The ma-xrf maps gave us more information about the way Wautier built up her composition. In this aspect, the mercury distribution map is the most interesting. Mercury is one of the main constituents of the bright orangey-red pigment vermilion. The Hg-L map (fig. 2C) visualises the distribution of the pigment vermilion throughout the painting. In this map, it can be seen that vermilion is present in several areas, including areas where no red colour is visible to the naked eye. Rounded shapes rich in mercury are evenly distributed along the garland. This indicates that Wautier may have prepared multiple (red or pink) flowers with a vermilion underpainting or dead-colouring in the early painting stage. Some of these flowers were discarded later in the creative process.

The round patches rich in mercury do not have a well-defined shape.¹² This means they only roughly indicate the final shape and placement of the flower. Wautier seemed to have applied this dead-colouring rather thinly. Moreover, these mercury-rich patches do not show up in any other elemental maps, with the exception of the lead (Pb-L) map: a few of these patches, or parts of them, are also visible in the Pb-L map (fig. 2B). This indicates that Wautier used a monochrome red or pink paint based on vermilion mixed with some lead white to apply this lay-in. This lay-in was intended to be worked up in a later stage of the creative process.

A paint sample taken in a strategic area confirms this layer build-up in the area of the pink roses (fig. 3). The cross-section shows that on top of the imprimatura (layer 3, figs. 3B-3C), Wautier applied a red or pink coloured underpainting as preparation for the rose (layer 4). This lay-in consists of vermilion and a little lead white. Another paint layer (layer 5), consisting of mostly red lake, some lead white, and vermilion, was applied on top of this underpainting.¹³ This paint layer, of a deeper red colour, was applied to work up the rose and deepen the shadows. The layer build-up of the cross-section thus confirms the hypothesis that Wautier used a monochrome lay-in as preparation for the flowers, followed by one or multiple paint layers to work up the colours.¹⁴

This painting technique of using brightly-coloured, abstract patches was first introduced by one of the most eminent flower painters of the seventeenth century, Daniël Seghers (1590-1661).¹⁵ It remains unclear exactly when this painting technique was introduced, however; Seghers’s predecessors (such as Jan Brueghel the Elder) did not use this technique.¹⁶ The technique was subsequently adopted by other specialised flower painters, including Jan Davidsz. de Heem (1606-1684).¹⁷

It is interesting to consider how or where Wautier learnt this painting technique in such a way that she was able to employ it herself. We know virtually nothing about Wautier’s life and artistic training. She was not a member of the Brussels guild of painters, goldbeaters, and stained-glass makers. This was not uncommon in the seventeenth century: only a few women painters became guild members in the Low Countries.¹⁸ Women were also restricted in their access to artistic training. Drawing formed the foundation of an artist’s education in the seventeenth century: students drew from drawings, paintings, prints, and sculpture, and eventually from life.¹⁹ These drawing sessions, however, were not accessible to women. This does not mean that artistic women did not have any opportunities. In this period, women could become a painter and they could access artistic training in one of two ways: they either had a male family member (usually their father or brother) who was a painter and could teach them in their own studio, or they were born in a wealthy family that valued and paid for artistic training as part of the general education for their daughters.²⁰

In the case of Wautier, it is generally assumed that she learned how to paint from her brother Charles, who was a successful artist himself. She probably learned (most of) the tricks of the trade in the setting of her home. At the same time, it seems that Wautier had a great interest in artistic education. This can be deduced from her drawing Study of an Antique Bust.²¹ This drawing shows that she may have had drawing lessons and studied (Antique) sculpture, much like any other artist in the mid-seventeenth century.²² Moreover, one of her other paintings suggests that she studied human anatomy, another major component of artistic training. Around 1655, she painted Triumph of Bacchus, in which she depicted naked figures convincingly.²³ This shows that she was familiar with painting – and most likely also drawing – naked bodies.²⁴ It makes one wonder about Wautier’s opportunities for artistic training: did Charles help her and perhaps acted as a mediator in getting the proper training that a painter with Wautier’s talent needed?

This interest in artistic training may have led her to look for the ‘proper way’ to paint flower still lifes when she decided to take on that particular challenge. But this may not have been the only reason: Charles never painted flower still lifes or any flowers at all. If Wautier wanted to learn how to paint flowers, she had to look for additional artistic training elsewhere in her social and artistic network, outside of her own home. By the mid-seventeenth century, when Wautier took on the challenge of painting her flower garlands, the Antwerp specialists Seghers and De Heem were some of the most influential and eminent flower painters in the Low Countries. It seems likely that Wautier turned to their work for inspiration, and perhaps also to the artists themselves for advice on painting materials and techniques.

It is possible that Wautier had the chance to converse with Seghers on how to paint flowers. The Wautier siblings were both very well-connected artists at the court of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm of Austria (1614-1662).²⁵ Leopold Wilhelm was an avid art lover and collector, and seemed to have a preference for flower still life painting: by 1659, his collection contained no fewer than 135 flower pieces.²⁶ He seemed to have been particularly fond of the work of Seghers, as his collection contained several of Seghers’s paintings and he even visited the artist in his studio in 1648.²⁷

It is through her connection with the archduke that Wautier may have had the opportunity to study the work of Seghers, or even may have met the Antwerp-based flower painter. This even raises the question of whether Wautier joined Leopold Wilhelm on his trip to Seghers’s studio in 1648. By that time, Wautier was already a well-established portraitist at the court.²⁸ Moreover, this trip took place only a few years before Wautier painted her flower garlands. It is possible that Leopold Wilhelm, being a fan of Wautier’s work, took her on as a protégé and introduced her to (the work of) Seghers.

ma-xrf scanning revealed the presence of a specific range of arsenic sulphide pigments, namely yellow orpiment and/or red realgar.²⁹ Both pigments can be identified by ma-xrf scanning due to the elemental presence of arsenic and sulphur content, which were both detected in the orange and yellow flowers in Flower Garland with Butterfly (figs. 2C-2D). This implies that orpiment was used for the yellow flowers, but that either realgar or various paint mixtures including orpiment and/or realgar might have been used for the orange.³⁰ Pinpointing the exact pigments would require further (invasive) chemical analysis, which is beyond of the scope of this essay.

It is remarkable that orpiment was found in Wautier’s Flower Garland with Butterfly for multiple reasons. Firstly, it has not been positively identified in any other painting by Wautier.³¹ This suggests that she considered it necessary to use it in her flower still life, either for its colour or for the artistic effects that could be achieved with the pigment. Secondly, working with these pigments is not straightforward. While acknowledging its beautiful, golden yellow colour, authors of seventeenth-century art technological sources warn their readers of the difficulties of working with orpiment. It discolours easily and is incompatible with lead- and copper-containing pigments.³² The safe and successful use of orpiment required the artist to possess extensive knowledge and experience. This may also be the reason why many painters turned to alternatives for orpiment, such as lead-tin yellow.³³

Although many authors of art technological sources advised against using orpiment, the pigment is often found to be present in (flower) still lifes, albeit in degraded and/or discoloured form. Specialised flower painters made use of its ideal paint properties to create luminous golden highlights on their flowers and fruits or on golden metalwork.³⁴ The main goal for flower painters was to achieve and imitate the perfect surface textures and the accurate appearance of objects. To do this, they needed a systematic approach, a fine and detailed painting technique, and also a wide variety of pigments. A flower painter was able to achieve certain artistic effects with orpiment that could not be achieved with different (yellow) pigments.

The fact that Wautier used orpiment, and possibly also realgar, for her Flower Garland with Butterfly thus indicates the influence of specialised flower painters on her use of materials. She adapted their palette, including the pigments that are tricky to work with. This choice for orpiment must have been a conscious one: Wautier probably considered it necessary to create the golden yellow and orange colour of the flowers and found that other yellow pigments would not suffice. Moreover, our hypothesis is strengthened by the fact that, so far, orpiment has also not been identified in any painting by her brother Charles.³⁵ This hints to the possibility that Wautier received additional artistic training from another artist, and more specifically on how to work with the difficult pigment orpiment.

The orpiment in Wautier’s flower garland painting has remained in relatively good condition. This is quite remarkable: in many seventeenth-century flower still lifes, the orpiment has discoloured severely, resulting in loss of definition and three-dimensionality in some of the flowers.³⁶ The fact that the yellow and orange flowers in Wautier’s Flower Garland with Butterfly have been well-preserved indicates that Wautier was skilled in working with this pigment. This knowledge was not self-evident and as Wautier had never used this pigment before, it suggests she may have had access to knowledgeable sources regarding the use of orpiment. Considering that she may have been inspired by his artistic practice regarding the build-up of flower still lifes, it could be possible that she also learned how to work with orpiment from Seghers.

While the field of technical art history has progressed tremendously over the last decades, very few paintings made by women painters have yet been studied with technical means. We virtually know nothing of the studio practice and painting techniques of these women. However, as we have shown in this essay, technical studies into their paintings can help in our understanding of them, as well as shed more light on women painters’ artistic training and professional network, and perhaps reveal (unexpected) technical influences between artists. It can give us a firmer grasp on how and where artistic techniques circulated among painters: similarities in specific painting techniques between women painters and their male peers could indicate that they may have been in contact with each other.

The technical research into Michaelina Wautier’s Flower Garland with Butterfly has revealed that the painting shows influences of the work of Daniël Seghers, not only iconographically, but more importantly in the way Wautier used her materials and painting techniques. While it is assumed that she received her artistic training from her brother Charles, it is unlikely that she learned how to paint flower still lifes from him, as he never painted flowers. Wautier may have found alternative ways of receiving additional artistic training, and it seems likely that she learned how to paint flowers from another artist, perhaps Seghers. The technical examinations of Flower Garland with Butterfly thus shed more light on Wautier’s professional network: not only was she familiar with Seghers’s work, but she also may have had access to his studio and the artist himself. This connection is important to stress, as it gives us an insight into Wautier’s dedication and artistic ambition.

While traditional art historical approaches have proven inadequate in allowing for a thorough understanding of the artistic practice and network of early modern women artists, technical studies may be a fruitful research avenue to uncover more about these women. And indeed, the case study of Wautier’s Flower Garland with Butterfly shows that the approach works. This object-based approach may help in our understanding of their studio practice, their working methods, but also their artistic training and professional network.