Why still life? – Mapping the field

Thinking in things

…Looked at again and again half consciously by a mind thinking of something else, any object mixes itself so profoundly with the stuff of thought that it loses its actual form and recomposes itself a little differently in an ideal shape which haunts the brain when we least expect it.

Virginia Woolf, Solid Objects

Still life work from 2016 – 2023, ranging from photography to machine learning.

While much has been written about the history of still life dating back to the unswept floors of the Romans and declaring Caravaggio’s basket of fruit as the first still life painting, as a genre it does not seem to have been considered in the same depth critically or theoretically as other fields such as landscape or historic painting.

From the beginning still life was systematically downgraded by the defenders of the higher genres…If still life could be regarded as an appropriate channel for female talent, this was because it ranked as the lowest form of artistic life.

Bryson, 2013: 175

The common argument for this attitude towards the genre seems to have been that still life was a mere act of copying, making it more craft than art. It was not regarded as requiring intellect or imagination for its execution, what Reynolds (1723 – 1792) termed as the requisite ‘mental labour’ to produce it or ‘mental pleasure’ to appreciate it. Still life artists, I am sure could be forgiven, for feeling a bit dejected as they read such judgements of their field. I also wonder how far attitudes have shifted; I have certainly come across artists who declare openly their dislike of still life work. During an online seminar by Nikon on still life photography one of the participants noted in the chat that still life was the province of female photographers and that was 2021!

The power of still life

I am left with questions of why these attitudes came to dominate and how they have prevailed.  Rather than looking to the shortcomings of the genre perhaps it is its strengths that engendered such attacks. Still life could be seen as threatening the accepted order in a number of ways (Bryson, 2013):

• Humility: the objects have nothing to prove, they have a continuous line of evolution that has remained ‘virtually indestructible’ (Bryson, 2013). These forms have a long history regardless of whether they are from Pompeii or a modern table. They have had considerable force over time.
• Cultural repetitions: the weight of these forms is carried through their ability to transmit across the generations. They are the participants in repeated actions binding the generations that have gone before and those that are to come. They have been defined as a set of ‘prime objects’ (Kubler, 2008). It is argued that invention and individual originality has little place in the forms that repeat themselves, nor do they need it,

…everything made now is either a replica or a variant of something made a little time ago and so on back without break to the first morning of human time.

Kubler, 2008:2

• Challenging the anthropocentric: in creating these generational ties, however humble and mundane, things are a reminder of our collective rather than our individual identity. They are not just emblems of our impermanence but also perhaps our expendability. This is a case of things making the world rather than humans, ‘there is no respect for personhood…in a radical decentring that demolishes the idea of a world convergent on the person as universal centre.’ (Bryson, 2013: 145)
• Mirrors of inequality: Historical still life painting was often concerned with a distinction between worlds: the sacred and the profane, class differences, high art and craft, heroic action and domestic routine, gender differences, strength and weakness and so on

While complicated tools and technologies are subject to rapid change, simple utensils obey a slow, almost geological rhythm.

Bryson, 2013: 138

Gaze, skill and the domestic

• 

• 

These Italian contemporaries (Caravaggio: 1578-1610, and Fede Galizia: 1578-1630) are recognised as the early pioneers of still life. While ‘Basket of Fruit’ appears quotidien it is argued that Caravaggio has focused on displaying his skills as an artist whereas Galizia’s still life is quietly comfortable with the fruit as it is. Her fruit is depicted at eye level and intimately, Caravaggio has adopted a higher perspective looking down and at a distance from fruit and basket.

The hand which balances the formal composition is also able to reach out and make tea; no fundamental discontinuity of levels opposes art to the ordinary gestures of living.

Bryson, 2013: 165

• 

• 

Contrast the work of Francois Desportes (1661-1743) with Anne Vallyer-Coster (1744-1818). The two paintings show that within the still life genre, treatments have varied. Desportes presents a theatrical and burgeoning table showing privilege and power. Vallyer-Coster’s image is altogether a more humble affair, the things are simply arranged (one could almost believe they have just been found) and have a more domestic feel. The differening styles might be interpreted on gender grounds but this feels like a causal leap at this point – I don’t know enough about the other variables like who commissioned them. Rather than making comparisons I realise I am more interested in sharing the work of centuries of talented women.

As I move into my Natura Machina project there is much to explore about the nature of still life as a genre (see mindmapping the field) , let alone its links to contemporary technology.

References

Bryson, N. (2013). Looking at the overlooked: Four essays on still life painting. Reaktion Books.

Kubler, G. (2008). The shape of time: Remarks on the history of things. Yale University Press.