The New York Times presents another installment of its monthly 10-minute focus challenge, inviting readers to spend uninterrupted time examining a single piece of art. This month's featured work is "A Vase of Flowers," painted by Dutch artist Margareta Haverman over 300 years ago in 1716. The challenge, published on the first Monday of each month, encourages viewers to consider specific questions: Do you recognize any of the flower types? How does the artist use color to guide your eye through the bouquet? After spending time with it, do you feel any different?
The painting showcases extraordinary technical mastery that recalls the legendary Greek painter Zeuxis, who reportedly painted grapes so realistic that birds tried to eat them. Haverman's grapes at the Metropolitan Museum of Art demonstrate similar virtuosity. Technical analysis reveals she used up to seven layers of paint on the grapes alone, some applied while previous layers were still wet, creating an almost photographic realism that shows an artist pursuing perfect form.
Every element of the composition reveals meticulous attention to detail. The intricate layers of flower petals, the subtle blush on fruit surfaces, the delicate patterns on insect wings, the gleaming water droplets, and the precise rendering of leaf veins all demonstrate Haverman's exceptional skill. The leaves appear bluer now than they would have in 1716 because the yellow pigment has faded over time. Despite this color shift, the painting displays a remarkable range of hues: shocking reds, pale blues, bright whites, and deep purples.
One might imagine Haverman working in her studio with this arrangement before her, sketching and painting against time before the beautiful bouquet wilted and died. However, this scenario is impossible, as Adam Eaker, assistant curator in the Department of European Paintings at the Met, explains: "This bouquet could never exist in reality. These flowers don't bloom at the same time of year, so Haverman would have slowly pieced this work together on the basis of individual studies."
The composition includes an astonishing variety of specimens: 30 different types of fruit and flowers, two butterfly species, five other insect types, and garden snails. The detailed inventory includes opium poppy foliage, cabbage roses, alyssum, pot marigolds, forget-me-nots, dwarf morning glory, white roses, lilac auricula, red catchfly, light blue hyacinths, hollyhocks, passion flowers, saxifrage, meadow grass, Maltese cross, New York asters, Persian tulip hybrids, pepperwort, tulip baguettes, English iris, white hyacinths, brown violet auricula, feverfew, sweet sultan, African marigolds, jasmine, apples, violet auricula, and both white and black grapes. The butterflies include heath fritillary and red admiral species, while other insects comprise lesser house flies, yellow meadow ants, bluebottle flies, black ants, and garden bumblebees.
This painting represents one of only two surviving works by Haverman. Little is known about her life, but historical records show she learned her techniques from Jan van Huysum, a highly regarded flower painter. Comparison with van Huysum's 1715 work reveals striking similarities, particularly in the tulip renderings. Haverman proved to be an exceptionally quick learner whose skill aroused her master's jealousy.
A 1751 biography of the eccentric and secretive van Huysum notes that "Haverman's prowess aroused Jan's envy to such a degree that he longed to be rid of her." Van Huysum, who came from a family of painters and wouldn't even allow his brothers into his studio, eventually found a reason to dismiss Haverman as his student, described at the time as involving "a misdeed." Female painters were rare in this period and often needed family connections to enter the field. Many were relegated to still life painting because they weren't permitted to study nude models.
Despite these limitations, Haverman excelled remarkably. The same biography notes she learned "not only to copy [Van Huysum's] paintings but also to paint beautifully from life; even to the amazement of connoisseurs, who came to see her work." Her artistic confidence is evident in compositional decisions, such as using the dark background to make white flowers push forward, creating a central anchor for the viewer's eye. Her signature, etched into the plinth at the bottom, demonstrates both technical skill and artistic confidence.
Flower painting was common in the Netherlands during this period. A century earlier, artists like Ambrosius Bosschaert the Elder were creating similar arrangements with striped tulips against landscape backgrounds. This coincided with "tulip mania" in the early 1600s, when tulips, newly introduced from the Ottoman Empire, became highly desired by wealthy Dutch citizens. Tulip bulb prices were bid up dramatically, in one case selling for more than a Rembrandt painting, creating what many consider the first financial bubble. When the bubble burst, tulip prices crashed, leaving speculators bankrupt.
Tulip mania was later followed by hyacinth mania in the 1700s, and Haverman included both blue and white hyacinth varieties in her painting. While there's temptation to extract symbolic meaning from these flowers, and some artists did paint decay to remind viewers of life's fragility, flower paintings generally weren't meant to be decoded, according to Eaker. Some flowers do carry symbolic meaning, but these works were primarily "objects for close looking and admiration, particularly on a cold gray Dutch winter's day."
The enduring appeal of Haverman's work lies in its permanent beauty contrasted with nature's transience. While real flowers from a corner store will inevitably die, this painting, with help from art conservators, will continue to live and inspire viewers centuries after its creation. The 10-minute challenge series continues monthly, with previous installments featuring works by Pieter Bruegel and Alice Neel, each designed to encourage sustained, focused engagement with great art.
