Saturday, September 24, 2005
Still Life
Last class, I introduced this idea of reworking nature mort as a way to explore our personal environments. This is not faithful representation: it's more like recreation --even an idealization of what's most immediate and intimate. SL becomes different things for different people: a stage to make a point, to ponder something, even to persuade. So, for 17th-Century Dutch -great masters of the style- SL revealed a preoccupation with the epoch; whether a desire to make painting a participant in the scientific classification of insects, or to make art a moral arbiter (in the style known as vanitas). 17th-18th Century Spaniards used it to breach issues of class and tradition (as a didactic way to counter the appetite of the senses). 19th-Century Impressionists exploited SL as technical and formal: how to capture a fleeting moment as light reflects on different objects. For post-Impressionists SL offered a gamut of possibilities: Cezanne's apples work as a sort of Naturalistic manifesto, that is (in following Zola) how to reproduce "faithful perceptual reality." In Van Gogh's shoes we see a deep reflection on human existence (the shoes reveal what's not in the painting). During early 20th-Century, Picasso and Braque (at least during their Cubist phase) used nature mort as life’s most available and workable context. Juan Gris was also Cubist, but his still lifes are more the idealization of an imperfect reality. Finally, Morandi (perhaps the last Modern master of the genre) treats SL as his best account of an already shattered reality (life as andless recurrence through a movement of constant permutations).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
do artists of a movement get together and decide what the meaning behind their SL will be?
too much of a coincidence
If they belong in a movement it's a thing out there that they all do. Some are friends, some are close to other people who are frieds. That's how it happens. Do you see these SL similar?
i really like gris' style. it's cubist but not so fractured it let's your mind make up items in the piece. don't get me wrong, imagination definitely has a place in art, but in the chronology of cubism, it was refreshing to see something a little more material. i like picasso's accordianist and braque's harbor but the brilliant, graphic quality of gris was something that i found interesting to look at. in art 3d, we did an interpretation of a cubist work into a sculpture. it was an awesome assignment that gave a lot of people a much better appreciation of the cubist style. on a side note: i'm really sunburned and it hurts.
A lot of variety in these still lives...from almost photorealistic to so abstracted as to have almost no representational content (such as Braque's).
Most interesting to me was varying degrees of "stillness"-there is a lot of implied motion in some of these, either due to the line quality or even subject matter (such as the goldfish).
Could AT please amplify a bit on the statement on Morandi's work?
orandi explored a very limited territory obsessively, repetitively and subtlety. Some say he tested the limits of representation. I think his painting is very formal and musical in the sense that there’s always something else but introduced as a very modest increment. With each new picture, we get a new set of visual phenomena, no matter how familiar; a different touch, a different way of orchestrating color and form. Morandi's objects are debris of domesticity: collections of things --once in daily use, but discarded because they have suffered some kind of damage (or because their contents have been worn out). His boxes and bottles are stripped of labels, they become homogenized disparate materials reduced to essential forms.
Quite honestly, I really do not like still lifes. I think they're boring and unimpressive. I can barely stand to look at still lifes and I don't think even the most creative artist could make me like still lifes. Sorry to give them such a negative note, but it's true. I don't like them because I don't find them interesting. All the images posted are nice but they still couldn't hold my attention for more than a total of two seconds. They're nice but boring.
Nydia, you say: "I don't like them because I don't find them interesting." Actually you're still not saying WHY you don't like them. For example, what is it about SL that you find "boring"? Is it that you don't see people in them... or is it the stillness? (that there's no action) Is it SL's obvious "thereness"? Answering deeper questions could be really cool.
I think part of it is the stillness of the piece. Although some of them have movement, it doesn't have enough movement for my liking. Another part is the fact that they're just "there". I remember having a photography class and having to see still lifes in photography and I actually liked one of them because the photographer used actuall body parts (from a morgue) to do his still lifes and I found those more interesting because because they were unusual. Of all the still lifes posted just now, I actually didn't breeze right through the one with the skull in it (Pieter Claesz's "Vanitas") because I, at least, haven't seen too many still lifes that have to do with the subject matter of skulls or deceased things. Usually it has to do with a basket of fruit, shoes, or bread, something like that and while I appreciate food (i love to eat!), I just doesn't seem to invoke anything in me except maybe getting hungry but they just don't inspire me. I rarely look at them. Paintings and drawings don't need to have people in them for me to find them interesting but I guess it's just the obvious arrangement of still lifes. They're usually centered, there isn't always a lot of movement. They seem very static a lot of the time. So I guess that's mostly it. I'll let you know more when I can think of it.
what i meant with my first question was, how do art historians decide or come up with the meaning of SL during an epoch? does this "meaning" hold true to all artists of that epoch? i mean, there are lots of artists and not everyone's doing the same thing. how do they decide which "meaning" it is?
and what is the meaning of SL today? --if anyone is doing SL anyway
Morandi's use of common objects that have been discarded reminds me of my high school drawing class, we had a box of all this junk to set up SL's. i enjoyed this becuase they would be random objects: an iron or collinder. until you draw them, normally one wouldnt focus on their contours or intereseting patterns. then a discovery like the interesting shape of a spoon. SL's to me are intersting when the artist is not focusing on realism. Cameras can give a realistic depiction, but hands on work gives character. SLs are almost like self portraits, the makrs made, the items, the colors/style, the mood from themes.
I think labeling something, as a still life should be limited to styles conducive to the "still" part of the label. Still life implies a calm and meditate state, the cubist piece while interesting to look are to inorganic for them to fall under the heading of still life.
i like what amanda says about SL. definitely, i am really into SL because the artist' unique character can show through -- or lack of
i think that a good SL is always interesting to look at no matter what the subject matter is.
It's amazing to see how one single subject can be approached so subjectively. How the artists of different movements chose to create or destroy the feeling of depth and space. Each painting accords to the specific movement.. for example, Matisse the fauve chooses to create his SL into a flattened field of bold color, Picasso and Gris slowly began adding words to their SL's.. Question. Is morandi and existencialist? The piece you posted has similar characteristics to that of sculptures made by Giacometti. I also enjoy the fact that SLs can imply things subconsciously, much like what was mentioned about Van Gogh's shoes implying human existence or perhaps Claesz's centering about life and death.
The first things that come to my mind when somebody talks about still life are fruits, flowers and color. I love color, but color along doesn'tmake a piece sucessful. Juan Gris'"still life with violin" is a good sample. This monochromatic piece is balance,has unity, movement.
Heidi
Still lifes are not necessarily about flowers and fruits. Look at Van Gogh's shoes. I still want to say: Look around yourself when you're alone. Only you and your environment. That's a still life right there. It's that immediacy, that matter-of-factness that I find important. If you explored that, you'd be exploring what is closer to you, and therefore, stirring pictoric elements that are often glossed over, or ignored because they are seen as too obvious or unimportant. Sorry, have to go now.
Van Gogh's piece grabbed my attention more than anything else. the topic of shoes gives the viewer indirect information about the painter. the strokes van gogh paints with make the shoes look used, unpolished. These shoes make me imagine much more than what is present in the simple compisition. They make me imagine the man's life, occupation, income, ect. I appreciate that this piece leads my imagination in so many directions.
My favorite paintings are Van Gogh’s shoes, Cezanne’s nature mort and Clara Peter’s still life w cheese. In Van Gogh’s painting I found very interesting the way he uses thick brush strokes and the lines around the shoes to create texture and volume. He is able to create a beautiful painting from simple things such as these old shoes. In Cezanne’s painting, I admire how he uses color and compositional elements. He uses thin and calculated strokes to give definition to each fruit bringing to them structure and life. Finally in Peter’s painting, I think that the way she creates highlights, different tones and depths give harmony and a realistic look to the painting in a very successful way.
i def. agree with amanda. Van Goghs "shoes" are a representation of him. It creats a mood, almosts makes me feel like im in his shoes. i think there is something powerful when an artist can find an object is a reflection of their mood or personality.
I know still life is not only about flowers and fruits but it’s the first think that comes to my mind. I like Van Gogh’s shoes. He was unique; you can immediately identify his work.
Talking about color or monochromatic, if I have to choose from Picasso’s Candlestick and minotaur or Braque Still life with violin, I will choose the second. In my opinion it will look better monochromatic. Make a black and white copy and let me know what you think.
Heidi
Correction:
I was referring to Picasso's when I said it will look better monochromatic
Heidi
Post a Comment