{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.033448012232415905, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009174311926605505, 'mean_word_length': 4.840401785714286, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 1, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Flower still life: Maria van Oosterwijck.

Tulips, those parabolas of rainbow hue, have an upbeat aura, evoking sparkling spring mornings, and perhaps suggesting new beginnings. Fascination with tulips is evidence of humankind’s ever-present passion for beauty in nature, and the sumptuous still life paintings by Maria van Oosterwijck (1630-1693) are no exception. The elegance and luminescence of her fiery flowers alone would set the work apart, but cleverly disguised allegorical admonitions are an intriguing embellishment. Born during the Dutch Golden Age near Delft, the Netherlands, van Oosterwijck fortuitously had a supportive father, a clergyman who encouraged his daughter to study with prominent still life painter Jan Davidsz. de Heem (JAMA cover, March 5, 2008). The Renaissance had been reverberating through the region, and political events of the time favored her fortunes as well; the revolt of the Netherlands against the rule of Spain would bring changes that boosted the Dutch economy. A cultural and scientific flowering was occurring that included an increasing interest in botany. Tulips were thought to have arrived in Europe around the 1500s, a newcomer from more eastern regions. Their vivid, saturated hues and interesting color variations led to tulips becoming as prized as rare jewels, and they became considered as a mark of a discerning connoisseur. Held in especially high esteem were tulips with petals exhibiting exotic striping (this variation can also be described as flames, feathers, or flares): “Rosen varieties, which were by far the most numerous, were colored red or pink on a white ground. ... Violetten, as their name suggests, were purple or lilac on white, and the Bizarden, which on the whole were the least favored of the three and existed in only two dozen varieties, were colored red, purple, or brown on yellow.” (Dash M. Tulipomania: The Story of the World’s Most Coveted Flower and the Extraordinary Passions It Aroused. New York, NY/Toronto, Canada/London, UK/ Sydney & Auckland, Australia: Three Rivers Press/Crown Publishing/Random House; 1999:58.) Obsession with these botanic phenoms led to a craze sometimes characterized as “tulip mania” in the Netherlands that crested and crashed in the 1630s, and which may serve as a cautionary tale: “Some tulips were so scarce and so greatly coveted that they were worth more than a hundred times their weight in gold, and successful bulb dealers could make huge profits ... some tulip traders were buying and selling single flowers for hundreds, even thousands of guilders and building paper fortunes of as much as forty or sixty thousand guilders in a matter of a year or two.” (Dash, p 2.) Scientific sleuthing that would not occur until the 20th century, undertaken by Dorothy Cayley, a scientist at the John Innes Horticultural Institution in England, would lead to elucidation of the cause of the complex colors. (http: //www.jic.ac.uk/centenary/timeline/info/DCayley.htm.) It seems that a mosaic virus (a type of virus affecting plants) was responsible for the variegated color observed in the earlier tulips. In Flower Still Life, red and white peppermint-striped tulips and carnations, as well as rich butterscotch-colored blossoms, bespangle the picture not unlike delicious candies. No less notable are a sprinkling of lily-of-the-valley fairy bells, which lend an airy, lacy touch and form a bower for small, blue star-like scilla, both crowned by a majestic midnight blue iris. Refreshing ribbons of green and white leaves drape downward, offsetting the opulence of the floral arrangement. A delicate dragonfly along with butterflies appear attracted to the display and add a dynamic note to the picture. The blooms are accented with spotlighting in the style of Caravaggio (Vigué J. Great Women Masters of Art. New York, NY: Watson-Guptill Publications; 2002:109), but daylight also quietly steals into the scene in a reflection of windows in the glass globe. The interested viewer will be able to identify several symbolic subtexts: “The tulips, one fresh and the other about to drop its petals, are a clear reference to the transitory nature of human life. Moreover, even in the seventeenth century, tulips were understood as the Dutch national flower. Thus the picture was also read as an emblem of worldliness and the capriciousness with which fortunes were won or lost. The insects likewise have a meaning. The fly symbolizes decay, and the butterfly resurrection.” (Feinberg K. The Collections of the Cincinnati Art Museum. Cincinnati, OH: Cincinnati Art Museum; 2000:189.) As a woman achieving success as a painter in the 1600s, van Oosterwijck herself was a rare specimen. Evidence for her achievements included patronage by royalty such as Louis XIV of France, and Holy Roman Emperor Leopold I, as well as other illustrious persons of rank. Although she was held in high regard in high places for her pictures, van Oosterwijck’s greatest satisfaction may well have been simply the expression of her delight in the colors and forms of nature. The viewer, in apprehending the splendid work, may be transported in the mind’s eye to a millefiorilike field of flowers bending in the breeze on a sunny spring day.