Still Life: Dead Nature or Quiet Life?

Almost all of the traditional genres of painting became its traditional genres of painting at the time of the appearance of photography if it was technically possible . Remarkable artifacts of photographic history-Niepce’s pictures on metal plates with a shutter speed of eight hours-were landscape and still life. While the first photograph, “View from a Window,” might be considered the first “straightforward” non-staged photograph, the “second picture” which unfortunately has survived only in reproductions , a still life with a bottle, a bouquet, a glass and a lump of bread, is already an example of “constructed reality,” a staged photograph with a considered composition and, perhaps, a certain symbolic meaning.

1. André Kertész. Fork, Paris, 1928

Nineteenth-century still lifes were inspired by a wide variety of pictorial traditions as, indeed, were other genres of young photography . Sculptural busts, books, table settings, sumptuous grape brush, flowers, skulls, hourglasses, beaten game… The transience of time, the futility of hope, the enjoyment of the gifts of the earth or the glorification of modesty, and the admiration for the ability of photography to convey texture, scale and fine detail.

Still-life often serves not only to represent traditional allegories but also to express specific reflections on photography and its place among the fine arts. Photographic historian Ian Jeffrey notes a notable number of still lifes composed of rakes, shovels, spades and other garden and carpenter’s tools.

Photographers’ reflections on manual labor seem to equate their own labor with craft – natural and honest. But the pretensions of photography in the field of fine art were also evident from the very beginning. Photography is a mysterious hybrid. Beautiful still lifes, similar to Dutch or Flemish paintings, both man-made and “shot,” obtained, taken, like some geological specimens.

Perhaps one of the most “photographic” types of still life, which had no traditional analogues in pre-modernist painting, is a still life without a subject, made up of random objects shot in fragments or from unusual angles, valuable only in their form. This still life appears in the 1920s and early 1930s. This was a time of experimentation with form, and the development of new languages of art, suitable for describing and analyzing the changing world.

Visual riddles, intersecting planes of pieces of glass, mirrors and paper, simple and familiar spoons, forks and plates arranged illogically, brutally cropped, dramatically lit, entering into spatial conflicts with each other and coming out of them in witty ways. And then there are the strange combinations of objects that do not meet each other in normal life on the same surface, but which, when suddenly encountered in a photograph, give rise to interesting visual impressions and unexpected associations. Such still lifes, mesmerizing in their exquisite strangeness, are fairly quick to find use in advertising. One prime example is Paul Outerbridge’s famous “Collar” or Edward Steichen’s advertisements.

First half of XX century was the time of photographic self-definition, when it realized its own aesthetics and philosophy, its own special interrelation with reality and symbol that were different from other art forms. The classic approach to photographic still life takes shape in the 1930s, when the group f/64 proclaimed their manifesto. Photography, accepting its natural conventions and limitations without imitating painting, can capture, reveal, and explain the beauty of simple everyday life, raising familiar objects to the level of symbolic generalization. Potted houseplants, eggs and milk bottles, vegetables from the garden, crockery and home utensils can be turned by photography into jewels.

2. Alexander Sliussarev. 1970-1980.

3. André Kertész. In Mondrian’s studio, Paris, 1926

Modernist experiments that clarified photography’s ability to show the ordinary in an unusual way, but in a way that reality is still unmistakable, paved the way for the still lifes of Edward Weston, who, according to Ansel Adams, “re-created the world around him, finding in things the unifying beginnings of them.”. The next generations of photographers, from Sudek to Mapplethorpe, who chose this path, did not go beyond a limited set of objects: glass, porcelain, fruit, flowers. Masterfully manipulating the lighting and composition, they have created multiple variations of the classic still-life, expanding the horizons of view, without contradicting conventional notions of beauty.

The photographer who turns to still life today can assimilate any of the pre-existing models and continue the tradition. However, many are more interested in analyzing this tradition and speculating on the place and role of photography as art and document, and the artist as interpreter. This is how a still life becomes a tool for the study of still life.

For example, the American artist Sharon Corr meticulously reproduces in her photography the still lifes of Raphael Peele, an artist from the early 19th century, expending almost more effort to produce them than the artist did in painting his pictures and he did quite a few . Trying to achieve an illusionistic resemblance to a painting, trying to fairly reproduce the spirit and mood of the era, Sharon Corr grows flowers and vegetables in her vegetable garden in the 19th century similar varieties were smaller than modern ones , buys plates and vases from antique shops of the early 19th century, works carefully on color, trying to make photographs look like paintings. Just as Rafael Peel himself sought maximum realism and life-imitation in his paintings.

What you get as a result? What we see is a painting or a photograph? Old or modern? The real or the fake? Original or reproduction? But, be that as it may, on the whole it looks nice and attractive. Compositionally and color-wise, calm, elegant, and traditional. Good or bad, and, more importantly, why it’s needed? What do we expect from a still life, what meaning do we put into it??

How different is our interpretation of such a still life from that of a 19th century viewer? The photographer translates the reproduction of a painting back to the objects it depicts with his painstaking work, and makes photographs that look like reproductions of a painting. Does the immediate reality exist at all, or is it all hidden to us beneath the various cultural constructions through which we look at it??

Another author, Laura Letinski, shoots compositionally sophisticated still lifes in the best academic tradition highlighted by a white tablecloth or drapery with elaborate folds . Themes of fading, the vanity of existence, and the finitude of earthly abundance, traditional to still life, are also present. In fact, this is what almost all of Letinski’s still lifes are about. But the objects we are shown cannot be called consecrated by an age-old tradition.

Dirty plastic cups, stumps, leftovers unaesthetically smeared on plates, crumpled packaging, various garbage… The aftermath of a lavish party or a modest family dinner looks repulsive, despite the elaborate composition, interesting lighting and delicate colors. The effect might have been somewhat lessened in a picture, but the photograph shows us a familiar reality from which it is difficult to abstract.

Letinski explores the possibility and essence of still life in our time. When she began shooting still lifes, she habitually tried to assemble them from objects bearing a symbolic meaning, to make them speak. But the results of these attempts looked deliberate, contrived, false. Modern man whose visual perception is almost entirely defined by photography has long since stopped thinking in terms of symbols. The things depicted are no longer as full of meaning as they were in the seventeenth century.

Perhaps in contemporary still life the atmosphere is more important than the sign, and the objects are filled with meaning through their description. Photography and reactions to it reveal how society relates to the subject. We shape our environment, furnish our homes, consume goods – much of this is done unconsciously, but nevertheless all of our behavior is culturally conditioned. It is interesting to observe and discover how things happen. Our reactions to a photograph, our appreciation and associations, and how all this is determined, is the subject of the photographer’s study. He conducts this research using still life as a tool.

Photographers who prefer “found” rather than “constructed” reality engage in the same kind of culturological research. Authors such as Wolfgang Tillmans, Nigel Shafran and many others approach the same question from different angles – about photography’s ability to give meaning to an object, to give birth to meanings. Their still lifes look completely spontaneous and therefore mocking. The viewer, expecting from the artist at least a minimal editing of reality, wonders what is beautiful about unwashed dishes in the sink, magazines chaotically scattered on the table, paper and cigarette butts in the ashtray?

The conservative viewer keeps coming back to philosopher Roger Scruton’s postulate from decades ago: a beautiful photograph is a photograph of a beautiful object. If someone thinks that the subject depicted in a photograph is beautiful, then the photograph, accordingly, is beautiful as well. There may, of course, be exceptions which only confirm the rule.

Photography has an arsenal that enables it to transform the ugly into the beautiful, as can be seen, for example, in the work of Edward Weston and Irving Penn, who can give the nobility to an unsightly vegetable or even a cigarette butt, but their efforts are obvious to the viewer, and it is these efforts that they appreciate. The photographer didn’t just capture everything as it is – he carefully worked, composed, illuminated, emphasized something, disguised something. Photography gives new meaning and value to reality by transforming it.

But “found” still lifes are not so easy at all. Often they pose the question: how does photography give birth to meanings?? How much reality must be altered for us to admire it? Maybe a simple capture is enough for the photographed thing to already be perceived symbolically? The pile of plates grows, the lighting changes, the flower in the pot blooms – and so life goes day by day. The way we live, how we unconsciously put things in order, creating constructions out of things and organizing the world around us? And finally, why don’t we want to think of it all as a subject of art, a subject for still life? Or do we want to?..

4. Andrey Rogozin

5. Andre Kertesz. Mondrian’s glasses and tube, 1926