"Real" still-life : What are the criteria to say a photo is a real still-life?
Benny
which are
according to me not always "real" still-life! Very often it are also
macro or detail photo's or food dishes.
My idea was that "real" still-life photo's are:
- studio set-ups of bottles, shells, an old book with glasses, a vase
with a flower, eggs etc. ,
- indoor sceneries like an old chair with cat on it, etc. or
- outdoor sceneries like an old door with a bike next to it, a broken
window, a pair of old shoes, etc.
I prefer still-lifes which are very basic and simple.
Who knows the definition of still-life photography and/or knows sites
where I can find "real" still-life photo's?
Note: I prefer still-lifes which are very basic and simple.
Thanks,
PS: A beautiful still-life is difficult to make but a pleasure to see!
Barrett Benton
bp...@hotmail.com (Benny) wrote:
> PS: A beautiful still-life is difficult to make but a pleasure to see!
It's also about as difficult to define as "portraiture". A lot of work
I've done, indoors and out, can be somewhat loosely defined as still-life;
A small amount hews cloer to the more strict definition. If someone calls
me up and asks if I can create a still-life for them to hang in his or her
living room, I have a relatively clear idea of what's being asked for, yet
there's always room for interpretation. When I'm making something for
myself (which occasionally interests others), I get a lot looser. As with
portraiture (or just about anything else), the definition hinges mostly on
whether you're creating something for yourself or for someone else.
--
BWB
_______________________
Impatience is virtual
Q.G. de Bakker
> When I search for "Still-Life Photography" I find different results
> which are
> according to me not always "real" still-life!
> [...]
A "real" still-life is anything that doesn't move, preferably because it no
longer can, i.e. it is dead, devoid of life. Inanimate objects too may be
included. Landscapes, however, are considered to be alive, or at least to
have a soul. On the other hand, fruit and flowers too are considered to be
"inanimate", i.e. dead.
The vast majority of still life pictures are symbolic, "vanitas"-pieces.
They represent the transient nature of life and of the good things in life,
like oppulent banquets; the vain promises of spring, represented by flowers,
soon to wither and die; ripe, juicy fruits, almost over-ripe, beginning to
mould; etc. In this context, some living creatures, like flies (representing
decay) or butterflies (representing the ephemeral nature of things), are
very acceptable.
Less symbolic still-life pictures are less gloomy, merely representations of
things the author (photographer, painter) takes an interest in. They can
include anything, even living creatures (17th century Dutch master de
Hondecoeter painted lots of birds and fowl). The defining quality then is
the, well..., laziness of the author: they can sit on their stools, spent
lots of time studying one set. The thing that makes this still-life too is
that the chosen subject must not get impatient, disturbing the author's
sloth, putting pressure on him/her to go and get on with it. Very
undesirable! So it's back to inanimate objects again...