Objects come into the picture
The word "still-life" appeared for the first time in Holland around 1650. It originally meant in Dutch nothing more than "religious model" or "unmoving nature." (leven = model). There were other expressions for this concept, such as fruytagie (breakfast), bancket and ontbijt (banquet picture, breakfast picture). The German artist Joachim von Sandrart (1606 – 1688) mentioned "unmoving objects" in 1675, but it would be one hundred years before the concept of nature morte took hold in France.(1)
Still-life occupied the lowest rung of the hierarchy of artistic forms in the art academies that were founded in the 17th century. The mere depiction of flowers in a vase, the remains of a meal lying on a table, or books, documents or painters' pallets neglectfully left lying around were not considered to be on the same lofty level as biblical representations or depictions of great political and military actions performed by kings and queens. This assessment, which was not particularly aesthetic in its nature, was ultimately based on the prevailing belief that man had been made in the image of God and was therefore above all creatures. As such, anything that did not move or did not have a body was of little importance. The Age of Absolutism marked the transition from the medieval feudal system to one dominated by capitalist commercial classes. The academic canons of artistic experience and practice up until that time were not completely compatible with this new emerging system.
In spite of the prevailing doctrines, connoisseurs and lovers of still-life had begun financially rewarding such art early on. It is said, for example, that some painters would receive between 600 and 1,000 guilders for a painting of flowers. By comparison, a good portrait would generally fetch only 60 guilders.
To the extent that they studied how to reproduce still-life in a consistent and realistic manner, those practitioners of the art also developed a sensitivity for chromatic and tonal nuances. Vincenzo Ginstiniam reports, for example, that Caravaggio stated it was just as difficult to paint a good picture of fruit as one containing people. Commentaries by many artists from this period reflect this opinion, containing the claim that it was basically irrelevant whether the object one painted was of a lofty or trivial nature – the artistic achievement in either case was the same. Ultimately, still-life took its place beside historical paintings as an art form whose artistic quality consisted in its depiction of perfection and truth. (2)
|
 |
The Stories:
All pictures of the series 'Objects come into the picture' is shown below.
|
| ...back |
|
|
