Photography and Still Life

<p>In painting, the still life was a means of demonstrating an artist's skill in re-creating texture, color, and form. Earliest photography used the still life as a demonstration of the camera's ability to capture fine detail. Given that we rarely see a photographer's crafted original prints and are usually aware of images through imperfect reproductions or computer screens, what can be the modern intent of a photographic still life? Is it more than provocative combinations or playfully illuminated objects? An image not created for general viewing?</p>

<p>The intent is to present to the viewer something of emotional value to the creator of the piece.<br>

Nobody should feel any obligation to experience anything at all....The work is launched as personal expression.....the audience is unknown .....</p>

<p>It's possible that even in the past, viewers were aware of most photographic images through imperfect reproductions<br /> . . . in books. A lot of people never got to see a lot of original prints. My guess is that the photographer creating still lifes and showing them on monitors has a similar intent to the photographer who did still lifes decades ago. There is a chance that the contemporary photographer has internalized his medium in order not to consider it an imperfect reproduction but actually consider it a means of delivery. Then he is likely in touch with his actual medium rather than comparing that medium to a different medium which others may be stuck on.</p>

<p>Jon, In painting, the still life was much more than a virtuoso piece, though many do exist that were primarily made for that purpose, realism, to be explicit. They were rich with encoded symbols and meaning. Earliest photography used the still life as a signifier of the medium's legitimacy by dealing with the same subjects painters did. If you actually study the subject (Pictorial still-life) you will see that it had nothing to do with the camera's ability to capture fine detail.</p>

<p><strong>Jon - "</strong>Given that we rarely see a photographer's crafted original prints and are usually aware of images through imperfect reproductions or computer screens, what can be the modern intent of a photographic still life?</p>

<p>Excellent question. The current intent of a photographic still-life, if we consider it art, can be the same for any work: The creation of an image/object of contemplation.</p>

<p><strong>J - "</strong>Is it more than provocative combinations or playfully illuminated objects?"</p>

<p>It can be. That depends on who you are, and what you are able to see and feel. Showing texture and that you used a Leica S2 or Leaf Back or 8x10 film is a yawner anyway. If you haven't breathed life into the work, lifeless it will remain.</p>

<p>There are ways to see world-class prints, but that's another post.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>Jon</strong>,</p>

<p>It seems to me that the painterly use of still life as an attempt at a sort of pictorial language (this + this + this) is certainly present in photographic still life work, though with a tilt to the literal as opposed to the symbolic. And, obviously, the designer-ish still life that depends on position, texture, and shape contrasts is in the same vein as much of painted still life.</p>

<p>On the other hand, where much of painted still life seems to be making the familiar look just as or more familiar (and the strange look at least no more strange than it is, natively), much of photographic still life seems to be intended to make the familiar look unfamiliar.</p>

<p>Where I think photographic still life can and does most strongly depart significantly from painting is in its spoofing of the (assumed) viewers' belief that the photograph's space is continuous with his own (lived-in) space. Where painted still life's are (often/usually) very much at rest, many photographic still life's are aggressively not at rest. They play with orientation, balance, and comparative scale to spoof the viewer's assumptions about where photographs "are" (as opposed to painting, though that thought is not necessary to the effect).</p>

<p>This tension between your (the viewer's) gravitational orientation and that of the stuff in the photograph is what "makes" a picture of this particular kind of still life. This has been done in painting, but I don't think it's as effective because there is not the starting (mistaken, but widely held) assumption of a shared, continuous photograph-with-viewer space.</p>

<p>I shoot a few for my own amusement, as well as for tawdry commercial use (by which I mean, to sell ... not necessarily product shots, etc). I find that the ones that resonate with people - sometimes, enough for them to buy them as art, but usually just enough to make them stop at my booth and linger to chat and talk about perhaps some other business - are the compositions that have a sort of fetish-y appeal to particular lifestyles, hobbies, professions.<br /><br />Anglers love intimate photos of tied flies and other gear. Engineers love sepia stills of slide rules that look just like grandpa's. I've had a chef buy a series I did of wooden spoons. Bird hunters can never get enough of a breeched shotgun and a colorful duck or pheasant on the way to the dinner table. Dog people love leads, collars, whistles ... and a quilter has asked me for a shot of the scissors, pincushions, and other artifacts of that craft. Horse people obsess about saddlery, tack, boots, and such. Nikon people like pictures of their cameras :-).<br /><br />These images are haiku about the objects involved, or the pursuits they represent. There may indeed be some subtext or an implied narrative or a symbolic twist or two ... but it's the textures, the ultra-familiarity (or longing for familiarity) with the objects that seem to attract these sorts of admirers. Still life shots seem particularly well suited - at least in terms of my ability to sell them - to sentimentality, nostalgia, and memory-invoking. I haven't felt the urge, yet, to make one for the purpose of disturbing the viewer, or upending their understanding of something.<br /><br />While it's utterly banal for most people, my most-purchased still-life-ish shots actually involve a bit of <strong><a href="../photo/11642710">not-very-still life</a></strong>. Getting those living, breathing variables into the mix means that I don't usually have the time or energy to make the rest of the artifacts, or the environment nearly as well conceived as a thoughtful old-school still life, but the performance art aspect of it seems to make up for it, at least for certain audiences.<br /><br />What I've most noticed about people (including me) who give a still life more than a second glance is that something about the image just seems <em>right</em>, in terms of its proper homage to the artifacts or the bit of culture they represent. The admirer is suggesting, "Yes, I see that you agree with me that these little details are important." That seems to provide a more direct connection than does a this+this+this (well put, Julie!) juxtaposition that seeks to tweek the audience. While that may be more arresting or stimulating, it isn't the visual comfort food (or the "artifact porn" - like shots of expensive Ferrari wheel rims or a favored perfume bottle, etc - that draw some people) that they'll want to return to. Once you've seen the still-life punch line, as it were, the joke loses its power. Once you've been provoked by such an image, your next chance to feel that experience is when you arrange to watch it provoke someone else. The familiarity-fetish shots, by contrast, are there to resonate with what's already a favored bit of one's world view.</p>

<p>Jon,</p>

<p>One sentence in your post troubled me: "Given that we rarely see a photographer's crafted original prints and are usually aware of images through imperfect reproductions or computer screens, what can be the modern intent of a photographic still life?" <br>

Perhaps you can further explain your meaning. Are you saying that prints are no longer relevant to photography? </p>

<p>Allen - To a collector or museum, prints will always be relevant. Assuming, however, that the photographer will become known chiefly through books or the internet, I suspect that 99% of the people who see the image (especially if it can be found on internet) will never see the print. Perhaps I should have asked if the technical achievements of a photographic still life can be recognized and appreciated in imperfect reproductions or on computer screens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Perhaps I should have asked if the technical achievements of a photographic still life can be recognized and appreciated in imperfect reproductions or on computer screens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think it can. Of course seeing an I<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Still-Life-Irving-Photographs-1938-2000/dp/0821227025">rving Penn studio still life</a> (is there a thin line between a studio/commercial shot and a still life ?) in book ( the book format by the way, I would consider in many ways the most perfect presentation of ones work, rarely 'imperfect' if done right ) or on screen, is not quite the same as seeing the original prints ( I've seen them, not all still lifes )...the skill in balance of lightning and composition is still there to be witnessed and behold in the image.<br /> <em><a href="http://www.artnet.com/artist/7463/jan-groover.html">Still lifes</a> are easy to look at, much harder to see</em>. I hope one day I have the eye, patience and skill and can make some of my own too. Each photographer should. All the great ones did them, in one way or the other. So why not.<br /> Another thing about viewing images / still lifes on screen and in high resolution, is that we might be able to zoom in on them like we couldn't do before, perhaps discovering a still life within the still life...</p>

<p> </p>

<p> <a href="http://www.metmuseum.org/special/se_event.asp?OccurrenceId=%7B5D5AFA86-A086-4E14-A54B-E0FD91607074%7D">http://www.metmuseum.org/special/se_event.asp?OccurrenceId=%7B5D5AFA86-A086-4E14-A54B-E0FD91607074%7D</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm a big fan of Ernst Gombrich's views on art and art history. In his article "Tradition and Expression in Western Still Life" he writes:<br>

"Still life could never have come into existence but for the surprise the early collectors experienced in seeing a painting transcend the expected limitations of the craft and conjuring up the very texture of objects. What moves the <em>trompe-l'oeil</em> into the vicinity of art is precisely the connoisseur's vicarious participation in the artist's skill."<br>

"It is really a matter of historical accident which type of human activity becomes a vehicle for the communication of emotions. There is no inherent necessity why, for instance, this should have happened to calligraphy in China but to still life in the West"</p>

<p>Jon, Gombrich is very, very good, but he's not the only or the last word on the subject. You should read David Hockney (and many others) on the hyperreal nature of these paintings in Northern Europe around the 1600's.</p>

<p>http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Knowledge-Rediscovering-Techniques-Masters/dp/0670030260</p>

<p>Symbolism in still life is very well-known, and a large part of the genre.</p>

<p>http://www.louvre.fr/llv/activite/detail_parcours.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673577341&CURRENT_LLV_PARCOURS%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673577341&bmLocale=en</p>

<p>Most people get too wrapped up in the realism and overlook the rest. Still-life was considered by the critics of the day as Low Brow art was in the America of the 1960's. Like Low Brow Art, it had quite the populist following, in part for the reasons Matt mentioned or alluded to in his 2nd post. In the world's first consumer society (the Dutch), populist art was either about mnemonic fetishes of loved ones or property/valuables/exotica/signifiers of wealth & taste<em> </em>.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I appreciate all the thoughtful comments. Happily, nobody has the last word.</p>

<p>I'm not sure this is a new issue. I have never seen a copy image of Edward Weston's "Pepper #30" that comes close to the original. I have a fine print of Wright Morris' "Gano Elevator" on my desk at work. The image was reproduced many times in his books, but none of them match the original. </p>

<p>I do think that book and magazines have gotten much better in the last ten years. Brooks Jensen has written about the changes in reproduction and how the newer technologies are getting closer to the quality of fine prints. You might check out his writings and audio blog on the Lenswork site. </p>

<p>To me, books, magazines and websites are a good way for people to become exposed to photography. A few will want to go beyond the reproductions and look at the real thing. Most will not. </p>

<p>I remember the first time I visited Amsterdam and went to the Van Gogh Museum. I had liked Van Gogh, but seeing the paintings in person was a revelation. No photograph of a painting can fully capture the depth and feeling of the original. How many high school students take an art class and are exposed to Van Gogh; how many of those seek out his work? Nevertheless, art books inspire some and help create a desire to see the originals.</p>

<p>I create platinum prints. I have yet to see a reproduction of platinum prints (or carbon prints for that matter) on the web, in books or magazines that live up to the original. How many readers of photonet have ever seen a fine platinum print? Should platinum printers quit posting their images because of the flawed reproductions? Dose posting the images inspire a few to seek out the prints? </p>

 

<p>I think something that has been missed in this conversation is the role that composition takes within a still life. I have always seen still life paintings as being 1. an exercise in fine composition and 2. being an exercise in the ability to render detail. The ultimate, IMO, was indeed the trompe l'oeil artists who rank right up there with the neo-classical micro-mosaic artists (many of whom were anonymous) as being some of my favorites of the visual arts, outside of photography. <a href="http://www.micro-mosaic.com/micro_mosaic_image_library.html">Samples here</a> - exhibiting how digital screws up the qualities that make the works interesting. You can't see the detail of the individual pieces.<br>

There was a great collection in LA at LACMA, the Gilbert Collection, until 1996. Gilbert got mad at the museum and took his marbles to London.</p>

<p><strong>Realism and still life are not comparable ideas...</strong>unless one's range of experience with still life is overly narrow, as mine was until fairly recently. <br>

I cited <strong>Giorgio Morandi</strong> earlier in this tread, providing a Met link.</p>

<p>Here's a NY Times link: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/arts/design/19mora.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/arts/design/19mora.html</a></p>

<p>I spent a few hours with that exhibit. I thought the colors dull, the forms repetive and not-much until I began to grasp what Morandi was doing..not that one can get fully there in any amount of time. "Opened my eyes" as they say.</p>

<p><strong>Allen Friday's</strong> comments: I especially agree about first-hand experience of VanGogh's work. It was just "pictures" to me until I was miraculously and illegally allowed to wander through much of that Amsterdam collection...after hours, unguarded, and while it was still in San Francisco (thence to Amsterdam). While I did of course know his name and story, and "liked" some poster reproductions, I didn't "get it" until I confronted it directly. And, interestingly, not framed...the paintings smelled wonderful.</p>

<p>However, speaking as one of us who actually has studied platinum prints, and as a fairly ok silver and inkjet printer, I think there's near-zero likelihood of a non-printer appreciating platinum or any other fine print much beyond it's subject and "composition". Which is OK. We can't all experience everything.</p>

<p>John, sorry to be always in such disagreement with your thoughts, but I have shown some of my better darkroom prints (and those of otherrs) to non-photographers (not just non printers in photography) and have on more than a few occasions received comments about the characteristics of the print, including the visceral impact of chiaroscuro, the continuous grey tone appearance or lack thereof, the texture of different papers, the silvery appearance of some higher tones or the detail present in the darker tones, paper base color, slightly toned black and white prints, and even the differences attributable to the film formulation. They may not express what they see as we do, but some see it. These same people are probably also keyed in to the differences in paint media, application and color and tone effects in painting, as well as the presence or not of multiple media effects (charcoals + oils + acrylic, etc.) and varnish mixed in with the colors..</p>

<p>John, sorry to be always in such disagreement with your thoughts, but I have shown some of my better darkroom prints (and those of otherrs) to non-photographers (not just non printers in photography) and have on more than a few occasions received comments about the cgharacteristics of the print, whether they relate to the impact of chiaroscuro, the continuous grey tone appearance, the texture of different papers, the silvery appearance of some higher tones or the detail present in the darker tones, and even the differences attributable to the film formulation. These same people are probably also keyed in to the differences in paint media, application and color and tone effects in painting, as wel as the presence or not of multiple media effects (charcoals + oils + acrylic, etc.) and varnish mixed in with the colors..</p>

<p>It seems to me that the defining characteristic of still-life is something to do with tactility, the hand, or handle-ability. They are overtly, aggressively staged (the viewer's awareness of the staginess is essential) and, more importantly, they always fall "within reach" or in other words, within the range of one's hands and ability to handle. To that end, an especially realistic representation, especially of texture, is an advantage, but it is merely a means to the larger purpose. I have seen billboards of still life arrangements that were more compelling and effective than exquisite prints of a poorly arranged still life. (Did Gombrich not enjoy the un-<em>trompe-l'oeil</em> still lifes of Cezanne and Matisse?)</p>

<p>One further and important qualifier of still life is that the "pieces" be inanimate in the sense that they require this hand/handling (which we are invited to vicariously participate in) to get where they are (Matt's puppies qualify because we all know that they required extraordinary handling -- "angelic GSP" is an oxymoron).</p>

<p>In many ways, still life is analagous to chess if you've seen any of those books that teach how to play, with their diagrams of famous games. The layout, the arrangement, the implied dynamics of the pieces but/and the requirement for outside players (viewer/maker). It's a local, personal, "handled," tactile contrivance. Staged, but open-ended.</p>

<p>Julie, what about found still lifes, where there was no staging except for the framing. These are something to be considered too, especially in photography.<br>

What about <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Glasses_800_edit.png">digital computer generated still lifes</a> ?! (can we stage pixels, "0" and "1"'s ?)<br>

Painting indeed shows ( like John's example of Morandi ) that still life isn't necessarily about realism or incredibly well rendered details, an approach which doesn't come naturally though to photography's intrinsic character to describe and depict, as is.<br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Still_life">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Still_life</a></p>

<p>I think still life is that part of photography (and art) that is undergoing significant change. Matt's technically and emotionally fine photo (and his almost human like dog setting) is compatible with traditional still life, where the artist displays the beauty of form and colour and allegory (the inventive use of colour patterrns and forms prefacing abstract art) that is often denied or of a different quality in landscapes or street scenes.</p>

<p>Still life once meant food and flowers and their containers, as omnipresent in the great Dutch food examples and the representations of 18th century or 17th century opulence, and the more recent symbolisation by opulence of the contrary, of decadence, or of a comment on the vicelike grasp of industrial society, as in Warhol's work.</p>

<p>Photography enables the inspection and viewing of everything, in a multitude of contexts. Unlimited. This is why I think that still life in the future (and it is being used thusly at present) will provide inumerable artistic opportunities for photographers. By its very nature, still life, unlike reportage photography, will allow the photographer great control of what he wants to express visually (as it traditionally has done for painted art) and metaphorically. And it's a little visited sector of activity by most amateur and even professional photographers.</p>

<p>Phylo, I'm glad you responded to <strong>Morandi</strong>. Whether or not he's "greatest" at anything (per the Met), he was certainly a perception-changer for me (as was VanGogh when I was bowled over by a huge collection of his original paintings).</p>

<p>Those who identify "realism" with "still life" are using<strong> conflicted frames of reference</strong> when they accept the unsharpness of impressionist landscapes but propose that still life is somehow different, a matter of sharply recording and play of light.</p>

<p>As to what's "natural" to photography, I've enjoyed quite a few blurry-but-remarkable toy/Holga prints (fine galleries), and received exquisitely post-processed and printed I-Phone enlargements through Exchanges. As well, I've seen some almost worthwhile low resolution digicam landscape images, very well printed in platinum (blessed but not saved by platinum's softness). And of course, quite a lot of low-detail still life work was and still is done by <strong>Pictorialists</strong>. </p>

<p>Photography could take a lesson from the appearance of vanitas in still life works. It is not necessary to place a skull in the scene, as the following vanitas painting of Cornelius de Heem shows, which more subtely reflects on the emptiness or meaninglessness of earthly life and the transient nature of vanity. A good friend, a young artist in Tallinn, Estonia, paints fruit which appear to be beautiful at first sight, but which reveal a darker or decaying side on closer inspection. This is but one form of expression or communication that is possible in photography and still life.</p>

<p>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Heem%2C_Cornelis_de_-_Vanitas_Still-Life_with_Musical_Instruments_-_after_1661.jpg</p>

<p>Eberhard Grames in his book "Broken Spirits" has a wide variety of interesting still lifes which border on the surreal.<br>

<a href="http://www.artnet.com/artist/7286/eberhard-grames.html">Grames Pictures </a></p>

<p>Arthur and Jon, fine links. They make the point.<br>

Here's some mostly-modern Pictorialist photography, most of it involving platinum or gum or other alternative processes. Wish I could see the prints themselves.<br>

<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pictorial_photography/photos/album/0/list">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pictorial_photography/photos/album/0/list</a></p>