MICROSTORY OF ART

MICROSTORY OF ART
ONLINE JOURNAL FOR ART, CONNOISSEURSHIP AND CULTURAL JOURNALISM

Dedicated to StillLifes

(taken from Iconography of Sustainability, second series)

Still Lifes:

Picture: paintingstar.com ; Igor Grabar, Flowers and Fruit on the Piano

(26.5.2022) Neither painting nor the genre of the still life are dead. What can be referred to as moribund, are art historical conventions. Such as the coffee-table book. Such as the upper-class, bourgeois coffeetable book on still lifes. Or portraits. And also narrowminded ways of contemplating the still life. Because – what could be more boring that a history of the still life. Which would be lacking any specific perspective on that genre, presenting – to a bourgeois audience – largely nourishment to the eye for superficial consumption. The still life can be about so much more.

Here is a new perspective on the still life. A perspective that combines an interest in still lifes with an interest in the discourse on sustainability. In other words: one might combine environmental history, the history of consumption, the history of the economy – with the art history of the still life. And this would not be a history, interested merely in materialistic aspects. Not at all. This would be a history combining philosophical and historical and art historical perspectives. And here is a way to start: with only three theses.

1) The still life is about contemplating the world of natural and cultural objects. It is contemplation, as well as it shows or displays contemplation, and thus offers – perhaps unintentionally – a perspective on contemplation of objects, and the relation humans have with objects. The still life is about our relation we have with things.

2) Since the genre of the still life indeed – and over time – makes a history of the still life, one dimension of such history is obviously social history. Since we see frugality, we see luxury, we see poverty, we see ostentatious, debaucherous consumption. And of course we also see still lifes that are not obviously displaying any interest in social history or the history of consumption. Which is not to say that such pictures might not have a place in such a history. On the contrary. Senseless consumption (also of pictures) has its place in a (critical) history of consumption. A crucial place.

3) Theses one and two combined make an awareness what still lifes can do. And on the basis of such awareness artists can stage and have staged relations of humans with objects. Which means: the still life can build on such awareness what the still life can do, and go one step further. Becoming a more reflected comtemplation of how humans surround themselves with objects, in senseless or meaningful ways. Thus the still life can also be a stage or a laboratory, on which or in which the relations that humans have with things are more actively researched, imagined, corrected, questioned and so on.

(Picture: artnet.com)

And here is the example of a still life that may illustrate what a history of still lifes, focussing on the discourse of sustainability, could be:

In 1970 Neil Jenney painted his Litter and Bin still life. It is the picture of a trash bin, with litter placed next to the bin. A familiar sight in real life (especially during the pandemic), such picture raises numerous questions as to our relation with objects. Simple questions such as: why not putting the litter into the bin? Or: who are these people who place their litter next to the bin, and not into the bin?
Or more philosophical questions: since perhaps the definition of something as litter had turned out not to be as easy as someone had thought. Perhaps the painting is also about contemplating the difficulty of giving something away. With ›giving away‹ meaning: defining something as trash that, on a human level, perhaps also had been precious (for some time), defining something that had been precious as something meant to end up in a trash bin – now. So the litter placed next to the bin would actually show an unwillingness to depart with something precious, and it would also display – perhaps – a melancholy – in view of the passing of time and the changes time had brought.

Other examples (Jeff Wall, Rainfilled Suitcase) we discuss in separate paragraphs here, but it is noteworthy that Neil Jenney got the label of ›Bad Painting‹ from art history, is associated with that label (which he is said to have accepted), while a great deal of still lifes have actually been about showing how good someone is at painting, technically. But our history of the still life would not be about admiration of technical skills in the first place. It might also be about admiration, here and there, but admiration of mere technical skills could also get in the way of seeing what a simple, direct and intelligent picture such as Litter and Bin can be about as well.

MICROSTORY OF ART
ONLINE JOURNAL FOR ART, CONNOISSEURSHIP AND CULTURAL JOURNALISM
HOME

Top of the page

Microstory of Art Main Index

Dietrich Seybold Homepage

© DS