n., pl., still lifes.
- Representation of inanimate objects, such as flowers or fruit, in painting or photography.
- A painting, picture, or photograph of inanimate objects.
|
Dictionary:
still life (stĭl'līf') adj. |
| Art Encyclopedia: Still-Life |
Type of work in which an arrangement of diverse inanimate objects, including items of food (especially fruit and game), plants and artefacts is depicted. This arrangement is often apparently random and is usually within a domestic setting. The form is normally associated with oil painting, but other media have been used, including mosaics, watercolour, collage and photography. Despite the existence of still-life subjects in pre-Classical, Classical and Renaissance art, the form was recognized as a distinct genre only in the 17th century, when it reached the height of its popularity in western Europe, especially the Netherlands (where many of the conventions of Renaissance and Baroque still-life painting originated), France, Spain and Italy. Until this time, in inventories and theoretical writings, paintings representing foodstuffs, plants and inanimate objects were usually simply named after the items depicted; and even when the existence of a distinct type of painting became recognized there was still diversity in terminology before 'still-life' became accepted. In France vie coye (Fr.: 'silent life') later became nature morte, analogous to the Italian natura morta and the German Stilleben. In Spain such images were initially called bodegones, after the lower-class inns and eating-places they were painted for. In the Netherlands various terms existed in the 17th century, including ontbijtje (small breakfast), banketje (little banquet) and vanitas, before stilleven gained currency. There has been much discussion among historians of Netherlandish art as to the allegorical content of 17th-century still-life painting, while some 20th-century writers on the subject, such as Norman Bryson, have taken the still-life as the starting point for a broader analysis of the relation between allegory and naturalism and between painting and language.
See the Abbreviations for further details.
| Photography Encyclopedia: still life |
Still life, or, in French, nature morte, is one of the staples of photography. In the earliest days, when exposures ran to many minutes, still life was easier to photograph than people, and it remains often easier to assemble the elements of a still life than to find a model for a portrait or nude study. Most importantly of all, a photograph of a still life can be a thing of beauty in its own right.
In the earliest days of photography, even photographers such as Henry Talbot who were often merely researching technical processes made superb still-life images, and Roger Fenton's still-life photographs of the 1840s are among the finest ever shot. One of the greatest decades in non-advertising still-life photography was the 1920s, when ‘abstract’ pictures enjoyed a great vogue: objects such as folded paper, light bulbs, cutlery, and much else were photographed as studies in line and form, without ‘content’ in the conventional sense. And one of the worst decades was the 1950s, with its craze for saccharine ‘table-top’ pictures of glass ornaments like dancing fauns. In the 1960s, still life all but disappeared, only to reappear in the late 20th century with the latest super-saturated colour films.
Overall, however, still life for its own sake has often been surprisingly neglected by amateurs and even by art photographers: by far the greatest numbers of still-life images that one sees are advertisements. The main reason is probably the belief that still-life photographs are time consuming and difficult, and require a lot of space and equipment. But, as an examination of photo magazines reveals, this belief is wrong: those who shoot still life often use simple equipment, yet produce striking images.
For basic black-and-white work, a single desk lamp can be all the light that is needed. With the camera on a tripod—exposures are likely to be long—an extraordinary range of things can be grist to the mill of the still-life photographer, from an eye-catching everyday object to something chosen for its intrinsic beauty, whether a figurine or a piece of driftwood. And the composition can be anything from a study of a single object to the most elaborate assembly: even that Victorian staple, the dead pheasant surrounded with other foodstuffs.
Even at the highest level, in advertising photography, demands on lighting and equipment are modest. Camera movements are often used to hold focus via the Scheimpflug rule, or (more rarely) to restrict planes of focus or create distortions, so large-format cameras (increasingly used with roll-film backs) are popular. Lenses are usually of a great enough focal length to allow a good working distance between camera and subject. Lights are rarely either powerful or numerous. Flash is generally preferred for still-life work involving natural subjects such as food or flowers, because of the heart from tungsten lights. But some photographers prefer the effects of tungsten; its disadvantages can be overstated.
Often amateurs treat still life as a branch of record photography. Very few indulge in fancy lenses, unusual film-stocks, and processing techniques, though their effects can be worthwhile. Soft-focus lenses, extremely grainy film-stocks, and post-production techniques in Adobe Photoshop or other image manipulation programs all deserve to be experimented with, though the last can easily be overdone.
Professionals often shoot still-life pictures, partly for recreation but arguably more as a means of exploring their craft, learning more about how to use light and shade, line and tone, and even exposure. The relevance to advertising work is obvious, but professionals in other spheres still seem to be disproportionately fond of them, often citing private still-life photographs among their favourite images.
— Roger W. Hicks
See also pack shot.Bibliography
| Columbia Encyclopedia: still life |
Evolution of Still Life
Until the Renaissance, elements of still life, often imbued with symbolic or ritual significance, appeared as subordinate subject matter in religious or allegorical paintings. Hellenistic frescoes and mosaics from Pergamon, Alexandria, Rome, and Pompeii included depictions of plants and food in which a trompe l'oeil illusionism was often stressed. In early Christian and Byzantine religious paintings still-life elements were handled in a schematized and symbolic fashion until the end of the Middle Ages. Franco-Flemish paintings of the late Gothic era revealed close observation of natural details, as seen in much of the period's manuscript illumination.
At the beginning of the Italian Renaissance such detail was handled far more formally and was utterly dominated by the religious theme of the work, as in the paintings of Giotto. By the 15th cent. still-life objects were used to enhance the illusion of scientific perspective, a subject of passionate study in the new humanism. At that time still life became a separate genre in Italy; it was used to great effect by masters of marquetry.
It was in the religious works of Northern European masters that the revival of the study of nature was most completely revealed. The van Eycks, van der Weyden, van der Goes, and Robert Campin, to name but a few, observed carefully and recorded exactly objects of everyday use and subjects from nature. They incorporated these into religious works, giving them more and more importance until the still-life elements appeared in the foreground and diminished the religious, or landscape subject, as in the works of Aertsen and Beuckelaer.
Specialists in the handling of specific textures or effects such as glass, fur, plants, and the translucence of grapes came into being. Where Italian artists had communication with Northern masters, their works reflected the Northern interest in still-life subjects. The direction of this influence was reversed by the time of Caravaggio. Specialty pictures were the first major separate still lifes. These included works on the vanitas vanitatum theme featuring skull, hourglass, candle, book, and flowers in their iconography, as well as the banquet pieces that had become popular with collectors of 1600.
Still Life in the Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries
Still life was developed as a separate genre primarily in the Netherlands in the works of Jan Bruegel (see under Bruegel, family), Rubens, Snyders, and Rembrandt. In France still life was used in the 17th cent. primarily for trompe l'oeil exercises and not significantly elevated until it received brilliant handling by Chardin in the 18th cent. French 19th-century masters, including Courbet and Cézanne, adopted still life wholeheartedly, giving it status equal to that of their other subjects. In the United States, Harnett and Peto used still life in order to display brilliant trompe l'oeil techniques.
Still Life in the Twentieth Century
In the 20th cent. both American and European artists' most characteristic subject matter was still life. The cubist artists, Picasso, Braque, and Gris, painted still-life subjects predominantly. The artists in many schools of abstract painting, beginning with Cézanne and continuing to the present day, forsook the objective representation of still life and developed myriad varieties of treatment of the subject, concentrating on color, form, and composition. Occasionally they painted other subjects, applying to these their still-life stylistic techniques. The painters of the pop art movement and their followers frequently criticized contemporary social values using, almost exclusively, still-life subject matter. They chose objects of popular culture relevant to their thesis such as soup cans and comic strips.
East Asian Still Life
In East Asia still-life subjects were depicted as early as the 11th cent. Chinese works were distinguished by brilliant brushwork and rapid execution. Objects were frequently endowed with symbolic import in both Chinese works and the Japanese compositions often derived from them. The importance of illusionistic representation of the object was minimized in East Asian Art, and in general its treatment of still life does not correspond with that of Western art.
Bibliography
See C. Sterling, Still Life Painting (rev. ed., tr. 1959, repr. 1981); W. H. Gerdts and R. Burke, American Still-Life Painting (1971); R. Gwynne, The Illustrated Guidebook to Still-Life Painting (2 vol., 1982); E. E. Rathbone and G. T. M. Shackelford, Impressionist Still Life (2001).
| Wikipedia: Still life |
| This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations of additional sources. (February 2009) |
A still life (plural still lifes [1]) is a work of art depicting mostly inanimate subject matter, typically commonplace objects which may be either natural (food, flowers, plants, rocks, or shells) or man-made (drinking glasses, books, vases, jewelry, coins, pipes, and so on) in an artificial setting. With origins in ancient times and most popular in Western art since the 17th century, still life paintings give the artist more leeway in the arrangement of design elements within a composition than do paintings of other types of subjects such as landscape or portraiture. Still life paintings, particularly before 1700, often contained religious and allegorical symbolism relating to the objects depicted. Some modern still life breaks the two-dimensional barrier and employs three-dimensional mixed media, and uses found objects, photography, computer graphics, as well as video and sound.
Contents |
Still life paintings often adorn the interior of ancient Egyptian tombs. It was believed that food objects and other items depicted there would, in the afterlife, become real and available for use by the deceased. Ancient Greek vase paintings also demonstrate great skill in depicting everyday objects and animals. Similar still life, more simply decorative in intent, but with realistic perspective, have also been found in the Roman wall paintings and floor mosaics unearthed at Pompeii, Herculaneum and the Villa Boscoreale, including the later familiar motif of a glass bowl of fruit. Decorative mosaics termed “emblema”, found in the homes of rich Romans, demonstrated the range of food enjoyed by the upper classes, and also functioned as signs of hospitality and as celebrations of the seasons and of life.[2] By the 16th century, food and flowers would again appear as symbols of the seasons and of the five senses. Also starting in Roman times is the tradition of the use of the skull in paintings as a symbol of mortality and earthly remains, often with the accompanying phrase Omnia mors aequat (Death makes all equal).[3] These vanitas images have been re-interpreted through the last 400 years of art history, starting with Dutch painters around 1600.[4]
The popular appreciation of the realism of still life painting is related in the ancient Greek legend of Zeuxis and Parrhasius, who are said to have once competed to create the most life-like objects, history’s earliest descriptions of trompe l’oeil painting.[5] As Pliny the Elder recorded in ancient Roman times, Greek artists centuries earlier were already advanced in the arts of portrait painting and still life. He singled out Peiraikos, “whose artistry is surpassed by only a very few…He painted barbershops and shoemakers’ stalls, donkeys, vegetables, and such, and for that reason came to be called the ‘painter of vulgar subjects’; yet these works are altogether delightful, and they were sold at higher prices than the greatest [paintings] of many other artists.”[6]
By 1300, starting with Giotto and his pupils, still life painting was revived in the form of fictional niches on religious wall paintings which depicted everyday objects.[7] Through the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, still life in Western art remained primarily an adjunct to Christian religious subjects, and convened religious and allegorical meaning. This was particularly true in the work of Northern European artists, whose fascination with highly detailed optical realism and symbolism led them to lavish great attention on their paintings' overall message.[8] Painters like Jan van Eyck often used still life elements as part of an iconographic program.
The development of oil painting technique by Jan van Eyck and other Northern European artists made it possible to paint everyday objects in this hyper-realistic fashion, owing to the slow drying, mixing, and layering qualities of oil colors.[9] Among the first to break free of religious meaning were Leonardo da Vinci, who created watercolor studies of fruit (around 1495) as part of his restless examination of nature, and Albrecht Dürer who also made precise drawings of flora and fauna.[10]
Petrus Christus’ portrait of a bride and groom visiting a goldsmith is a typical example of a transitional still life depicting both religious and secular content. Though mostly allegorical in message, the figures of the couple are realistic and the objects shown (coins, vessels, etc.) are accurately painted but the goldsmith is actually a depiction of St. Eligius and the objects heavily symbolic. Another similar type of painting is the family portrait combining figures with a well-set table of food, which symbolizes both the piety of the human subjects and their thanks for God’s abundance.[11] Around this time, simple still life depictions divorced of figures (but not allegorical meaning) were beginning to be painted on the outside of shutters of private devotional paintings.[6] Another step toward the autonomous still life was the painting of symbolic flowers in vases on the back of secular portraits around 1475.[12] Jacopo de’ Barbari went a step further with his Still Life with Partridge, Iron Gloves, and Crossbow Arrows (1504), among the earliest signed and dated trompe l’oeil still life paintings, which contains minimal religious content.[13]
The 16th century witnessed an explosion of interest in the natural world and the creation of lavish botanical encyclopædias recording the discoveries of the New World and Asia. It also prompted the beginning of scientific illustration and the classification of specimens. Natural objects began to be appreciated as individual objects of study apart from any religious or mythological associations. The early science of herbal remedies began at this time as well, a practical extension of this new knowledge. In addition, wealthy patrons began to underwrite the collection of animal and mineral specimens, creating extensive “curio cabinets”. These specimens served as models for painters who sought realism and novelty. Shells, insects, exotic fruits and flowers began to be collected and traded, and new plants such as the tulip (imported to Europe from Turkey), were celebrated in still life paintings.[14] The horticultural explosion was of wide spread interest in Europe and artist capitalized on that to produce thousands of still life paintings. Some regions and courts had particular interests. The depiction of citrus, for example, was a particular passion of the Medici court in Florence, Italy.[15] This great diffusion of natural specimens and the burgeoning interest in natural illustration throughout Europe, resulted in the nearly simultaneous creation of modern still life paintings around 1600.[16]
By the second half of the 16th century, the autonomous still life evolved.[17] Gradually, religious content diminished in size and placement in these painting, though moral lessons continued as sub-contexts. An example is “The Butcher Shop” by Joachim Beuckelaer (1568), with its realistic depiction of raw meats dominating the foreground, while a background scene conveys the dangers of drunkenness and lechery.[18] Annibale Carracci’s treatment of the same subject in 1583 begins to remove the moral messages, as did other “kitchen and market” still life paintings of this period.[19]
Even though Italian still life painting was gaining in popularity, it remained historically less respected than the "grand manner" painting of historical, religious, and mythic subjects. Prominent Academicians of the early 1600s, like Andrea Sacchi, felt that genre and still life painting did not carry the "gravitas" merited for painting to be considered great. On the other hand, successful Italian still life artists found ample patronage in their day.[20] Furthermore, women painters, few as they were, commonly chose or were restricted to painting topics such as still life, Giovanna Garzoni, Laura Bernasconi, and Fede Galizia for example.
Many leading Italian artists in other genre, also produced some still life paintings. In particular, Caravaggio applied his influential form of naturalism to still life. His Basket of Fruit (c. 1595-1600) is one of the first examples of pure still life, precisely rendered and set at eye level.[21] Though not overtly symbolic, this painting was owned by Cardinal Borromeo and may have been appreciated for both religious and aesthetic reasons. Jan Bruegel painted his Large Milan Bouquet (1606) for the cardinal, as well, claiming that he painted it 'fatta tutti del natturel' (made all from nature) and he charged extra for the extra effort.[22] These were among many still life paintings in the cardinal’s collection, in addition to his large collection of curios. Among other Italian still life, Bernardo Strozzi’s The Cook is a “kitchen scene” in the Dutch manner, which is both a detailed portrait of a cook and the game birds she is preparing.[23] In a similar manner, one of Rembrandt’s rare still life paintings, Little Girl with Dead Peacocks combines a similar sympathetic female portrait with images of game birds.[24]
Still life came into its own in the new artistic climate of the Netherlands in the 17th century (with the name stilleven: still life is a calque while Romance languages (and Russian) tend to use terms meaning dead nature). While artists found limited opportunity to produce the religious iconography which had long been their staple—images of religious subjects were forbidden in the Dutch Reformed Protestant Church—the continuing Northern tradition of detailed realism and hidden symbols appealed to the growing Dutch middle classes, who were replacing Church and State as the principal patrons of art in the Netherlands. Added to this was the Dutch mania for horticulture, particularly the tulip. These two views of flowers—as aesthetic objects and as religious symbols— merged to create a very strong market for this type of still life.[25] Still life, like most Dutch art work, was generally sold in open markets or by dealers, or by artists at their studios, and rarely commissioned; therefore, artists usually chose the subject matter and arrangement.[26] So popular was this type of still life painting, that much of the technique of Dutch flower painting was codified in the 1740 treatise Groot Schilderboeck by Gerard de Lairesse, which gave wide-ranging advice on color, arranging, brushwork, preparation of specimens, harmony, composition, perspective, etc.[27]
The symbolism of flowers had evolved since early Christian days. The most common flowers and their symbolic meanings include: rose (Virgin Mary, transience, Venus, love); lily (Virgin Mary, virginity, female breast, purity of mind or justice); tulip (showiness, nobility); sunflower (faithfulness, divine love, devotion); violet (modesty, reserve, humility); columbine (melancholy); poppy (power, sleep, death). As for insects, the butterfly represents transformation and resurrection while the dragonfly symbolizes transience and the ant hard work and attention to the harvest.[28]
Dutch artists also branched out and revived the ancient Greek still-life tradition of trompe l’oeil, particularly the imitation of nature or mimesis, which they termed bedriegertje (“little deception”).[29] In addition to these types of still life, Dutch artists identified and separately developed “kitchen and market” paintings, breakfast and food table still life, vanitas paintings, and allegorical collection paintings.[30]
Especially popular in this period were vanitas paintings, in which sumptuous arrangements of fruit and flowers, books, statuettes, vases, coins, jewelry, paintings, musical and scientific instruments, military insignia, fine silver and crystal, were accompanied by symbolic reminders of life's impermanence. Additionally, a skull, an hourglass or pocket watch, a candle burning down or a book with pages turning, would serve as a moralizing message on the ephemerality of sensory pleasures. Often some of the fruits and flowers themselves would be shown starting to spoil or fade to emphasize the same point.
Another type of still life, known as “breakfast paintings”, represent both a literal presentation of delicacies that the upper class might enjoy and a religious reminder to avoid gluttony.[31] In another Dutch innovation, around 1650 Samuel van Hoogstraten painted one of the first wall-rack pictures, trompe l’oeil still life paintings which feature objects tied, tacked or attached in some other fashion to a wall board, a type of still life very popular in the United States in the 19th century.[32] Another variation was the trompe l’oeil still life depicted objects associated with a given profession, as with the Cornelis Norbertus Gysbrecht’s painting “Painter’s Easel with Fruit Piece”, which displays all the tools of a painter’s craft.[33] Also popular in the first half of the 17th century was the painting of a large assortment of specimens in allegorical form, such as the “five senses”, “four continents”, or the “the four seasons”, showing a goddess or allegorical figure surrounded by appropriate natural and man-made objects.[34] The popularity of vanitas paintings, and these other forms of still life, soon spread from Holland to Flanders and Germany, and also to Spain[35] and France.
German still life followed closely the Dutch models. German painter Georg Flegel was a pioneer in pure still life without figures and created the compositional innovation of placing detailed objects in cabinets, cupboards, and display cases, and producing simultaneous multiple views.[36] Still life painting in Spain, also called bodegones, was austere. It differed from Dutch still life, which often contained rich banquets surrounded by ornate and luxurious items of fabric or glass. The game in Spanish paintings is often plain dead animals still waiting to be skinned. The fruits and vegetables are uncooked. The backgrounds are bleak or plain wood geometric blocks, often creating a surrealist air. Even while both Dutch and Spanish still life often had an embedded moral purpose, the austerity, which some find akin to the bleakness of some of the Spanish plateaus, appears to reject the sensual pleasures, plenitude, and luxury of Dutch still life paintings.[37] In Catholic Italy and Spain, the pure vanitas painting was rare, and there were far fewer still life specialists. In Southern Europe there is more employment of the soft naturalism of Caravaggio and less emphasis on hyper-realism in comparison with Northern European styles.[38] In France, painters of still lifes (nature morte) were influenced by both the Northern and Southern schools, borrowing from the vanitas paintings of the Netherlands and the spare arrangements of Spain.[39]
By the 18th century, in many cases, the religious and allegorical connotations of still life paintings were dropped and kitchen table paintings evolved into calculated depictions of varied color and form, displaying everyday foods. The French aristocracy employed artists to execute paintings of bounteous and extravagant still life subjects that graced their dining table, also without the moralistic vanitas message of their Dutch predecessors. The Rococo love of artifice led to a rise in appreciation in France for trompe l'oeil (French: "trick the eye") painting. Jean-Baptiste Chardin’s still life paintings employ a variety of techniques from Dutch-style realism to softer harmonies.[40]
In the United States during Revolutionary times, American artists trained abroad applied European styles to American portrait painting and still life. Charles Willson Peale founded a family of prominent American painters, and as major leader in the American art community, also founded a society for the training of artists as well as a famous museum of natural curiosities. His son Raphaelle Peale was one of a group of early American still life artists, which also included John F. Francis, Charles Bird King, and John Johnston.[41] By the second half of the 19th century, Martin Johnson Heade introduced the American version of the habitat or biotope picture, which placed flowers and birds in simulated outdoor environments.[42] The American trompe l'oeil paintings also flourished during this period, created by John Haberle, William Michael Harnett, and John Frederick Peto. Peto specialized in the nostalgic wall-rack painting while Harnett achieved the highest level of hyper-realism in his pictorial celebrations of American life through familiar objects.[43]
With the rise of the European Academies, most notably the Académie française which held a central role in Academic art, still life began to fall from favor. The Academies taught the doctrine of the "Hierarchy of genres" (or "Hierarchy of Subject Matter"), which held that a painting's artistic merit was based primarily on its subject. In the Academic system, the highest form of painting consisted of images of historical, Biblical or mythological significance, with still life subjects relegated to the very lowest order of artistic recognition. Instead of using still life to glorify nature, some artists, such as John Constable and Camille Corot, chose landscapes to serve that end.
When Neo-Classicism started to go into decline by the 1830’s, genre and portrait painting became the focus for the Realist and Romantic artistic revolutions. Many of the great artists of that period included still life in their body of work. The still life paintings of Francisco Goya, Gustave Courbet, and Eugène Delacroix convey a strong emotional current, and are less concerned with exactitude and more interested in mood.[44] Though patterned on the earlier still life subjects of Chardin, Edouard Manet’s still life paintings are strongly tonal and clearly headed toward Impressionism. Henri Fantin-Latour, using a more traditional technique, was famous for his exquisite flower paintings and made his living almost exclusively painting still life for collectors.[45]
However, it was not until the final decline of the Academic hierarchy in Europe, and the rise of the Impressionist and Post-Impressionist painters, that technique and color harmony triumphed over subject matter, and that still life was once again avidly practiced by artists. In his early still life, Claude Monet shows the influence of Fantin-Latour, but is one of the first to break the tradition of the dark background, which Pierre-Auguste Renoir also discards in Still Life with Bouquet and Fan (1871), with its bright orange background. With Impressionist still life, allegorical and mythological content is completely absent, as is meticulously detailed brush work. Impressionists instead focused on experimentation in broad, dabbing brush strokes, tonal values, and color placement. The Impressionists and Post-Impressionists were inspired by nature’s color schemes but reinterpreted nature with their own color harmonies, which sometimes proved startlingly unnaturalistic. As Gauguin stated, “Colors have their own meanings.”[46] Variations in perspective are also tried, such as using tight cropping and high angles, as with Fruit Displayed on a Stand by Gustave Caillebotte, a painting which was mocked at the time as a "display of fruit in a bird’s-eye view."[47]
Vincent van Gogh's "Sunflowers" paintings are some of the best known 19th century still life paintings. Van Gogh uses mostly tones of yellow and rather flat rendering to make a memorable contribution to still life history. His Still Life with Drawing Board (1889) is a self-portrait in still life form, with van Gogh depicting many items of his personal life, including his pipe, simple food (onions), an inspirational book, and a letter from his brother, all laid out on his table, without his own image present. He also painted his own version of a vanitas painting Still Life with Open Bible, Candle, and Book (1885).[46]
The first four decades of the twentieth century formed an exceptional period of artistic ferment and revolution. Avant-garde movements rapidly evolved and overlapped in a march towards nonfigurative, total abstraction. The still life, as well as other representational art, continued to evolve and adjust until mid-century when total abstraction, as exemplified by Jackson Pollock's drip paintings, eliminated all recognizable content.
The century began with several trends taking hold in art. In 1901, Paul Gauguin painted Still Life with Sunflowers, his homage to his friend van Gogh who had died eleven years earlier. The group known as the Nabi, including Pierre Bonnard and Edouard Vuillard, took up Gauguin’s harmonic theories and added elements inspired by Japanese woodcuts to their still life paintings. French artist Odilon Redon also painted notable still life during in this period, especially flowers.[48]
Henri Matisse reduced the rendering of still life objects even further to little more than bold, flat outlines filled with bright colors. He also simplifyied perspective and introducing multi-color backgrounds.[49] In some of his still life paintings, such as Still Life with Eggplants, his table of objects is nearly lost amidst the other colorful patterns filling the rest of the room.[50] Other exponents of Fauvism, such as Maurice de Vlaminck and André Derain, further explored pure color and abstraction in their still life.
Paul Cézanne found in still life the perfect vehicle for his revolutionary explorations in geometric spatial organization. For Cézanne, still life was a primary means of taking painting away from an illustrative or mimetic function to one demonstrating independently the elements of color, form, and line, a major step towards Abstract art. Additionally, Cézanne's experiments can be seen as leading directly to the development of Cubist still life in the early 20th century.[51]
Adapting Cézanne’s shifting of planes and axes, the Cubists subdued the color palette of the Fauves and focused instead on deconstructing objects into pure geometrical forms and planes. Between 1910 and 1920, Cubist artists like Pablo Picasso, Georges Braque, and Juan Gris painted many still life compositions, often including musical instruments, as well as creating the first Synthetic Cubist collage works, such as Picasso's oval "Still Life with Chair Caning" (1912). In these works, still life objects overlap and intermingle barely maintaining identifiable two-dimensional forms, losing individual surface texture, and merging into the background—achieving goals nearly opposite to those of traditional still life.[52] Fernand Léger’s still life introduced the use of abundant white space and colored, sharply defined, overlapping geometrical shapes to produce a more mechanical effect. [53] Rejecting the flattening of space by Cubists, Marcel Duchamp and other members of the Dada movement, went in a radically different direction, creating 3-D “ready-made” still life sculptures. As part of restoring some symbolic meaning to still life, the Futurists and the Surrealists placed recognizable still life objects in their dreamscapes. In Joan Miró’s still life paintings, objects appear weightless and float in lightly suggested two-dimensional space, and even mountains are drawn as simple lines.[51] In Italy during this time, Giorgio Morandi was the foremost still life painter, exploring a wide variety of approaches to depicting everyday bottles and kitchen implements.[54] Dutch artist M. C. Escher, best known for his detailed yet ambiguous graphics, created Still life and Street (1937), his updated version of the traditional Dutch table still life.[55]
When 20th century American artists became aware of European Modernism, they began to interpret still life subjects with a combination of American realism and Cubist-derived abstraction. Typical of the American still life works of this period are the paintings of Georgia O'Keeffe, Stuart Davis, and Marsden Hartley, and the photographs of Edward Weston. O’Keeffe’s ultra-closeup flower paintings reveal both the physical structure and the emotional subtext of petals and leaves in an unprecedented manner.
In Mexico, starting in the 1930’s, Frida Kahlo and other artists created their own brand of Surrealism, featuring native foods and cultural motifs in their still life paintings.[56]
Starting in the 1930’s, Abstract Expressionism severely reduced still life to raw depictions of form and color, until by the 1950’s, total abstraction dominated the art world. However, Pop Art in the 1960’s and 1970’s reversed the trend and created a new form of still life. Much Pop Art (such as Andy Warhol's "Campbell's Soup Cans") is based on still life, but its true subject is most often the commodified image of the commercial product represented rather than the physical still life object itself. Roy Lichtenstein’s Still Life with Goldfish Bowl (1972) combines the pure colors of Matisse with the pop iconography of Warhol. Wayne Thiebaud’s Lunch Table (1964) portrays not a single family’s lunch but an assembly line of standardized American foods.[57] The Neo-dada movement, including Jasper Johns, returned to Duchamp’s three-dimensional representation of everyday household objects to create their own brand of still life work, as in Johns’ Painted Bronze (1960) and Fool’s House (1962).[58]
The rise of Photorealism in the 1970s reasserted illusionistic representation, while retaining some of Pop's message of the fusion of object, image, and commercial product. Typical in this regard are the paintings of Don Eddy and Ralph Goings.
In the last three decades of the 20th century, and in the early years of the 21st century still life has expanded beyond the boundary of a frame. Especially in the wake of the computer age, and the rise of computer generated art and Digital art the nature and definition of still-life has changed. Some mixed media still life work employing found objects, photography, video, and sound, and even spilling out from ceiling to floor, and filling an entire room in a gallery. Computer-generated graphics have expanded the techniques available to still life artists. With the use of the video camera, still life artists can even incorporate the viewer into their work.
| Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Still life paintings |
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
| Shopping: still life |
| rhyparography | |
| Bodeg?n (art) | |
| Willem Claasz Heda (Dutch painter) |
| Is life with derek still on in Australia? Read answer... | |
| Who is a famous still life artist? Read answer... | |
| What is the purpose of still life art? Read answer... |
| Can a still life object still be called a still life object when its on the side of a building? | |
| Still life signed CHANDLER? | |
| What does a ''still-life'' painting prortray? |
Copyrights:
![]() | Dictionary. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2007, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | Art Encyclopedia. The Concise Grove Dictionary of Art. Copyright © 2002 by Oxford University Press, Inc.. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | Photography Encyclopedia. The Oxford Companion to the Photograph. Copyright © 2005 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | Columbia Encyclopedia. The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2003, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/. Read more | |
![]() | Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Still life". Read more |
Mentioned in