“The successful painter is continually painting still life.”
(Charles Webster Hawthorne)
“The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things but their inward significance.”
(Aristotle)
“While drawing, I discover what I really want to say.”
(Dario Fo)
“Art is a harmony parallel with nature.”
(Paul Cézanne)
These quotes, however different in tone & idea are all true in their way & could apply to various arts. I’m not going to expand on what I think they mean – they’re pretty clear - or how they apply to the art of the still life itself, but I thought we’d start this week with a few quotes to remind us of the importance of the genre. Although there was a time when life or figure drawing was considered the epitome of high art, it’s becoming problematic. Tastes change, ideas move on & we don’t see the human form in the same way as our forebears. Or the human in question is problematic. Or the artist has become problematic because of what they did to the subjects.
Art should always be questioned & challenged as much as it questions & challenges but don’t try to tell me we’re above making personal judgements or bringing our own experiences to the work. & that’s fine, indeed it’s necessary. Art can’t fully exist without its spectator, so it opens itself up to criticism & creative types everywhere need & have always needed a thick skin.
We might imagine the still life is a safer space to consider our point of view but there are always artists ready & willing to subvert the form. Today, though we’ll take a leaf out of Sister Wendy’s book & appreciate it for how it looks:
“(Still life) was considered the lowest form & those who painted it were footsoldiers of the army of art, mean of spirit, who only painted things instead of people & events. & yet, what hypocrisy, because everybody love it & we still love it.”
(Sister Wendy Beckett)
Pieter Claesz (1597-1661), Still Life with a Skull & a Writing Quill, 1628
I often wonder what sort of skull I’d leave behind. You might think that’s odd, but we all have one; as I’ve said before, we’re all carrying it around all the time & all the thinking is being done up there. So really, it’s perfectly natural. You’ll get some idea if the dentist x-rays your teeth or you have to have a scan of course, but you don’t really know. & you want to leave it as long as possible to find out… Anyway, Dutch Golden Age painter Claesz was adept at turning a grumbly old skull such as this into an amazing image, although the positioning of the glass does have the effect of the skull listening into a next door room.
Georges Braque (1882-1963), The Round Table, 1929
Braque’s spiky Cubist still life is bustling with objects. It’s as if it moves. Added to the tension, there’s a knife on the table, perhaps for cutting up those apples, perhaps not…
Ernst Klimt (1864-1892), Stillleben mit Rüstung, c. 1885
Yes, Klimt, but not that Klimt. & yes, he is related, being the little brother of the more famous Gustav. But Gustav didn’t go in for the still life (although of course he could do it) & used the human, usually female form to express the world as he saw it. Ernst went in more for decorative & history painting & it’s probably for the best that they weren’t working in the same field for too long. Ernst was of course less innovative or influential than his brother but nevertheless accomplished, as we see here. This still life with armour shows a highly developed ability to paint light & a variety of textures & surfaces.
Daniel Gordon (1980), Yellow Daffodils, 2020
Here Daniel Gordon combines modern subject matter with the medium of photography collage to create a modern version of the still life. Its vivid palette & oddly-placed objects create a narrative that is both familiar & unnerving.
Guy Yanai (b. 1977), Gilboa Plant, 2020
You could be forgiven for thinking that Guy Yanai also works in collage, but this is painted. His blocks of colour are carefully placed to maximum effect to give the impression of three dimensions. The many shades of green cleverly give a suggestion of shadow yet the perspective on the pot is surprising & disorienting.
Vincent van Gogh (1853 - 1890), Still Life with Bible, 1885
At one time of course, Vincent was a missionary & his father a minister. Nowadays, it's hard to imagine anyone less suited to a mission for his & others’ sakes. In any case, his many still lifes are varied & his artistic trajectory fascinating, as this work shows.
David Shrigley (b. 1968), Untitled, 2019
I love Shrigley but he’s no doctor.
Arthur Rackham (1887-1939), Chrysanthemum & Daisies, c. 1915
Probably better known for his fabulous spooky trees, Arthur could nevertheless turn out incredible paintings & this sensitive gem shows off his remarkable skills beautifully. This is a painting by someone who has spent so many hours at his easel that the brushstrokes are automatic & perfectly placed. The careful dabbing of paint to show shadow & the undersides of the leaves & petals is staggering.
Otto Dix (1891-1969), Still Life With Widow’s Veil, 1925
It seems obvious & unnecessary to refer to an Otto Dix work as “peculiar” but this one really is. Although it is of course a still life, the mask on the wall – replete with EYES – gives it the overall effect of a painting of a dismembered body. I love Otto Dix.
Jacob Foppens van Es (c. 1596-1666), An Iris & Three Roses in an Earthenware Pot, c. 1630-1640
If you take the time to really look at this painting, you’ll surely find - as I do - that if you hadn’t been told, you’d struggle to date this. If the internet said it was a modern painting, I’d be apt to think, well it’s an old-fashioned style & subject. But it looks almost photorealistic. Painted at a time when there wasn’t a photo, let alone photorealism, this van Es is a corker.
Comments
Post a Comment