Mr

"Still life is merely a technical exercise, and therefore an unsuitable genre for the expression of ideas or sentiments" Discuss

Still life painting has been positioned at the bottom of the artistry hierarchy, below all other genres of painting. Some people believe that this is because the subject matter holds less relevance to historical progression and/or human emotion, being much more mundane and unimaginative. They may also see it as little more than a practise of painting skills, rather than an expression of ideas, for this reason.

This opinion would come from the idea that still life painting consists entirely of an Ð''artist' finding some inanimate object or objects in the room and painting it as it is seen, line for line, without straying from the image they have chosen. With this idea it is clear to think that this practise is merely practise, or a time killer, with none of the Ð''artists' own thoughts or emotion being put into the picture. In this practise there is no room for ideas or sentiments, as the finished product should be as similar to photo perfect as the artists skill makes possible.

This view, however, is not taken by all. Many believe still life can be used as an expressive device, to create brilliant pieces filled with emotion and meaning. Methods can be used by artists to create certain desired effects; arranging or rearranging the inanimate objects that the artist has chosen to paint can have effects on the overall outcome of the picture. The artist may also choose to play with the colours used, to make a picture more vibrant or dull, depending on their own requirements.

An example of the use of still life as expressive is trompe l'oeil. These are paintings where the subject objects seem to have found their own way to where they are in relation to the things around them, without human attention i.e. the artist has not arranged them in that way. Norman Bryson tells in one of his essays on still life, how he finds this sinister as it seems to show a world Ð''without human consciousness'. This is not something that could be created without some kind of artistic license and intervention with the Ð''technical exercise' some believe still life painting to be.

Bryson has a few notable opinions on still life that definitely go against the idea that it is merely an exercise. He sees still life as a representation of human legacy and continuity. He tells how the images of still life show how humans progress by building on what has been before and making things that we already have better. Often still life that is centuries old, shows us artefacts that are still around today but have been changed in ways to suit us better in modern times, like jars and bowls etc. He is also reminded of human mortality by these paintings through this as he understands that in order to survive then people must change to keep up with the times, the old will die out and the new will live on and take their place, later to become old themselves.

Bryson also disagrees with the idea that the higher ranking genres display more human emotion. He feels that still life is closer to the heart than the other genres are and is possibly even a threat to the other genres. This is because he feels that human beings like their lives to run on familiarity and routine. The subjects of still life are every day objects that everyone recognises and probably use regularly. Bryson feels that radical and fantasy have less of a place in society and are less accepted on the whole. He uses Brueghel's Fall of Icarus as an example to prove this as we see that the exciting adventure of Icarus and Daedalus and their revolutionary wings is just a tiny part of the picture, while the main portion of the frame is filled by every day life - people working, ships sailing. To him this shows the insignificance of fantasy compared to familiarity, and therefore as still life is a depiction of the familiar it becomes a more valid form of expression.

This point of familiarity has little weight in the argument against still