Still Life Painting and Art

[Sidharth Chaturvedi]

I'm not trying to create another "is this art?" thread :P. I've been wondering about why exactly still life painting is considered art rather than decorative? I think Chardin's work and the like are gorgeous paintings and I don't in any way doubt their importance, but I've seen a lot of debate around here concerning the difference between decoration and art (I'm looking at you, Kev), so it got me thinking. What is it that a great still life says about the world that makes it more than a pretty picture of some fruit?

Edit: Apparently my question is phrased in a way that sounds like I think still life painting isn't art, so just wanted to clear up. The reason I ask is to learn more about it, since it's been largely skipped over in my art history classes. I'm not debating whether it's art or not, just what sets it apart from decoration.

[SoufMeng]

What is it that a great still life says about the world that makes it more than a pretty picture of some fruit?
"Time goes by fast, go draw!"

http://www.fisheaters.com/vanitas3.jpg

(credit: Philippe de Champaigne)

[Sidharth Chaturvedi]

"Time goes by fast, go draw!"

http://www.fisheaters.com/vanitas3.jpg

(credit: Philippe de Champaigne)

I'm gonna make that my wallpaper :P.

[ask maurice]

You landed it exactly. Other than the "technical merit" it becomes just another pretty picture. That's why you're here and not enrolled in an "everyone can watercolor" class.


"Concept extends beyond the understanding of external form, to the spirit of things . . . where nothing is exhibited creatively by mere imitation." - Maurice Garson




Ask Maurice.Org
Home (http://www.askmaurice.org/index.html) | Book Store (http://www.askmaurice.org/store.html) |Forum (http://askmaurice.org/simplemachinesforum/index.php) |Links (http://www.askmaurice.org/links.html)

[dose]

Some people like to buy still lives. Some people made careers out of painting still lives and selling them to the people who liked to buy them. Chardin was one of them. He was better than a lot of other people who made careers out painting still lives- hence his reputation. Others just used still life as a convenient way to learn/teach stuff, or to pass the time when a model wasn't accessible, or because they wanted to explore a certain subject.

Still life has a history, and that history continues today. I can't think of any practical use of declaring it Art or Not Art. I like painting them, have learned a lot from doing so, and will continue to do so regardless of whether or not anybody in the universe thinks my still lives are art or not.

[Ninjerk]

I like painting them, have learned a lot from doing so, and will continue to do so regardless of whether or not anybody in the universe thinks my still lives are art or not.

I wanted to reply yesterday when I saw this, but I wasn't sure exactly what I wanted to say. This is pretty much it. A still life is a an excellent way to practice/learn about rendering realistic forms, and I think that if you look at it from the perspective of how difficult it is to accomplish "realism" (whatever that means to you), it definitely takes on that quality.

I don't know about what you do or your relationship to art, but I think there are a lot of people (art critics, historians, and any other manner of art appreciators or are not also artists) who will not understand that level of appreciation. As an aspiring artist, I can look at a still life as art because I've spent enough time feeling frustration and at times triumph at pulling off a realistic portrayal of a still life composition--even if the only thing I did well was blending an area to achieve "roundness" or correctly representing the tonal similarity of a shadow and the object behind it. When I look at a good still life (like maybe some non artists who like art look at a well-done portrait), what's usually going through my head is, "WOW! You can do that? I'm so not there yet."

That's what gets me excited about still lifes (lives? I've been changing it back to "a still life" during this response because I didn't know which way, halp) and why I think it's art.

[Shehaub]

I did not appreciate still life when I was young. Part of that might be because I wanted to move fast and I appreciated art that seemed more active. I wanted meaning to jump out and grab me and take me somewhere.

Now that I am old I enjoy still life. It reminds you to slow down and take notice of that piece of food before you eat it. Or smell the flowers before they decay. You miss a lot when you are moving too fast. Still life serves as a reminder that quiet moments can be just as rich as the loud demanding ones.

Some paintings are full of metaphors and symbolism. In the case of some of still life, it is a show of abundance and wealth to have a table full of food on fine silver platters and in beautiful crystal. Before money was the idol of choice, food was how wealth was measured.

For the most part a still life isn't really an idea as much as it is a portal to a view from the artist. You can have 15 artists paint/draw the same apple on a table and get 15 very different views. Each piece not only says something about an apple, but something about the artist. Each artist will pick up on something that their companions did not from the same apple. (that may be an exaggeration, but you get the idea)

For you, still life may very well be a simple decoration because it does not "speak" to you, at least right now.

[Shehaub]

Oops duplicate

[Elwell]

What is it that a great still life says about the world that makes it more than a pretty picture of some fruit?
??????????????????????
Why set aside one particular category of subject matter?
What is it about a great figure painting that makes it more than a picture of some naked chick?
What is it about a great landscape that makes it more than a picture of some trees and mountains?
What is it about a great portrait that makes it more than a picture of some old dude?

etc.

[Sidharth Chaturvedi]

??????????????????????
Why set aside one particular category of subject matter?
What is it about a great figure painting that makes it more than a picture of some naked chick?
What is it about a great landscape that makes it more than a picture of some trees and mountains?
What is it about a great portrait that makes it more than a picture of some old dude?

etc.

Oh, I wasn't implying that it's all I think a still life is. I just really don't know too much about them, thus making the thread. I've had much more exposure to figure/landscape painting in art history, but all the great still life painters were basically glossed over in classes, so I'm trying to learn more about them now. I really do appreciate a good fruit painting as much as a good figure one, sorry for my poor question phrasing.