What is a still life?

[EuGene Smith]

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

[Bruce Watson]

What is a still life photograph?

The Wikipedia entry for Still Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

[CG]

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

[aduncanson]

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.

[Ben Syverson]

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. (http://www.racheldejoode.com/ARTGALLERY/ArtStilllife.htm)

[Brian K]

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. (http://www.racheldejoode.com/ARTGALLERY/ArtStilllife.htm)

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.

[Ben Syverson]

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...

http://www.racheldejoode.com/ARTGALLERY/disappear/000005%2016-21-36.jpg

http://www.racheldejoode.com/ARTGALLERY/Stilllife/2%20Kopie.jpg

http://www.racheldejoode.com/ARTGALLERY/disappear/000001%2016-21-36.jpg

[Brian K]

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?

[Ben Syverson]

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.

[Brian K]

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.

[Ben Syverson]

Thank you Brian, for reaffirming my faith that people can have measured, thoughtful debate online without going ballistic!

I respect your position, which seems to be an exhortation for the art world to return to matters of craft and skill... While I strive for technical precision in my own work (which is why I'm using LF rather than MF or digital), I fear that in the broader art world, that ship has sailed. Contemporary galleries and curators probably tend to pick work that has "the most to say" (like it or not, that's from their perspective) over the work that exhibits the "best" technique. Which some sense, given that the root of artmaking is communication, not technical proficiency... That is to say, this is personal expression, not watchmaking.

On the other hand, look at the highest-profile artists using photography in the recent contemporary scene: Gursky, Ruff, Crewdson, Barney, Wall, Opie, Burtynsky, etc... They ALL produce gigantic, totally immaculate, technically flawless prints from large format. So the argument that the art world doesn't care about photographic virtuosity doesn't hold a lot of water with me.

Personally, I would value the opinion of a curator over the opinion of another photographer. The curator will help you contextualize your own work in the broader spectrum of the art world (which, let's face it, artists don't always have time to keep up-to-the-minute on), whereas the photographer is likely to get his nose two inches away from the print and say "this corner is a little fuzzy—you should have stopped down more," or "what resolution did you scan this at?"

It's interesting that you raise the concept of pass/fail... The School of the Art Institute of Chicago, where I went, is based on the pass/fail system, and it's routinely ranked one of the top art schools in the country. The motivation for excellence always comes from within, not from external assessment. The people who lack it generally stop making work as soon as there is no external pressure (eg school) applied.

Of course, there are exceptions... There are some artists who do something SO gestural or low-effort that it's easy to throw a snowball (cough... Terry Richardson... cough). Personally I don't think Rachel de Joode is in that category; time and effort have obviously gone into her work, whatever you think of it. But remember, the art world is not a meritocracy. Nothing about it is "fair." It's way more like high school—who you know, what parties you attend, what trends and cliques you align yourself with... All you can do is make the most extraordinary work you can, and hope that it's enough to transcend the politics, forcing people to take notice...

[John Kasaian]

I'll take "Still Life" for what the monicker says it is---

1)It's gotta be still.
2)It's gotta be alive.

If whomever thought this term up meant something else, they should've been more definative. :D

[domenico Foschi]

WHat's still life?
A deer caught by the headlights?

[claudiocambon]

Historically the nature of still life is embedded in the word, but not in the way that is initially apparent in English. 'Nature morte' or 'natura morta' in French and Italian refers to 'dead nature,' ie objects arranged in a group that were removed from their natural context. Still life is therefore still as in still-born.

I am not sure when they became common subject matter in Western painting, but for 17th century Dutch they combined a fascination for what things looked like optically as well as biologically once removed from their living setting. Often they incorporated things that most people couldn't afford or didn't see all the time, precious commodities like tulip bulbs or exotic flowers from Asia. A middle class person who couldn't afford these things could instead afford a painting thereof.

There is a subset of still life called Vanitas, which incorporate a human skull, in which there is a more overt moral message about the transitoriness of life, and the folly of human vanity.

[John Kasaian]

Historically the nature of still life is embedded in the word, but not in the way that is initially apparent in English. 'Nature morte' or 'natura morta' in French and Italian refers to 'dead nature,' ie objects arranged in a group that were removed from their natural context. Still life is therefore still as in still-born.

I am not sure when they became common subject matter in Western painting, but for 17th century Dutch they combined a fascination for what things looked like optically as well as biologically once removed from their living setting. Often they incorporated things that most people couldn't afford or didn't see all the time, precious commodities like tulip bulbs or exotic flowers from Asia. A middle class person who couldn't afford these things could instead afford a painting thereof.

There is a subset of still life called Vanitas, which incorporate a human skull, in which there is a more overt moral message about the transitoriness of life, and the folly of human vanity.

One more thing screwed up by the English language!
Thanks Claudio!:cool:

[cjbroadbent]

Whatever moral justifications have been given to still-life by genres like `memento mori` or `vanitas` it usualy has boiled down to a study of light, shadow and surface by someone trying things out or showing off his ability. The exceptions were commissions by siversmiths (18th C) and ad agencies (20th.C). I try things out with any old junk before working on a brief. This is the most enjoyable part because the brief goes like this: "Do something that that inspires trust" (bank). "Illustrate the concept of 'monetizing the risk" (insurance). Here's last weeks junk.
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm440/downstairs_2008/blocks2web.jpg

[Ben Syverson]

I just saw the new front page of Rachel de Joode's homepage, and couldn't resist posting this...

Somehow the lighting, subject and even composition immediately reminded me of Christopher's work. Maybe she saw this thread and was inspired? :)

http://bensyverson.com/reference/opp/RacheldeJoode_Mercy.jpg

I still say she's right-on technically.

[Brian K]

I just saw the new front page of Rachel de Joode's homepage, and couldn't resist posting this...

Somehow the lighting, subject and even composition immediately reminded me of Christopher's work. Maybe she saw this thread and was inspired? :)

http://bensyverson.com/reference/opp/RacheldeJoode_Mercy.jpg

I still say she's right-on technically.



What makes you say that? Forgetting about whether the contents and composition have any merit this is not a particularly challenging still life technically and it's at best technically acceptable.

[Ben Syverson]

Lighting, focus, composition... I don't see a lot to complain about technically.

[Allen in Montreal]

........

Somehow the lighting, subject and even composition immediately reminded me of Christopher's work. Maybe she saw this thread and was inspired? :).........

I can see the parallel, but Christopher's work is far superior! :) :)

[Brian K]

Lighting, focus, composition... I don't see a lot to complain about technically.

Well it's all in the eye of the beholder but I see rudimentary lighting at best. A large bank light towards the right and high. And the objects in the scene are ones that are not difficult to light. Try some glass or spherical reflective subjects if you want to see if someone knows how to light. Compositionally it's just horrific. There is no composition. It's just a pile of unrelated things just thrown together. Is it in focus? Yes. If that is your criteria for good work then you should be happy with this image, however if you're talking about work of real merit then being in focus, being perfectly exposed, being really well lit and well composed just gets you through the door. Those are the bare, minimum requirements. And this image lacks nearly all of them.

[Ken Lee]

Even a quick look at the artists' web sites, reveals the difference.

Rachel de Joode: http://www.racheldejoode.com/art_makeall.html

Christopher Broadbent: http://gallery.me.com/cjbroadbent#100005&bgcolor=black&view=grid

[Ben Syverson]

Okay, clearly I was not trying to say their work is the same or even artistically similar. :rolleyes:

I just saw Rachel's image and it made me remember this thread and then chuckle, thinking it could almost be a bizarro-world Broadbent.

And obviously, focus or other technical factors are not my determinants for image "merit". (If I bristle at the word "merit," it's because it sounds like "good" to me, which is to say, meaningless.)

[jnantz]

i guess the point of the end of this thread is not what is still life, but what is art.
clearly it seems that anyone, with or without training could "arrange" or "dis-arrange"
anything - and say it is art.

i like the website chris .. :)

john

[matthew blais]

What is a still life?

I always thought my ex qualified, but I digress...

For me, anything arranged, dead or alive. Other stuff would be "as found"

[Brian K]

Okay, clearly I was not trying to say their work is the same or even artistically similar. :rolleyes:

I just saw Rachel's image and it made me remember this thread and then chuckle, thinking it could almost be a bizarro-world Broadbent.

And obviously, focus or other technical factors are not my determinants for image "merit". (If I bristle at the word "merit," it's because it sounds like "good" to me, which is to say, meaningless.)

You think that whether a photograph has merit or is good is meaningless? Is this just more of the acceptance of mediocrity as norm instead of trying to advance photography. Why is the bar getting set lower and lower?

Everyone has an opinion, and many opinions don't have even the slightest bit of credibility. Where our society has changed is that prior to the internet, massively disseminated opinions were vetted. Vetted by editors, publishers, well established practitioners, etc. You didn't easily get to spout nonsense to a million people if that nonsense had to go through other people whose own reputations and possible financial solvency were at stake. Now all you need is an online forum, a blog or a website and you can claim expertise. And many do while having very little actual experience or knowledge of which they are speaking.

Yes there is good work and bad work. And those best to judge that are the people who have extensive firsthand knowledge of that particular area.

You like her work, good for you. But maybe if you spent 10, 20 or 30 years shooting still life everyday you'd look at those photographs a little differently and realize just how incredibly poor they are.

[Ben Syverson]

You think that whether a photograph has merit or is good is meaningless?
Absolutely. Can you define their meaning for me?



Yes there is good work and bad work. And those best to judge that are the people who have extensive firsthand knowledge of that particular area.

You like her work, good for you. But maybe if you spent 10, 20 or 30 years shooting still life everyday you'd look at those photographs a little differently and realize just how incredibly poor they are.
I guess we just have hugely different ways of approaching art, Brian. When I look at a piece, the first thing I think is not "is it good?" but "what is it trying to do?" If it answers that question, then the piece is successful to me. If the answer to that question is something interesting, then the piece is interesting to me.

Those are all ways to begin a real examination of an artwork. It branches out from there.

Let me also say this. I resent the idea that because I haven't spent 30 years shooting still lifes, my critique or assessment of a still life is somehow lacking. I spent years in art school, during which I got an in-depth history of the still life, and rendered my own in almost every drawing medium you can name (silverpoint anyone?). So I'm familiar with the form, both art-historically and from firsthand experience.

But keep in mind that I'm not an art theorist or critic, so I don't feel I should have to show my bona-fides to express my admiration for another artist. Opinion is opinion, my friend. No one is rendering the Final Judgment on Rachel de Joode.

I'll leave you with this excerpt from Zen master Sengcan...

The struggle between good and evil
is the primal disease of the mind.
Not grasping the deeper meaning,
you just trouble your mind’s serenity.

[Brian K]

Absolutely. Can you define their meaning for me?


I guess we just have hugely different ways of approaching art, Brian. When I look at a piece, the first thing I think is not "is it good?" but "what is it trying to do?" If it answers that question, then the piece is successful to me. If the answer to that question is something interesting, then the piece is interesting to me.

Those are all ways to begin a real examination of an artwork. It branches out from there.

Let me also say this. I resent the idea that because I haven't spent 30 years shooting still lifes, my critique or assessment of a still life is somehow lacking. I spent years in art school, during which I got an in-depth history of the still life, and rendered my own in almost every drawing medium you can name (silverpoint anyone?). So I'm familiar with the form, both art-historically and from firsthand experience.

But keep in mind that I'm not an art theorist or critic, so I don't feel I should have to show my bona-fides to express my admiration for another artist. Opinion is opinion, my friend. No one is rendering the Final Judgment on Rachel de Joode.

I'll leave you with this excerpt from Zen master Sengcan...

The struggle between good and evil
is the primal disease of the mind.
Not grasping the deeper meaning,
you just trouble your mind’s serenity.

The meaning of good that i use in relationship to photography is not Good versus evil, but work that has value and merit versus work that doesn't. To me work that has merit advances photography, it is a combination of clarity of expression, creativity, originality, emotion, intelligence, tell a story, etc. The technical capabilities and qualities are used to support these elements.

When I look at a photograph, whether I think it's a good image or not, is not the first thing I think, but the very last.

While you may have taken some art classes and have made a few still lifes that does not make you an expert. I've played piano for 37 years, I can read music. I listen to music everyday, I have seen many concerts. I would never claim to be a musician and the last person that I would argue music with is a musician. And while I might have an opinion about so and so musician and enjoy one's work over another, I fully realize that there are things about music that I will never be able to understand the way a real musician can. And when I ask my musician friends why they respect the work of one musician over another, I learn about music.

Your comments about the image being "right on technically" honestly displays your lack of real expertise and experience with photographic still life. I don't say this to be insulting It's just an observation on my part. One can argue aesthetics or composition to some extent, but then again those that have really studied composition and design know that there is a science behind those things based on the way the human eye perceives light, color, form, texture and shape. Those factors influencing a viewer's reaction to an image. Put a highly saturated red next to a highly saturated blue and they can appear to "vibrate" to the eye. Optical illusions are examples of these phenomena.

But getting back to technicals, those with extensive hands on experience know how well the technicals were executed because in all likelihood have photographed very similar objects in similar conjunction in similar environments before. When I first started shooting still life professionally there were still many combinations of materials, surfaces, elements and angles I had not shot yet, so some times I would still have to figure things out while I was working on an assignment. But after you shoot a few thousand, or tens of thousands of still lifes, you can just look at an art director's layout, or someone else's still life and know exactly how it needs to be done , or was done, and exactly how long it would take you. The elements themselves tell you how they need to be lit.

I'm sorry that you resent my assertion that it takes decades of doing something to become expert in it. I see where you wrote that you spent years in school and got an in-depth history of still life. I also went to art school and studied art history, and taught studio photography. But I've done roughly 25,000 still lifes on assignment, of every type of material or still life genre imaginable. And that's where I really learned about still life. The way you really master anything is by doing it, not just reading about it.

So we'll agree to disagree. But if you're truly interested in understanding photographic still life, then shoot some.

[Ken Lee]

"The struggle between good and evil
is the primal disease of the mind.
Not grasping the deeper meaning,
you just trouble your mind’s serenity."

It's nice to encounter a quotation from the Third Zen Patriarch on this forum !

Here's one of my favorite quotes from that same piece:



http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/l20.jpg
Things are Things because of Mind,
As Mind is Mind because of Things.

[Ben Syverson]

The way you really master anything is by doing it, not just reading about it.

So we'll agree to disagree. But if you're truly interested in understanding photographic still life, then shoot some.
I think I unintentionally hit some kind of nerve! Okay, a few thoughts.

First of all, let me state that I am not an expert, nor did I ever claim to be. Expertise is a by-product of artistic production, and it has absolutely no value on its own. Nor do I believe in the concept of mastery (despite my reference to a "Zen master" -- really, is there anything more oxymoronic than the idea of mastering Zen?)

So, I don't shoot still lifes. I have zero interest in still life production. And that renders my opinion invalid? I wish I could remind you of this the next time you see a movie you don't like! From your perspective, you would need at least 100 years of experience as an actor, director, cinematographer, composer and editor to make any kind of assessment.

And I find your reference to science interesting. Sure, we can all agree that Op Art engages with the science of perception, but a representational still life? Maybe, but I'd need a real good explanation. There's no science to art.

Everything you referenced when trying to define "good" was another completely subjective word. This is what I mean by "good" being meaningless. Or, put another way, it's meaningful, but only to you.

- ben

P.S. -- You misunderstand Sengcan. "Good and evil" doesn't just mean Mother Teresa and Hitler, it means rejecting false dichotomies. This bit from "The Mind of Absolute Trust" clarifies:

To set up what you like against what you dislike -
That is the disease of the mind

[Chris Dunham]

It's where stuff dosent move.

Chris.
Some folk say I'm simple but I don't think I'm that complicated :)

[Struan Gray]

Brian, as I see it, you think that a good still life photograph must include a high degree of aesthetic accomplishment. I have a great deal of sympathy with that view, but when insisted on as a universal standard it becomes too limiting, both as a definition of 'Still Life' and of 'good'.

I have a short tolerance for most still lifes. As with nudes they seem too tied up with an unquestioning devotion to models that have lost their force through repetition or age. The symbolism of, say, a half-peeled lemon, is very different for those of us who can buy them by the kilo at any supermarket, even if they still look lovely when backlit. Only mad gardeners mix quinces, persimmons and pomegranates in real life these days, and their figurative and literary associations evaporated long ago, even before modern retail excluded them from the ubiquitous five-standard-fruits. So to me, Rembrandt lighting pouring down on a fish, a römer, a skull and a lemon, just reminds me of the self-appointed, po-faced authenticity killjoys you get at any Rennaissance Fayre.

I make exceptions for your work of course :-) And for that of people like Michiko Kon, or Abelardo Morell, who combine traditional quality concerns with a refreshing take on life.

De Joode isn't really doing any of that though, and it seems churlish to just dismiss her work as photography because it doesn't fit the established rules of a known genre. Actually, it does fit the established rules of a known genre, but it is the genre of young women questioning their identity and place in society through public revelations of intimate details. She is far more a follower of Francesca Woodman and Cindy Sherman than Irving Penn or Paul Outerbridge.

De Joode's work has an adolescent technical feel to it, but for me at least that fits perfectly with what is obviously an attempt to express and investigate her own adolescence. If anything, the sum of her website is too consistent in it's stated intent and visual presentation: I can't help a tiny suspicion that the whole thing was put together by a middle aged man trying to imagine what it is like to be a newly minted adult woman with a slightly odd family background. Most teenagers and young adults I know are more prone to let deep feelings slip when they think they are being nonchalent - De Joode is in fact highly polished, just not with C16th beeswax.

[Brian K]

Brian, as I see it, you think that a good still life photograph must include a high degree of aesthetic accomplishment. I have a great deal of sympathy with that view, but when insisted on as a universal standard it becomes too limiting, both as a definition of 'Still Life' and of 'good'.

I have a short tolerance for most still lifes. As with nudes they seem too tied up with an unquestioning devotion to models that have lost their force through repetition or age. The symbolism of, say, a half-peeled lemon, is very different for those of us who can buy them by the kilo at any supermarket, even if they still look lovely when backlit. Only mad gardeners mix quinces, persimmons and pomegranates in real life these days, and their figurative and literary associations evaporated long ago, even before modern retail excluded them from the ubiquitous five-standard-fruits. So to me, Rembrandt lighting pouring down on a fish, a römer, a skull and a lemon, just reminds me of the self-appointed, po-faced authenticity killjoys you get at any Rennaissance Fayre.

I make exceptions for your work of course :-) And for that of people like Michiko Kon, or Abelardo Morell, who combine traditional quality concerns with a refreshing take on life.

De Joode isn't really doing any of that though, and it seems churlish to just dismiss her work as photography because it doesn't fit the established rules of a known genre. Actually, it does fit the established rules of a known genre, but it is the genre of young women questioning their identity and place in society through public revelations of intimate details. She is far more a follower of Francesca Woodman and Cindy Sherman than Irving Penn or Paul Outerbridge.

De Joode's work has an adolescent technical feel to it, but for me at least that fits perfectly with what is obviously an attempt to express and investigate her own adolescence. If anything, the sum of her website is too consistent in it's stated intent and visual presentation: I can't help a tiny suspicion that the whole thing was put together by a middle aged man trying to imagine what it is like to be a newly minted adult woman with a slightly odd family background. Most teenagers and young adults I know are more prone to let deep feelings slip when they think they are being nonchalent - De Joode is in fact highly polished, just not with C16th beeswax.

Struan her lack of any aesthetics is at most a minor criticism that i have for her work. The biggest complaint I have is the lack of ANY redeeming content. She is just throwing a bunch of unrelated crap on a background. A trained monkey could have chosen and arranged the elements the way she did. There is no story, there is no point. And while I'm sure if you give her enough paragraphs to justify her work she can come up with a rationalization or some weird concept to support why her work isn't anything more than just the contents of a dumpster laid out on a background. To be honest I think that actually dumping the real contents of a dumpster on a background would say a lot more because that would actually reflect a reality of our society. However as she is contriving this work then it doesn't even have the credibility of being a real reflection of our world.

We have gotten to a point where pointlessness is the point. Why not just do a series of photographs of dog excrement on the street? Or a series on dirty dishes in a wash tubs at diners? Or a series of people pumping gas, etc, etc,etc. Just about ANYTHING can be made into a series of photographs, just about ANYTHING can be defined as conceptual. And to me just throwing a bunch of unrelated crap onto a background is not something of merit. The trick is to make that stuff tell a story all on it's own, without the aid of thesis stating why it's important. And then the hardest part is to make that stuff visually interesting. (now I bring in aesthetics)

If a writer just cut up a bunch of printed words, tossed them in a hat, mixed them up and then randomly picked them from the hat, then pasted them back together in that same random manner, would you consider that good writing because the words were spelled correctly? Don't you think the combined words need to actually say something and have some actual relationship to each other? Well why is the content a of a photo any different?

Just because a person can make an image appear on paper, or in some convoluted way can justify it as self expression doesn't mean it has any value. Please tell me how this type of work advances art, advances photography or makes society better?
Why bother to have museums, galleries, art schools, art history if anything and everything goes, and everything has equal merit regardless of content, quality or effort?

This is the celebration of mediocrity. We have gotten to a point where if students don't do well on tests, the solution isn't to teach the students the material they lack, no, that's too hard, instead they simplify the test. Lowering the bar again and again.

[r.e.]

The biggest complaint I have is the lack of ANY redeeming content. She is just throwing a bunch of unrelated crap on a background. A trained monkey could have chosen and arranged the elements the way she did. There is no story, there is no point.

If the woman is going to get trashed, it might as well be in context. The particular photograph referred to earlier in this thread, together with two others, was published by an Italian magazine called Drome under the title "Fashion Shoots: Le Sette Opere di Misericordia - The Seven Acts of Mercy: Part I by Rachel de Joode / Part 2 by les deux garçons". Among other things, The Seven Acts, or Works, of Mercy is a painting by Caravaggio:

http://www.dromemagazine.com/current_issue_en.html
http://www.racheldejoode.com/rachel.html
http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/c/caravagg/09/53mercy.html

The Colophon website has an interview with the publishers of Drome on what the magazine is about: http://www.colophon2007.com/archive/?mag_id=758

This is an interesting collaboration between Drome and something called Lomography called Outlaw Shot in the Dark for street art photographs made with analog cameras:

http://beta.lomography.com/magazine/competitions/2008/12/18/outlaw-shot-in-the-dark-a-lomography-and-drome-magazine-collaboration
http://www.dromemagazine.com/main_en.html

You have until February 20th to enter :)

[Colin Graham]

Brian, dismissing someone's opinion out of hand on a public forum simply because it's too.. public? And since when does art fall solely within the jurisdiction of anyone, let alone it's own practitioners and others with a commercial interest? Small wonder the public is loosing interest in art; they are called out for hicks dabblers or poseurs no matter what they like.

You clearly feel strongly about this, and I really respect that, but I think the slope you're on is more slippery than the photo of dog shit on the street, if you'll forgive the pun.

[Brian K]

If the woman is going to get trashed, it might as well be in context. The particular photograph referred to earlier in this thread, together with two others, was published by an Italian magazine called Drome under the title "Fashion Shoots: Le Sette Opere di Misericordia - The Seven Acts of Mercy: Part I by Rachel de Joode / Part 2 by les deux garçons". Among other things, The Seven Acts, or Works, of Mercy is a painting by Caravaggio:

http://www.dromemagazine.com/current_issue_en.html
http://www.racheldejoode.com/rachel.html
http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/c/caravagg/09/53mercy.html

The Colophone website has an interview with the publishers of Drome on what the magazine is about: http://www.colophon2007.com/archive/?mag_id=758

This is an interesting collaboration between Drome and something called Lomography for street photographs taken with analog cameras: http://beta.lomography.com/magazine/competitions/2008/12/18/outlaw-shot-in-the-dark-a-lomography-and-drome-magazine-collaboration You have until February 20th to enter :)

First, I am not trashing the artist, she might be a wonderful person I don't know her. Second being critical of someone's art is not trashing their art. I think I have given in the posts that I have made in this thread a rational and logical explanation of my point of view. My work is just as public as hers and people are free to express their opinions of it.

Now getting back to your reference of her work appearing in a magazine, does that actually justify her work or give it meaning? I've had thousands of images appear in magazines and publications and believe me the vast majority of them were not art.

As for the attempt to tie in with Caravaggio, it's really easy to say that X is important because it's referencing some other significant work, but the proof is in actually having the work reflect that reference in a credible way that relates to that work in more than just words. And why does even referencing some other art work give validity to yours? I always found the value placed on artwork solely because it references some other artwork to be narcissistic and self important on the part of the art world. That a piece might be important just because it goes against what was done before? Going against what was done before is not always revolutionary. Yesterday I had tea instead of coffee, alert the press!! Whatever happened to CONTENT being important.

[Marko]

But... Who is to judge which content is important and which is not?

It should be fairly obvious at this stage of the discussion that one's trash is someone else's content. Even dog's excrement on a slippery street. ;)

[Ben Syverson]

If a writer just cut up a bunch of printed words, tossed them in a hat, mixed them up and then randomly picked them from the hat, then pasted them back together in that same random manner, would you consider that good writing because the words were spelled correctly?
You mean like William S. Burroughs and the cut-up technique? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut-up_technique)

Randomness is not itself very interesting, but randomness is a tool like anything else, and can be used in the service of art.

[Brian K]

Brian, dismissing someone's opinion out of hand on a public forum simply because it's too.. public? And since when does art fall solely within the jurisdiction of anyone, let alone it's own practitioners and others with a commercial interest? Small wonder the public is loosing interest in art; they are called out for hicks dabblers or poseurs no matter what they like.

You clearly feel strongly about this, and I really respect that, but I think the slope you're on is more slippery than the photo of dog shit on the street, if you'll forgive the pun.

Colin, everyone has an opinion, I think we can all agree on that. But do you agree that not every opinion has merit, credibility , accuracy, facts, experience or truth behind it. Do you agree with that or the next time you need serious medical advice will you seek it from an auto mechanic. Mind you a very capable auto mechanic for sure.

And btw I didn't dismiss it out of hand, I wrote very extensive and detailed posts here as to why I disagree with their POV.

[r.e.]

It should be fairly obvious at this stage of the discussion that one's trash is someone else's content. Even dog's excrement on a slippery street. ;)

How about human excrement:

http://www.cloaca.be/machines.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdlLBWymnUA
http://www.wimdelvoye.be/

Cloaca is currently on display in Montreal. Last Friday, a CBC radio show called Q did a fun/interesting interview with the artist. The interview is about 1/3rd of the way through the Q podcast for February 6: http://www.cbc.ca/q/pastepisodes.html

:)

[Paul Kierstead]

Colin, everyone has an opinion, I think we can all agree on that. But do you agree that not every opinion has merit, credibility , accuracy, facts, experience or truth behind it. Do you agree with that or the next time you need serious medical advice will you seek it from an auto mechanic.

Let us presume that art is made for the viewer, not other artists. In this case, the viewer is the best critique, not an artist. I am not a creator of still life, but most certainly am a viewer. When I want advice on how to create a still life, I'll most certainly ask you. When I want to know why a still life doesn't work, I'll ask you. But as the viewer, my opinion of the work is the one that matters, not yours. The producer and viewer are disctinct and separate. And expert producer does not inherently make a expert viewer; in fact, it may well be to the detriment.

To use your analogy, the next time I want to judge a doctors performance, I'll ask his patients, not a doctor.

FWIW, as a viewer, I find her photographs to be moving and interesting. They speak to me. They have emotional content for me. Not being an expert, I am unable to determine *why* precisely and succinctly, but I am most certainly and qualified to judge the end result, since it is, in fact, for me.

[r.e.]

I wrote very extensive and detailed posts...

Actually, your contributions to this discussion amount to a rant about what you perceive to be a world in which mediocrity has run amuck. Ms. de Joode's role is to be the vehicle/victim, and apparently nothing is to get in the way, including an innocuous attempt to lay out some context for the work that is the subject of your attack.

For example, here's what you said before you knew that her work had been published: "Where our society has changed is that prior to the internet, massively disseminated opinions were vetted. Vetted by editors, publishers, well established practitioners, etc. You didn't easily get to spout nonsense to a million people if that nonsense had to go through other people whose own reputations and possible financial solvency were at stake."

And now that you know that: "Now getting back to your reference of her work appearing in a magazine, does that actually justify her work or give it meaning? I've had thousands of images appear in magazines and publications and believe me the vast majority of them were not art."

The fact is, Ms. de Joode has no chance of getting a fair hearing from you.

[harrykauf]

The biggest complaint I have is the lack of ANY redeeming content. She is just throwing a bunch of unrelated crap on a background. A trained monkey could have chosen and arranged the elements the way she did.


I would call that trashing.



We have gotten to a point where pointlessness is the point. Why not just do a series of photographs of dog excrement on the street? Or a series on dirty dishes in a wash tubs at diners? Or a series of people pumping gas, etc, etc,etc. Just about ANYTHING can be made into a series of photographs.


Yes, can be quite funny.

http://sprinklebrigade.com/gallery-main.html

[Brian K]

Let us presume that art is made for the viewer, not other artists. In this case, the viewer is the best critique, not an artist. I am not a creator of still life, but most certainly am a viewer. When I want advice on how to create a still life, I'll most certainly ask you. When I want to know why a still life doesn't work, I'll ask you. But as the viewer, my opinion of the work is the one that matters, not yours. The producer and viewer are disctinct and separate. And expert producer does not inherently make a expert viewer; in fact, it may well be to the detriment.

To use your analogy, the next time I want to judge a doctors performance, I'll ask his patients, not a doctor.

FWIW, as a viewer, I find her photographs to be moving and interesting. They speak to me. They have emotional content for me. Not being an expert, I am unable to determine *why* precisely and succinctly, but I am most certainly and qualified to judge the end result, since it is, in fact, for me.



So because I am an expert I also cease to be a viewer? So basically all opinions, on everything have equal value. It's all so democratic. Gee why bother studying or learning anything? And why do you presume that art is made for the viewer? If you really want to get down to it most artists I know produce their art for themselves (unless it's an assignment). So ALL of our opinions really are moot anyway whether you like her work or not. However once an artist puts their work in public display, people will have opinions about it.

As for your analogy about asking the patients, I can see where that sounds really smart. If I need major surgery I will be certain to ask a patient if I need surgery and will view that opinion above that of my doctor, who may actually know a few things more about medicine and my condition, than the patient does and who also has access to all my test results and possesses the ability to understand them.

Bottom line if you like her work you like her work. My long experience as a professional still life photographer makes me feel differently.

[Paul Kierstead]

So because I am an expert I also cease to be a viewer?

No, I was pointing out it doesn't automatically make you a superior viewer.


So basically all opinions, on everything have equal value. It's all so democratic. Gee why bother studying or learning anything?


I didn't say they are all of equal value. I didn't spew some democratic nonsense. You study to learn. As I said, I can't identify why her photographs speak to me. If I was educated better, I may very well be able to identify those exact factors. One may also study in order to be able to be a better producer. Or perhaps they wish to understand the history and context. Or perhaps they wish to embark on a career of selling it and wish to understand the market and field. I didn't knock studying or learning in anyway and highly approve of it.


And why do you presume that art is made for the viewer?

You have to have some basis for discussion. I presumed that for the basis of my discussion. Clearly some art is made largely for artists, as only other artists could probably appreciate the time, effort, skill, etc. that went into it. I tend to call it art wankery, but that is admittedly pejorative and somewhat unfair, as other artists are just a valid audience as any other. Or no audience at all, really, though one can't hope to be appreciated if that is the case.



As for your analogy about asking the patients, I can see where that sounds really smart. If I need major surgery I will be certain to ask a patient if I need surgery and will view that opinion above that of my doctor...

You clearly did not read my sentence. I said if I wanted to judge the performance of a doctor, I would ask his patients. They are the recipients of his care. If they all think he sucks, I'd be pretty disinclined to listen to him and would move on. If they all thought he was great, I'd be much more likely to trust him. And, I suspect as a group, the patients are the best judge; it is their health that is at stake. I did not say that I would want his patients opinion of my condition.

[Brian K]

Actually, your contributions to this discussion amount to a rant about what you perceive to be a world in which mediocrity has run amuck. Ms. de Joode's role is to be the vehicle/victim, and apparently nothing is to get in the way, including an innocuous attempt to lay out some context for the work that is the subject of your attack.

For example, here's what you said before you knew that her work had been published: "Where our society has changed is that prior to the internet, massively disseminated opinions were vetted. Vetted by editors, publishers, well established practitioners, etc. You didn't easily get to spout nonsense to a million people if that nonsense had to go through other people whose own reputations and possible financial solvency were at stake."

And now that you know that: "Now getting back to your reference of her work appearing in a magazine, does that actually justify her work or give it meaning? I've had thousands of images appear in magazines and publications and believe me the vast majority of them were not art."

The fact is, Ms. de Joode has no chance of getting a fair hearing from you.


My opinion of her work has not changed at all in light that she was published. If her work appeared in MOMA my opinion would not change. It seems that you are impressed that it has been published. I'm not so easily impressed by that, my work has been regularly published since I was 18.

As for getting a fair hearing from me, Art and photography is not about explaining your work to people. It's about producing the art for yourself, that expresses what you want, the work itself is supposed to speak. And if it needs explaining then maybe the term self expression doesn't apply to the work. If there's any argument to be made by any artist on behalf of their work, it's the work itself that is the argument. But still she has several supporters here standing up for her. I'm the out numbered one here. Not her.

And if you think that i was rough or trashed her work, then I doubt if you have read many art criticisms or have had a real, no holds barred, critique done of your work. Oh and if you want to criticize my work go ahead, give it your best shot. I won't be offended. My work can argue on my behalf. R.E. where is your work?

This is becoming one of those never ending threads, so I'm done. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[harrykauf]

Bottom line if you like her work you like her work. My long experience as a professional still life photographer makes me feel differently.

I would seperate the technical part from the emotional part. I can see why you
would dismiss her work because it may not live up to your technical standard.
But that can not be the only parameter to judge the work.
That you can not see anything in those images is purely a result of your background and personal taste and
has nothing to do with the work itself since it speaks to other
people. I didnt know her before and have returned to the gallery a few times
now because I find it fascinating.
In your gallery all images are technically perfect but they remind me of basic
art school exercises in composition. I have probably a similar response to them
like you have to her work. I just dont know why I should look at them.

[Colin Graham]

Colin, everyone has an opinion, I think we can all agree on that. But do you agree that not every opinion has merit, credibility , accuracy, facts, experience or truth behind it. Do you agree with that or the next time you need serious medical advice will you seek it from an auto mechanic. Mind you a very capable auto mechanic for sure.

And btw I didn't dismiss it out of hand, I wrote very extensive and detailed posts here as to why I disagree with their POV.

I'm having a hard time with the analogy. Art, even as a commodity, isn't (or maybe shouldn't be) as tangible as the service of a doctor or mechanic. Life/death & broken/fixed aren't exactly degrees of opinion. Sorry if I've misunderstood.

Artists are fair game, certainly. But I just think the audience should be spared the browbeating, if for no other reason that to regenerate some of the thoughtful participation and interest in the art community, without fear of being painted as uneducated, ignorant or uninspired.

[r.e.]

...the work itself is supposed to speak.

True, but it helps to listen.

Here is what you ignored before you decided to go for Ms. de Joode's jugular:

The piece was published by, and presumably was commissioned by, a Rome quarterly that focuses on contemporary culture and is particularly interested in the work of young artists.

The main title of the piece is "Fashion Shoot".

The sub-title of the piece is "The Seven Acts of Mercy". This is a reference to a Christian concept and may be a reference to a particular painting by Caravaggio.

Part 1 of the piece consists of three photographs by Ms. de Joode - not just one - which surely deserve to be considered together.

Part 2 consists of work by fellow dutch artists Les Deux Garcons, who are represented by Amsterdam's Jaski Art Gallery: http://www.jaski.nl/JaskiArtGallery/tabid/156/Default.aspx

I believe that it is helpful to know these things when evaluating the photograph that has been reproduced in this thread. That is all I have suggested, despite your attempts to put words in my mouth.

You know, she is 29 years old, young and experimenting. She doesn't deserve to be the object of your bile.

And it's a very good thing that magazines like Drome, willing to publish work by young people, are around.

[Maris Rusis]

What is a still life photograph? Why, a photograph of a still life of course.

But just saying so does not determine where the art lies and whether there is any merit. It does not even confirm which art is at stake.

As Brian K demonstrates, a photograph may very well be a work of art. The cups and spoon are an example. But the actual cups and spoon aren't the art. They are merely one of the ingredients consumed on the way to the final result.

A Rachel de Joode still life may be a work of art but her art is strongest as installation not photography. If I ask myself which one I would rather have I say give me the Brian K photograph. He can keep the cups and spoon. But with the Rachel de Joode work I'd rather see the thing itself in a gallery and she can keep the photograph.

The still life genre brings into stark relief the principle that making a photograph of a work of art does not guarantee that the resultant photograph is a work of art too.

[Paul Kierstead]

A Rachel de Joode still life may be a work of art but her art is strongest as installation not photography.

I'll definitely give you that one. As soon as I seen her work, I had a fairly strong urge to see it as an installation (to be fair, I am a fair fan of modern art of that sort); I got the feeling it would look even better "live". I do quite like Brian K's photographs as well, but in spite of them both being "still life", I'd really consider them to different genres. I suppose we could almost label hers as more documentary. Something for me to contemplate.

[Struan Gray]

The biggest complaint I have is the lack of ANY redeeming content. She is just throwing a bunch of unrelated crap on a background. A trained monkey could have chosen and arranged the elements the way she did. There is no story, there is no point.

You've raised the furies and brought down the wrath of the silent majority of lurking pomos on your head, but if you're still reading, here is why I think you are mistaken, or at least why what you give as your central complaint does not match my experience.

Do you have kids, or close family with kids? They have so much stuff. I snigger when I think of that wonderful Lartigue photograph of all his toy cars. If you laid all my three's toy cars out together you'd fill an aircraft hanger, and that's not including the ones they build themselves out of cardboard, Lego or scrap wood. The teenagers I know have the most amazingly eclectic piles of stuff on their bookshelves and dressers, and it gets worse when you set up your first home and everybody helpfully gives you egg-cookers and other one-task household gadgets you don't really need.

I'm not complaining (well, a bit), it is a sign of the material wealth of our society that my kids schoolfriends turn up to parties with presents my parents had to save up for when I was the same age. But it is a new social phenomenon, and as such is worth the notice of art.

Some photographers take an editorial approach. Jongmee Yoon's (www.jeongmeeyoon.com) Pink and Blue project is a nice take on the phenomenon among smaller children, but I don't know of many addressing the same thing among teenagers and young adults, with the possible exception of Lauren Greenfield's work among teenage girls.

De Joode has chosen to use still life, which makes a lot of sense if you are going to look at the psychology of possessions, of how it feels to own things and whether they convey status or not. The link between the apparently unrelated sets of objects is herself, and her life as a young woman growing up in a slightly odd household. True, she has a bit of a thing for random slices of toast, but if you look at any young adult's possessions you find similar agglomerations of stuff, most of which looks random but all of which has an individual back story. In a sense she is data mining the flotsam of her life, trying to see what patterns exist in the things that she has ended up owning. The effect to me is slightly graduation-show clever and look-at-me-look-at-me, but I've seen far worse, and less interesting too.

I know that what I have written can be brushed aside as long-winded special pleading, but it's a careful verbal version of what I felt at once when viewing the photographs. I can see why you feel the way you do, and why still life in particular is important to you, but your dismissal of de Joode's work out of hand strikes me as unjust and flippant. It's a bit like complaining that The Diary of Anne Frank is rubbish because it isn't written in Miltonic blank verse, or that "Girls don't wanna have fun" is a useless song because it isn't in sonata form.