[BLOG POST 11/4/24] So what in the world is a still life painting anyway? Typically it is defined as:
A work of art depicting mostly inanimate subject matter, typically commonplace objects which are either natural (food, flowers, dead animals, plants, rocks, shells, etc.) or human-made (drinking glasses, books, vases, jewelry, coins, pipes, etc.).
As far as it's history, check this out:
Still life, as a particular genre, began with Netherlandish painting of the 16th and 17th centuries, and the English term still life derives from the Dutch word stilleven. They are also known by their French title, "nature morte". But still life paintings have been found in ancient Egyptian tombs as well. Most still lifes can be placed into one of four categories: flowers, banquet or breakfast, animal(s), and symbolic.
By the 1620s, there was an increasing demand for still life paintings in the Netherlands. Works by male artists during this period of art history “reproduced elements of domestic space while wholly sainitising it of the ugly, lowly and uninteresting spectre of femininity,” according to Rebecca Birrell; “Instead, food articulated wealth, or mapped the trade routes taken to the table; in darker moods, possessions spoke to the brevity of life”
When I embarked on my artist journey there was a lot I didn't know about the art world. Not the least of which is that still life paintings are typically dismissed not bing as "serious" paintings. Instead historically they've been seen as the "poor man's" subject matter. Or worse yet, only fit for women to paint (often because they had fewer resources and couldn't afford models). Meanwhile men focused on more "important" subjects like historical events (battles), religious stories (Christ on the cross), and beauty (naked women).
As writer of "This Dark Country: Women Artists, Still Life and Intimacy in the Early 20th Century" Rebecca Birrell explains
“Still life […] became the remit of artists who, because of their gender, were denied access to essential lessons on anatomy. They excelled in these representations […] but for artists who were serious about their craft and eager to professionalise, it was not enough. Accusations of amateurism could never be meaningfully thrown off if women remained unable to draw the human form, without which none of the higher genres (religious or history painting or portraiture) could be attempted. Despite entering art schools in increasing numbers, women found themselves painting more or less the same subjects as their forebears under the same aegis of politeness and religious dogma. ...for women without the time, money or confidence to hire models or occupy a studio, its subjects were readily available, and once domestic duties called, the objects were small enough to be stores (or concealed) with ease”
This hierarchy of subject matter, or genre, dates back to the 17th century. In fact back in 1667 André Félibien, a historiographer, architect and theoretician of French classicism, made this classic statement of the theory of the hierarchy of genres:
He who produces perfect landscapes is above another who only produces fruit, flowers or seafood. He who paints living animals is more estimable than those who only represent dead things without movement, and as man is the most perfect work of God on the earth, it is also certain that he who becomes an imitator of God in representing human figures, is much more excellent than all the others ...
Sure, rendering the human body accurately is incredibly challenging. No two bodies are the same! And a living breathing person changes with every breath. But painting objects isn't easy either. Both require powerful observation skills, patience, and practiced technique.
In my opinion, this is another example of systemic patriarchy. Men, who have access to more money and freedom can paint different things than women who for centuries have been kept from holding land or money in their names and discouraged from traveling, education, and academia. Plus most of the "serious" drawing classes had nude models and historically it wasn't acceptable for women to see nudes.
Like we don't see our own naked bodies all the time (eye roll).
So of course men valued the things they could make more than the things women could make.
Of course still life paintings were dismissed and devalued.
Do I sound annoyed? Well that's because I am.
All of these hierarchies are completely artificial and created by men to elevate men (and I'd add WHITE men) above others.
The whole act of judging art and believing one subject matter is better than another is completely bogus. We are confusing the product with the process.
To me, art is the process of creating something. Many artists from musicians to writers to painters talk about "getting out the way" and "letting the creative vision flow through them". It comes out differently for every person and we each have the ability to create. It's an ability that makes humans unique on this planet.
And each human regardless of gender, color, religion, demographic, or geographic demographics has the ability to create.
What is made - the product - is a thing that is not nearly as important as the process it took to create it. Each person will see and feel something different when they interact with the artwork making their impression or judgement completely biased. And, in my opinion, completely worthless because they are only judging based on their personal experience (as opposed to the experience of the artist or the technique and ability required to create the artwork).
So, I propose completely scrapping the hierarchy of genres. It's all BS. Instead anything created by human being should be recognized as a creative act of art and let's stop judging it all together.
Dear reader, let's just be grateful it exists because creating art is not easy and requires serious commitment and sacrifice.
Comments