Why Is the "Still Life" So Appealing?
I have a question for Ricochet art experts. What explains the allure of a great still life? A decade or so ago, my wife, son, and I spent several hours in the Prado, Madrid's great museum. Along with works by Rembrandt, Van Dyck and and other great painters, it has the greatest collection of the works of Velasquez and Goya, not to mention El Greco. And they were stunning.
But in the end both my wife and I were blown away by the still life paintings of Luis Melendez (1716-80). Food, particularly bread, vegetables, and fruit were his primary subjects, yet they were among the most emotionally satisfying paintings in the museum. Can anyone explain this? Nothing happens in them. There are no people in the picture--yet they seem so human. A photograph of the same items would be mundane, but to see them painted so beautifully is a truly aesthetic experience.
- Comment (80)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
Jun '10
Re: Why Is the "Still Life" So Appealing?
flownover: Once my wife coaxed me across that walking bridge in Cuenca, only after much wine and eau de vie with the baby eels at some incredible restaurant. I was so inspired by my faux bravery, I decided to start collecting art.
Somehow, I think I got it wrong. But Cuenca and Ventano del Diablo above it very dramatic. · 0 minutes ago
Flownover: That is one fine painting. Titian?
May '11
Re: Why Is the "Still Life" So Appealing?
His works, Goya's, El Greco's and all the rest in Prado were almost overwhelming. After a couple of hours, it was like I'd eaten two pounds of sugar. An embarrassment of riches.
I find great art to be mesmerizing. I leave a museum and every object becomes framed in my mind like a painting and often the light actually seems to shimmer with an extra- dimensional glow. Occasionally music can cast a similar spell. Once after a lecture on the Rhapsody in Blue, I heard a creaking door close with the exact pitch of that climbing oboe.
Aug '10
Re: Why Is the "Still Life" So Appealing?
Maggie Somavilla
The Chilean painter Claudio Bravo is a favorite of mine and I was distressed when, just now, I went looking for a picture to post and learned that he passed away last year. He is known as a "hyperrealist"
Beautiful. I shall have to try to remember Claudio Bravo.
Edited on May 21, 2012 at 11:05pmDec '11
Re: Why Is the "Still Life" So Appealing?
Not knowing anything of Art, I called my mother in law who teaches a university class on art history. She also is slightly baffled at the popularity of still life, but she did provide some insights.
- As an artform it came from 17th century Holland
- Still life is a demonstration of raw technical skill. There is nothing there to distract you from it.
- Sometimes there is a subtle moral statement based upon its composition. A particularily opulant, or decaying composition may be about something to do with moral failings.
- in the case of cut flowers, it could be a statement on the transitory nature of life.
Jun '10
Re: Why Is the "Still Life" So Appealing?
Guruforhire: Not knowing anything of Art, I called my mother in law who teaches a university class on art history. She also is slightly baffled at the popularity of still life, but she did provide some insights.
- As an artform it came from 17th century Holland
- Still life is a demonstration of raw technical skill. There is nothing there to distract you from it.
- Sometimes there is a subtle moral statement based upon its composition. A particularily opulant, or decaying composition may be about something to do with moral failings.
- in the case of cut flowers, it could be a statement on the transitory nature of life. · 0 minutes ago
All of that makes sense.
Aug '10
Re: Why Is the "Still Life" So Appealing?
tabula rasa
Flownover: That is one fine painting. Titian? · 36 minutes ago
Don't bother with the names, I bought this for $500 per square inch of eyes depicted. You can bet it cost a bunch. I guess I miss the abstract stuff, where are the bosoms and who is Ian ?
Apr '11
Re: Why Is the "Still Life" So Appealing?
I don't have much head for heights: being at 30,000 feet in an airplane doesn't bother me, but standing on the observation deck of the Empire State Building makes me a little queasy.
Columbus Junction, Iowa has a "swinging bridge." It's a cable-and-slat pedestrian bridge across a gully. There's no particular reason to stop there, but I used to drive through pretty frequently, and one summer day I decided to check out the bridge. It was probably an advantage that it was summer, since the tree foliage obscured the drop to the bottom. But it was still kind of sickening, having the walkway shift beneath me, with the harmonics of the other people tramping across.
Mar '11
Re: Why Is the "Still Life" So Appealing?
A work of still life represents a single moment in time. It captures that single moment in a way that the human mind (a slave to time and space) cannot. It allows us to absorb and contemplate that single moment. It allows us to see and appreciate those simple elements of life that slip past us all too quickly.
But the intent is not to recreate an actual moment. It is to create the sense or the feeling or the impression of that moment. It is that feeling that we contemplate.
A photograph captures an actual moment in time. The photograph allows us to recall or contemplate that actual moment. Or it allows us to see what someone else saw at that actual moment.
A painting captures a moment. A photograph captures the moment.
Mar '11
Re: Why Is the "Still Life" So Appealing?
flownover: Once my wife coaxed me across that walking bridge in Cuenca, only after much wine and eau de vie with the baby eels at some incredible restaurant. I was so inspired by my faux bravery, I decided to start collecting art.
Somehow, I think I got it wrong. But Cuenca and Ventano del Diablo above it very dramatic. · 55 minutes ago
I'd love to be an art collector, but I don't have any budget room.
Except for the real masterpieces, that is.
Jun '10
Re: Why Is the "Still Life" So Appealing?
Casey: A work of still life represents a single moment in time. It captures that single moment in a way that the human mind (a slave to time and space) cannot. It allows us to absorb and contemplate that single moment. It allows us to see and appreciate those simple elements of life that slip past us all too quickly.
But the intent is not to recreate an actual moment. It is to create the sense or the feeling or the impression of that moment. It is that feeling that we contemplate.
A photograph captures an actual moment in time. The photograph allows us to recall or contemplate that actual moment. Or it allows us to see what someone else saw at that actual moment.
A painting captures amoment. A photograph capturesthemoment.
Casey: Nice thoughts. I've learned more about art on this thread than I had learned in six decades.
You're going to screw up the reputation for lightheartedness and frivolity that you have so carefully cultivated if you start making this kind of thoughtful comments.
Edited on May 22, 2012 at 12:32amJun '10
Re: Why Is the "Still Life" So Appealing?
Glenn the Iconoclast
I don't have much head for heights: being at 30,000 feet in an airplane doesn't bother me, but standing on the observation deck of the Empire State Building makes me a little queasy.
Columbus Junction, Iowa has a "swinging bridge." It's a cable-and-slat pedestrian bridge across a gully. There's no particular reason to stop there, but I used to drive through pretty frequently, and one summer day I decided to check out the bridge. It was probably an advantage that it was summer, since the tree foliage obscured the drop to the bottom. But it was still kind of sickening, having the walkway shift beneath me, with the harmonics of the other people tramping across. · 57 minutes ago
Ditto. I can give an off-the-cuff 20 minute talk without sweating much. Put me on an observation deck or, horror or horrors, a rope bridge and I'll turn into the world's greatest coward. I can't even stand to see other people do it.
Apr '12
Re: Why Is the "Still Life" So Appealing?
Perceval, seeing the mundane answers the question for me, but how we see! Broken apart molecules in the compositions you posted. Not qte reality. I love the big flecks of blue on the table cloth and fruit, but it keeps my eyes moving across the paintings. Picasso exhibition is here in Toronto and when I see some of these paintings up close, they are laughable. No wonder they puzzled the critics back then. Then you see them across the room and their colours and crazy composition make me want to stop and stare.
Mar '11
Re: Why Is the "Still Life" So Appealing?
Absolutely, Indaba. The thing that really catches my eye in those two pictures are the tablecloths, particularly the folds in the second one. I can just imagine it being taken down from the shelf in the pantry and given a shake or two before being spread across the table.
May '11
Re: Why Is the "Still Life" So Appealing?
Guruforhire: Not knowing anything of Art, I called my mother in law who teaches a university class on art history. She also is slightly baffled at the popularity of still life, but she did provide some insights.
- As an artform it came from 17th century Holland
- Still life is a demonstration of raw technical skill. There is nothing there to distract you from it.
- Sometimes there is a subtle moral statement based upon its composition. A particularily opulant, or decaying composition may be about something to do with moral failings.
- in the case of cut flowers, it could be a statement on the transitory nature of life. · 5 hours
Guruforhire, from your description of your mother-in-law's analysis, I can see why she was baffled. "Cut flowers could be a statement on the transitory nature of life." You think? What does she see in the dung enhanced portraits of Christ? Art is seldom a statement (unless it is encrusted in dung). Art to me is playfull imagination that entertains and informs when we let it.
Mar '11
Re: Why Is the "Still Life" So Appealing?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake: It's appreciating common objects so very much that you record their beauty with loving accuracy. It's appreciating the world as it is.
The artist is saying that a piece of fruit, or a hunk of bread is such a marvelous thing that its existence is worth recording with the same care you would take to paint the portrait of the most famous person. Or, at least this is my own experience with drawing still-lifes.
This is my experience as well. I'm not drawn to the bowls of fruit and gourds so much as I am more recent still lifes of ordinary man-made things. Those ordinary items can become stunningly beautiful. I especially enjoy it when the painting is a realistic but with a noticeable painterly quality to it. After all, if I want a hyperrealistic image of something, there's always the camera.
Mar '11
Re: Why Is the "Still Life" So Appealing?
And I find absolutely true what Midget Faded Rattlesnake said about drawing/painting a still life being almost zen-like. (True with figures as well). As I am painting a still life I have a little mantra I say to myself: "paint what I see, see what I paint." I try to ignore the object and focus on the colors and shapes I see in the form. --In order to paint the donut, you must not paint a donut--
I'd love to share a quick 3.5 hour study I did a while back:
Jun '10
Re: Why Is the "Still Life" So Appealing?
ChristmasBeard: And I find absolutely true what Midget Faded Rattlesnake said about drawing/painting a still life being almost zen-like. (True with figures as well). As I am painting a still life I have a little mantra I say to myself: "paint what I see, see what I paint." I try to ignore the object and focus on the colors and shapes I see in the form. --In order to paint the donut, you must not paint a donut--
I'd love to share a quick 3.5 hour study I did a while back: · 14 minutes ago
Very nice. I assume you took the bite as well.
Dec '11
Re: Why Is the "Still Life" So Appealing?
Images for arcimboldo spring
My favorite still life; courtesy of the great Kunsthistoriches Museum.
Dec '11
Re: Why Is the "Still Life" So Appealing?
Southern Pessimist
Guruforhire: Not knowing anything of Art, I called my mother in law who teaches a university class on art history. She also is slightly baffled at the popularity of still life, but she did provide some insights.
- As an artform it came from 17th century Holland
- Still life is a demonstration of raw technical skill. There is nothing there to distract you from it.
- Sometimes there is a subtle moral statement based upon its composition. A particularily opulant, or decaying composition may be about something to do with moral failings.
- in the case of cut flowers, it could be a statement on the transitory nature of life. · 5 hours
Guruforhire, from your description of your mother-in-law's analysis, I can see why she was baffled. "Cut flowers could be a statement on the transitory nature of life." You think? What does she see in the dung enhanced portraits of Christ? Art is seldom a statement (unless it is encrusted in dung). Art to me is playfull imagination that entertains and informs when we let it. · 4 hours ago
I am also a terrible filter... So lets keep that in mind.
May '10
Re: Why Is the "Still Life" So Appealing?
Sorry I came to this thread so late, as this is an area of some interest to me.
(IMHO) The best still life painters were 17-18C Dutch/Flemish and the best of those was Jan van Huysum. There are a couple of his at the National Gallery in DC and it's possible to spend hours looking at them. You can do a Google search, but nothing on line quite does them justice. Here's a sample. From around the same time, here's one by Jan Davidsz de Heem. He's less known, but also extraordinary.
There are still some good realistic artists around, but it takes a willingness to work hard and long on a painting. Also more than a little talent and training. I'm partial to portraiture, so here's a still life with person I rather like. Someone mentioned reflections in mirrors; this one, same artist, has an interesting example. All of the paintings linked have clickable high res if you want to check out technique.
I'm not a fan of the Impressionists. They mostly seem either lazy or untalented. From the same time and place, look at Bouguereau for extraordinary talent.