. He didn’t glaze as much a I would have thought! Also, I have always felt that detailed work is far easier on a very absorbent ground. However, I am not surprised that he found Prussian Blue so useful for intricate work.

He worked on many pieces at a time. Dont assume he just laboriously painted one picture at a time. He also used students to do a lot of the foundation work. Most of the artists from that period worked like this. Including Vermeer.

That really doesn’t matter. So much more can now be discovered through modern scientific analysis, and often proves the traditional guesses wrong. No matter how secretive the artist, it doesn’t matter to an x-ray, infrared, etc.