Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 52

Thread: What is a still life?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Clinton, Ark.
    Posts
    132

    What is a still life?

    I asked this question over on APUG and thought I would ask it here, too.

    What is a still life photograph?

    I have never been trained in photography, and the books I read about it all show various shots they describe as "still life" pictures. However, noe of them ever really defines just what is a still life. Generally, the pictures are stereotypical table-top type images of fruit, a vase of flowers, and other small objects. Is that the limiting factor . . . where the line is drawn?

    What about other shots? Is the typical picture of the rusty old 1939 Plymouth pick-up out in the woods with a tree growing through it a still life photo? What about an old barn or privy? An interior shot of a mechanic's shop with a car on the lift, a work bench, tools & mechanic's equipment lying about, beam of light coming in from an out of view side window, . . . etc?

    I ask this because I have never read a good definition for a still life, yet I find that genre of shots is often a category in our local county fair photo contest. They don't define it either!

    What is (and what is not) a still life picture?

    EuGene

  2. #2
    Resident Heretic Bruce Watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    USA, North Carolina
    Posts
    3,362

    Re: What is a still life?

    Quote Originally Posted by EuGene Smith View Post
    What is a still life photograph?
    The Wikipedia entry for Still Life has the key perhaps. That key being that the objects photographed be in an artificial setting.

    So the man-made arrangement of fruit and flowers on the table qualifies as a still life, but the old barn that's been in its field for decades does not.

    Bruce Watson

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    482

    Re: What is a still life?

    Interesting problem of definition. As I use it and have seen it, the term "still life" refers to a combined two factors: 1. a subject of modest dimensions, 2. foregrounding a contrived arrangement of items.

    An artificial setting is the background 99% of the time, but not 100%. Nothing absolutely precludes a natural setting. A couple of vases against a tree trunk could be a "still life", although I'm getting a bit out on a limb there. Even in an interior setting, a room sized space, with arranged objects, would rarely, if ever, be refered to as "still life". It would merely be an interior view.

    To be "still life" the emphasis is upon an intentional arrangement of items and an intimate scale.
    C
    Last edited by CG; 27-Jul-2008 at 08:09. Reason: clarity

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Indianapolis, Ind.
    Posts
    589

    Re: What is a still life?

    I have thought that the thread here titled "If it doesn't move, shoot it" differed a bit from the classical definition of a still life. That is, it was a bit more liberal. That has not prevented me from viewing and enjoying the submissions there though.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    1,424

    Re: What is a still life?

    IMHO, "things against a tree trunk" would not be a "still life" in the classical sense... The tree is not inanimate. Nor is the grass you would likely rest the objects on... But that's nitpicking.

    As a rule, I have no love for still lifes, although I do like Thiebaud... The only still life photography I've gotten into is the wonderful work of Rachel de Joode.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    NY area
    Posts
    1,029

    Re: What is a still life?

    Quote Originally Posted by bensyverson View Post
    IMHO, "things against a tree trunk" would not be a "still life" in the classical sense... The tree is not inanimate. Nor is the grass you would likely rest the objects on... But that's nitpicking.

    As a rule, I have no love for still lifes, although I do like Thiebaud... The only still life photography I've gotten into is the wonderful work of Rachel de Joode.
    I spent 25 years as a mostly still life photographer, and some of the definitions here are pretty much spot on. It's basically a deliberate and artificial arrangement of things, usually inanimate.

    BenSy, I checked out her website and I have to say that it is some of the worst still life I have ever seen. Then again I am really old school where we made some effort to create beauty or mood or expression, to create feeling from inanimate objects. What I saw on her website in my opinion looked lacking in design, composition, lighting and mood. It makes me curious as to what you find of merit in it. I ask this honestly and out of sincere curiosity.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    1,424

    Re: What is a still life?

    Brian,

    Different strokes, I suppose. To me, her work seems extremely deliberate (almost mannered), and especially concentrated on design, composition and mood. I will say that her lighting could be more considered, especially in the still lifes. But the rest of the work makes up for it.

    The world we're granted access to is a hyperconcentrate of late 80's/early 90's aesthetics, ephemera and childhood desires, chewed up and spit into various absurd tableaux. Even her parents become literally interwoven with this landscape, which is mental, in both senses. The real feat is that she doesn't fall prey to the whitewashing effect of nostalgia; while people of a certain age may look fondly at the dated appliances or implements of youth (dude, radical neon recorder!), the images are way too weird to allow for a comfortable retreat into an I-Love-the-90's navel-gazing euphoria.

    Just as in memory, certain elements are crystal-clear, but others are hazily obfuscated, with the details suffocating under contact paper, pancake batter and trendy colors. The crowded mis en scène often bulges to the edge of the frame and beyond—it's culture alright, but no petri dish can contain it. The resulting images are every bit as bizarre, sad, mysterious, hilarious and repellent as my own memories of adolescence, which is just about the highest compliment I can offer.

    Beauty? Eye of the beholder and so forth. A perfectly shot tabletop study may be pretty, but it takes something as unusual and rewarding as Rachel de Joode's work to make it to "beautiful" in my book... But then, I may be exposing my overall indifference to surface polish; I'll take the girl with the messy hair telling a weird joke over the pinup model any day.

    For those who didn't visit her site, here are a couple of shots...






  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    NY area
    Posts
    1,029

    Re: What is a still life?

    Ben, I see no effort relating to design, and while her placement of elements may be deliberate that doesn't mean there's any merit to them. As for the elements within the still lifes, even just on the ones you posted here, there is no relationship between the elements.

    Still life #1- A coffee machine and toast, ok so the theme there is breakfast? But then why add a TV remote, a bottle of ink,cotton swabs, a white plastic hand? None of these things relate to each other. There's no story there. I'm sorry but is there a message in there that I'm not getting? If it's about a "hyperconcentrate of late 80's and early 90's aesthetics" I don't really see it, because in reality late 80's and 90's aesthetics were about being really slick, overly designed and well produced. So now maybe her artspeak justification is that her lack of anything relating to the 80's and 90's in her aesthetic is a rebellion against that aesthetic?

    Still life #2- red shoes, a facial solarium and a hardly recognizable scale? ok a statement on fashion? Then why add a screwdriver, milk jug and chess pieces? And again nothing like the aesthetic of the late 80's and early 90's.

    Still life with person- Ok a person holding waffles(?)with a toilet paper or is it an ace bandage blindfold and a bunch more unrecognizable or unrelated objects. What is the point of this?

    And I'm not even addressing the technical aspects of which there are none of merit or even basic competence.

    I went through the whole art school thing and I saw my share of pieces that were done without any real thought, just the kind of immature "let's just throw a bunch of weird shit in a photo because it's cool" mentality. And this work reminds me of it, although it has even lower production and quality values than the work of this type that I saw in art school.

    Given that the people who are the gatekeepers in the art world do not actually produce art, but merely talk about art, maybe the truckload of verbiage that usually gets supplied with this work, gives them something to chew on. I can only imagine how hard it must be for someone to dedicate their lives to art and yet not even be able to create it themselves, but are forced to merely talk about it. I wonder what level of resentment that some may have for those who have a degree of mastery or talent, and how comforting it is that they have people they can praise who have the same limited abilities that they have, and can therefore identify with.

    For those that actually produce art that requires a great deal of thought, consideration and effort regarding the content, elements and relationships between them all, this type of work is just a dodge. To me this is just more of the "dumbing down" of the world. We live in a society where people who play "Air" guitar get celebrated. Where "guitar hero" mastery, or Wii bowling, get equal footing with people who actually mastered their art and craft. After all who has the time or desire nowadays to actually learn something?

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    1,424

    Re: What is a still life?

    Brian,

    Your work is absolutely stunning. I LOVE your quiet, minimal aesthetic and seemingly complete control over tonality. However, I wonder how you would react if I were to apply the same aggressive reasoning you've used on de Joode to your own work? Let's take Styrofoam Cup and Spoon, shall we? Okay, we have styrofoam cups (for some reason), but why add the spoon? What is this supposed to be telling us? Are we supposed to admire the styrofoam cup and spoon for their beauty, even though they both choke every landfill? Is it some ironic comment on environmentalism, or is this just a "dodge," some Wii photography perhaps, to avoid creating a photograph with any real meaning?

    I actually really like that piece, I'm just pointing out how easy it is to write something off if you're determined... I mean, if you want, I could generate an essay about how the single phallic spoon subjugating the many female vessels (in a soft-focus soft-porn glow, no less), seems to be an affirmation of the patriarchal hegemony of the art world. Of course, that would be ridiculous... but again, if you're really determined, there's almost no end to the ways you can attack a piece.

    As for de Joode's work, I'm not sure I need to say much more. Her late 80's/early 90's reference point is not the world of high fashion and cutting-edge design, but the everyday design that actually made its way into her home as a kid. Besides, her work is not at all a comment on the design of that period, but rather a re-digestion of all these fragments from childhood. I think it's quite canny and fearless (as far from a dodge as you can get). But this being art, it's fundamentally subjective, so you are obviously free to dislike it for any number of reasons without having to justify it. You asked why I liked it, I told you.

    More troubling is when you get into your diatribe railing against the "gatekeepers in the art world." I'm not sure who this is directed towards (the curators who like de Joode's work? Art critics in general?), but if you really did go to art school, I'm surprised you didn't tire yourself out on this stuff back then. Anti-art-critic sentiment tends to be the kind of thing most people get over by the end of Freshman year, when they start realizing (and utilizing) their value, or when they realize that a huge number of curators, dealers and critics make their own well-regarded work as well. And if they don't, so what? Who are you to judge what these people do for a living? Do you have something against restaurant critics as well because they supposedly don't cook, or interior designers because they don't actually design their own objects?

    In any event, it sounds to me like you're the one with resentment for the "gatekeepers of the art world," not the other way around.

    Not trying to start a flame war, and again, I love your work Brian... But that's just my perspective.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    NY area
    Posts
    1,029

    Re: What is a still life?

    Quote Originally Posted by bensyverson View Post
    Brian,

    Your work is absolutely stunning. I LOVE your quiet, minimal aesthetic and seemingly complete control over tonality. However, I wonder how you would react if I were to apply the same aggressive reasoning you've used on de Joode to your own work? Let's take Styrofoam Cup and Spoon, shall we? Okay, we have styrofoam cups (for some reason), but why add the spoon? What is this supposed to be telling us? Are we supposed to admire the styrofoam cup and spoon for their beauty, even though they both choke every landfill? Is it some ironic comment on environmentalism, or is this just a "dodge," some Wii photography perhaps, to avoid creating a photograph with any real meaning?

    I actually really like that piece, I'm just pointing out how easy it is to write something off if you're determined... I mean, if you want, I could generate an essay about how the single phallic spoon subjugating the many female vessels (in a soft-focus soft-porn glow, no less), seems to be an affirmation of the patriarchal hegemony of the art world. Of course, that would be ridiculous... but again, if you're really determined, there's almost no end to the ways you can attack a piece.

    As for de Joode's work, I'm not sure I need to say much more. Her late 80's/early 90's reference point is not the world of high fashion and cutting-edge design, but the everyday design that actually made its way into her home as a kid. Besides, her work is not at all a comment on the design of that period, but rather a re-digestion of all these fragments from childhood. I think it's quite canny and fearless (as far from a dodge as you can get). But this being art, it's fundamentally subjective, so you are obviously free to dislike it for any number of reasons without having to justify it. You asked why I liked it, I told you.

    More troubling is when you get into your diatribe railing against the "gatekeepers in the art world." I'm not sure who this is directed towards (the curators who like de Joode's work? Art critics in general?), but if you really did go to art school, I'm surprised you didn't tire yourself out on this stuff back then. Anti-art-critic sentiment tends to be the kind of thing most people get over by the end of Freshman year, when they start realizing (and utilizing) their value, or when they realize that a huge number of curators, dealers and critics make their own well-regarded work as well. And if they don't, so what? Who are you to judge what these people do for a living? Do you have something against restaurant critics as well because they supposedly don't cook, or interior designers because they don't actually design their own objects?

    In any event, it sounds to me like you're the one with resentment for the "gatekeepers of the art world," not the other way around.

    Not trying to start a flame war, and again, I love your work Brian... But that's just my perspective.
    Ben, I assume your name is Ben, this is not a fame war or anything personal, it's just a discussion about art and photography. I am a very critical person when it comes to both those topics but I am just being honest in my POV. And I do appreciate your kind words about my work.

    In regards to my work, I don't take any offense at being critted, I have had my work critted in mass nearly every day for over 30 years, and I am the harshest critic of my own work that you are ever likely to come across.

    There is no deep hidden meaning in the styrofoam cup photograph. I am not railing against the lack of biodegradability, although I could probably bullshit a very deep meaning along those lines and get all political about it. Let's face it anyone can rationalize anything if they throw enough words at it. My intent was to simply take one of the most commonplace, non-valued, and mundane objects that you could find and find the beauty in it. I could have chosen flowers, that most overdone of still life subjects, the point was NOT to choose something like flowers.

    The purpose of the spoon is to give the viewer a better clue as to what they are looking at as the oval shapes might not be obvious or discernible enough as cups. The plastic spoon being perhaps the most common article associated with the cups except maybe coffee or tea. Even then many people see other things in the image, and still don't see what it really is. Is that because they could never imagine such a mundane object looking like this? You even came up with a rather imaginative male/female art world subjugation theme about it. But no, it's just some cups and spoons. And if I've made anyone think differently about a styrofoam cup, or how they see things in this world, then I've done something. You know the expression "stop to smell the roses"? Well there's beauty all around us, you just have to stop and look. ( and maybe have some design and lighting skill!)

    I could have photographed those same cups in the manner of Ms. de Joode, but then again a poorly lit, poorly composed photo of a styrofoam cup and spoon would seem a fitting and predictable treatment for such an unattractive and disinteresting subject and would not surprise or create pause in the person viewing it.

    As for my views on the "gatekeepers" of the art world, I am referring to some curators who seem to choose work based on shock value, lack of any real merit, and a complete lack of any talent on the part of the artist except for being capable at lengthy rationalizations. I find that so often the bar in life keeps getting lowered. When I go to a show or exhibition I hope to be inspired. I want to leave there and see how far the envelope can be pushed when it comes to beauty, meaning, or creativity. I don't have issues seeing work that was created by someone with exceptional talents and skill. I hunger to see that. And what do I see instead more and more? Work that does not advance art but instead lowers the level of acceptability. If you show great work, people strive for that level, some may not reach it but will be better for the effort, but even just a few do, there's progress. When you celebrate mediocrity, you discourage those who were willing to make sacrifices to better their work, you remove merit from the equation. If life is simply pass/fail, or worse even, pass/pass, where is the motivation for excellence?

    You said, referring to art critics," who are you to judge what these people do for a living?" Well who are they to judge what an artist does for a living? Yet they do. And they can't even do the work that they are judging. And yet their words influence the fate of many an artist and the art world as a whole. For me the opinions or criticism regarding my own work that I have always valued the highest, were the opinions of other photographers. They don't have some academic view of art or photography, they deal with it everyday as a reality.

    And getting back to art school, yes I did go to art school, SVA, and I also taught there. I taught studio photography, a big part of which was still life.
    Last edited by Brian K; 27-Nov-2011 at 23:11.

Similar Threads

  1. Favorite Floral/still life photographers
    By elohim in forum On Photography
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 10-Jul-2009, 13:18
  2. Best/Favorite Still Life Images
    By darr in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 23-Oct-2006, 09:33
  3. Still life favourites
    By Jimi in forum On Photography
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12-Oct-2006, 10:47
  4. Color film - deep freeze, how long is life?
    By bglick in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 22-Jan-2006, 10:04
  5. Good focal length lens for 8x10 still life photography?
    By Ron Whitaker in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 4-Mar-2000, 00:48

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •