Is most Installation Art just Still Life?
Luc Erftemeijer
Many young artists working on Installation Art distance themselves from the
'lower' genres like Still Life. They learn to intellectualize their work to
differentiate it from former art forms. But how far from previous genres is
Installation really? Don't people just put objects in a room similarly to
what artists painted in the 17th century? Take Damien Hirst's formaldehyde
animals; Sarah Lucas' 'Two fried eggs and a Kebab' or her 'Au Naturel';
Michael Landy's 'Costermonger's Stall' or Mona Hatoum's 'Deep throat'.
Compare that with Joachim Beuckelaer's 'Slaughtered Pig'; Floris van Dijck's
'Laid Table'; Jan Breughel's 'Bouquet' or Rene Magritte's 'Portrait'. Do
people just 'talk' it to a higher level, higher than it really is?
please react!
Louis
James W. Foster
emedded in the plate? I'd distingish that from paintings of still life
because it's 4-dimensional compared to a flat painting.
Sarah Lucas should have been paid about 50p (just under $1) for her efforts.
They were about as imaginative and exciting as breakfast television and as
thought provoking as a rice crispie.
People just talk it up onto a pedestal. The same could be done for a
'lesser' art form like amateur still life watercolours done by some retired
granny in the Cotswolds, you just need to find a good promoter.
-james
www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~jfostr/artzone.htm
Luc Erftemeijer <ham...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hLCy3.5493$fl2.1...@nnrp4.clara.net...
burnin...@my-deja.com
No. Most of it is recycled garbage which would have been better
left in the original repository.
>
> Many young artists working on Installation Art distance themselves
from the
> 'lower' genres like Still Life.
Or like to feel that they are special :P
> They learn to intellectualize their work to
> differentiate it from former art forms.
That is, they learn how to spew artspeak in a normally failed
attempt to convince someone/anyone that it's "art".
> But how far from previous genres is
> Installation really?
Quite, I'd say. I don't know anyone who does decent
sitll lifes that would like to be lumped in with installation
"art".
> Don't people just put objects in a room similarly to
> what artists painted in the 17th century?
No. We have much more garbage available than did those poor
people.
> Take Damien Hirst's formaldehyde
> animals; Sarah Lucas' 'Two fried eggs and a Kebab' or her 'Au
Naturel';
> Michael Landy's 'Costermonger's Stall' or Mona Hatoum's 'Deep throat'.
Please feel free to take them where you wish. My suggestion would
be the dumpster behind McDonalds.
> Compare that with Joachim Beuckelaer's 'Slaughtered Pig'; Floris van
Dijck's
> 'Laid Table'; Jan Breughel's 'Bouquet' or Rene Magritte's 'Portrait'
> Do
> people just 'talk' it to a higher level, higher than it really is?
People *attempt* to talk it into something. No one believes. Even
that curators are really laughing behind their office doors.
"Installation art" is the highpoint of POMO. Take it as I meant it. :P
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Erik A. Mattila
"what is a still-life." I'm really curious about the history, and I've
never really focused on the question. The earliest 'still life' I can
think of is a certain Roman catacomb painting - a simple composition of a
bowl of pomagranites (The Virgen) sitting behind a dead fish (Christ). But
these objects were used for their symbolic value, so it wasn't just a
trompe le 'oel. There must be earlier examples of still life art -- I just
can't think of any (maybe the roman mosaic 'The Unswept Floor' which shows
all this stuff which fell off the table.
Somewhere along the line the still life paintings dropped the symbolic
value of object, although it could always be argued that it didn't. A
bunch of grapes can have all sorts of referents -- I perhaps it is possible
to discover a still life which seemingly is entirely object oriented yet
has an underlying meaning and the artist chose the objects for their
symbolic value and in fact constructed a narrative with them. This is just
conjecture -- but I recall some 'readings' along this line.
I'm just building the case to consider the possibility that an installation
may resemble an 'archaic' still life in that it uses objects for their
symbolic value, like the Roman catacomb painting. Not necessarily
religious or mythic symbolism, of course, but also political, social,
economic etc.
Take a look at an installation par excelance, The Museum of Jurraisic
Technology, which has a web representation:
David Wilson created this installation eight years ago, and it has made it
through the funding loops since to stay open. A visit is of course much
more interesting than the web site. I was able to see an installation in
San Francisco just before the Culver City site was found, and I believe he
set it up in a few other cities as well.
I think Wilson wouldn't be completely comfortable with calling MJT 'art,'
as his interest seems to be to critique catagorization altogether.
Nevertheless I see MJT as belonging to the tradition of installation art,
and an outstanding example (especially as it recreates the idea of an art
museum or art gallery as well as provoking 'science as culture.' The
effect of visiting is one of feeling somewhat disconcerted about
(scientific) truth, since Wilson very skillfully plays on the borderline
between truth and fiction. For example, some of his exhibits are actually
historical and nonfictional, even though they are either bizzare enough to
raise eyebrows about their credibility. I remember discussing with a
Critical Theory professor whether or not the map of the "Battle of Pavia"
hanging on the wall was truth or fiction. Subsequent investigation showed
it was truth -- a battle when the Holy Roman Emperor (Max?) was driving the
Turks out of the Balkans.
But is it art? (he he he). Anyway, take a look -- I'd be interested in
what you think about it.
Erik Mattila
Luc Erftemeijer
James W. Foster wrote in message <37cd...@news.jakinternet.co.uk>...
>I can't remember rightly, but was 'deep throat' the one with the video
>emedded in the plate? I'd distingish that from paintings of still life
>because it's 4-dimensional compared to a flat painting.
Yes it was! If I assume that still life today exsists beyond painting and
beyond
2-dimensional depiction (although few dictionaries consider that), than
'deep throat' would be a still life. The fact that it interacts with the
space around it
and invited spectators to take part of it makes it an Installation. So, is
it
an Installtion still life (opposed to a Painting still life)?
>Sarah Lucas should have been paid about 50p (just under $1) for her
efforts.
>They were about as imaginative and exciting as breakfast television and as
>thought provoking as a rice crispie.
Would you still call it art, as it was a little new? Or do we need a larger
treshold
before we can call it art?
>People just talk it up onto a pedestal. The same could be done for a
>'lesser' art form like amateur still life watercolours done by some retired
>granny in the Cotswolds, you just need to find a good promoter.
Can we say that an artist with good communication skills and verbal
leadership
has a greater chance to become a 'great' (or well-known) artist? If you can
write
well and differently from others, does that have a bigger influence than the
creativity
and technical skills?
Luc
>
>www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~jfostr/artzone.htm
>
>Ham <ham...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:hLCy3.5493$fl2.1...@nnrp4.clara.net...
>> Is most Installation Art just Still Life?
>>
>> Many young artists working on Installation Art distance themselves from
>the
>> 'lower' genres like Still Life. They learn to intellectualize their work
>to
>> differentiate it from former art forms. But how far from previous genres
>is
>> Installation really? Don't people just put objects in a room similarly to
>> what artists painted in the 17th century? Take Damien Hirst's
formaldehyde
>> animals; Sarah Lucas' 'Two fried eggs and a Kebab' or her 'Au Naturel';
>> Michael Landy's 'Costermonger's Stall' or Mona Hatoum's 'Deep throat'.
>> Compare that with Joachim Beuckelaer's 'Slaughtered Pig'; Floris van
>Dijck's
>> 'Laid Table'; Jan Breughel's 'Bouquet' or Rene Magritte's 'Portrait'. Do
>> people just 'talk' it to a higher level, higher than it really is?
>>
>>
>> please react!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Luc Erftemeijer
Erik A. Mattila wrote in message <37CF3C0A...@tomatoweb.com>...
>A couple of things come to mind about this, BC. The first is a question --
>"what is a still-life."
This is not at all clear! If you look in the various dictionaries you find
different
definitions, mainly around 'painting of inanimate objects', sometimes
including
drawings and photographs. Once I found a dictionary that also included the
real objects used by the painters (e.g. the flowers themselves) in the
definition
of still life. But I haven't found a dictionary or encyclopedia that
considered objects
like in installation art as a still life. On the other hand, books about
modern art often
refer to some 3 dimentional works (e.g. installation) as still lifes.
>I'm really curious about the history, and I've
>never really focused on the question. The earliest 'still life' I can
>think of is a certain Roman catacomb painting - a simple composition of a
>bowl of pomagranites (The Virgen) sitting behind a dead fish (Christ). But
>these objects were used for their symbolic value, so it wasn't just a
>trompe le 'oel. There must be earlier examples of still life art -- I just
>can't think of any (maybe the roman mosaic 'The Unswept Floor' which shows
>all this stuff which fell off the table.
>
>Somewhere along the line the still life paintings dropped the symbolic
>value of object, although it could always be argued that it didn't. A
>bunch of grapes can have all sorts of referents -- I perhaps it is possible
>to discover a still life which seemingly is entirely object oriented yet
>has an underlying meaning and the artist chose the objects for their
>symbolic value and in fact constructed a narrative with them. This is just
>conjecture -- but I recall some 'readings' along this line.
I think the symbolic value has always been there. Maybe symbolism in those
days
(e.g. 17th century) was easier to signify. The meaning of symbols might have
today become
more diverse such that not everyone uses the same explanation. As long as
the artist has
a mind, he or she must consciously or unconsciously connect meanings to the
choice and
composition of the objects and materials choosen.
>I'm just building the case to consider the possibility that an installation
>may resemble an 'archaic' still life in that it uses objects for their
>symbolic value, like the Roman catacomb painting. Not necessarily
>religious or mythic symbolism, of course, but also political, social,
>economic etc.
I think that is more than possible. Maybe we have to update our
dictionaries.
>Take a look at an installation par excelance, The Museum of Jurraisic
>Technology, which has a web representation:
>
>http://www.mjt.org/index.html
>
>David Wilson created this installation eight years ago, and it has made it
>through the funding loops since to stay open. A visit is of course much
>more interesting than the web site. I was able to see an installation in
>San Francisco just before the Culver City site was found, and I believe he
>set it up in a few other cities as well.
>
>I think Wilson wouldn't be completely comfortable with calling MJT 'art,'
>as his interest seems to be to critique catagorization altogether.
>Nevertheless I see MJT as belonging to the tradition of installation art,
>and an outstanding example (especially as it recreates the idea of an art
>museum or art gallery as well as provoking 'science as culture.'
But how does it link to the spectator? Installation art should at least have
the element of 'physical domination of the entire space' and 'ask for active
engagement of the spectator' as well as 'appeal to the senses of sight,
hearing
or even smell'. I don't see that here.
>The effect of visiting is one of feeling somewhat disconcerted about
>(scientific) truth, since Wilson very skillfully plays on the borderline
>between truth and fiction. For example, some of his exhibits are actually
>historical and nonfictional, even though they are either bizzare enough to
>raise eyebrows about their credibility. I remember discussing with a
>Critical Theory professor whether or not the map of the "Battle of Pavia"
>hanging on the wall was truth or fiction. Subsequent investigation showed
>it was truth -- a battle when the Holy Roman Emperor (Max?) was driving the
>Turks out of the Balkans.
>
>But is it art? (he he he). Anyway, take a look -- I'd be interested in
>what you think about it.
I couldn't really find Installation art or Still Life as I define it. I see
more Object Art
and depictions.
Or have I missed a page?
Luc
>
>> In article <hLCy3.5493$fl2.1...@nnrp4.clara.net>,
>> "Luc Erftemeijer" <ham...@clara.co.uk> wrote:
>> > Is most Installation Art just Still Life?
>>
>> No. Most of it is recycled garbage which would have been better
>> left in the original repository.
>>
>> >
>> > Many young artists working on Installation Art distance themselves
>> from the
>> > 'lower' genres like Still Life.
>>
>> Or like to feel that they are special :P
>>
>> > They learn to intellectualize their work to
>> > differentiate it from former art forms.
>>
>> That is, they learn how to spew artspeak in a normally failed
>> attempt to convince someone/anyone that it's "art".
>>
>> > But how far from previous genres is
>> > Installation really?
>>
>> Quite, I'd say. I don't know anyone who does decent
>> sitll lifes that would like to be lumped in with installation
>> "art".
>>
>> > Don't people just put objects in a room similarly to
>> > what artists painted in the 17th century?
>>
>> No. We have much more garbage available than did those poor
>> people.
>>
>> > Take Damien Hirst's formaldehyde
>> > animals; Sarah Lucas' 'Two fried eggs and a Kebab' or her 'Au
>> Naturel';
>> > Michael Landy's 'Costermonger's Stall' or Mona Hatoum's 'Deep throat'.
>>
>> Please feel free to take them where you wish. My suggestion would
>> be the dumpster behind McDonalds.
>>
>> > Compare that with Joachim Beuckelaer's 'Slaughtered Pig'; Floris van
>> Dijck's
>> > 'Laid Table'; Jan Breughel's 'Bouquet' or Rene Magritte's 'Portrait'
>>
>> > Do
>> > people just 'talk' it to a higher level, higher than it really is?
>>
James W. Foster
of fruit in their living room? I mean, yeah it looks nice but surely one
could just have a bowl of fruit, which would be edible as well as aesthetic.
Seems wierd to me.
-james
www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~jfostr/artzone.htm
Erik A. Mattila
> the element of 'physical domination of the entire space' and 'ask for active
> engagement of the spectator' as well as 'appeal to the senses of sight,
> hearing
> or even smell'. I don't see that here.
The actual exhibits are quite engaging to the spectator. The web version is of
course lacking physicality. Wilson likes to mimic the kinds of displays you
might find in a science/technology museum. Very interactive, where the viewer
picks up telephone and listens to a narrative about the display, while parts of
the display light up in coordination with the story.
Erik Mattila
Peter H.M. Brooks
jwfo...@UKARTISTS.com "James W. Foster" writes:
> One thing that's always bugged me is why do people hang paintings of bowls
> of fruit in their living room? I mean, yeah it looks nice but surely one
> could just have a bowl of fruit, which would be edible as well as aesthetic.
> Seems wierd to me.
>
Real fruit goes off and attracts fruitflies. Which reminds me of the
other reason for enjoying art, it is timeless and time flies like an
arrow while fruit flies like a banana.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
To be in process of change is not an evil, any more than to be the
product of change is a good.
- Marcus Aurelius.
Erik A. Mattila
exemply whatever theories were afoot -- so I guess you could say the 'still
life' has some staying power.
There may be some who hang representations of fruit on their living room walls
for the virtue of fruit itself, of course, but I think most do so because it is
a 'painting' they want there (or 'work of art,' if you prefer).
Personally, I enjoy still lifes very much, although not 'above' other forms of
painting. I'm continually intrigued by trompe l' oel (and continually
challenged how to spell the term correctly) and often a still life is very
centered on this kind of activity -- maximizing that element of description and
believability. It's one of those things you see in a painting that, to me, is
continually refreshing, intriguing, and non-boring. One the other hand, that
an art afficianado, or artist, could become completely disenchanted with the
still life is understandable and legitimate. So goes the democracy of
discretionary vision.
But I like your observation - it raises some issues, one being that the
'archival' may be an aesthetic rather than practical element of a work of art.
I'm thinking of Greenaway's "A Zed and Two Naughts" and the artistic
fascination with decay. So why not replace the trompe l' oel still life in
your living room with a real bowl of fruit, whose 'art' would unfold over the 6
days it took the grapes to transcend their initial state of being to the
putrid, mouldy pile of quivering blue-green jelly that is thier fate (unless
they are consumed, which insures another fate altogether). Of course we
wouldn't have the advantage of Greenaway's stop-action camera to reduce the
time of transformation to a scale that is perceptable to human vision, but
perhaps our comings and goings to the living room would be an acceptable
substitute.
Now this line of thought is generating its own aesthetic theory. People may
like to hang a representation of a bowl of fruit in their living rooms because
this sort of a work of art laughs at death in its face. Does that work for
you?
Regards,
Erik Mattila
"James W. Foster" wrote:
> One thing that's always bugged me is why do people hang paintings of bowls
> of fruit in their living room? I mean, yeah it looks nice but surely one
> could just have a bowl of fruit, which would be edible as well as aesthetic.
> Seems wierd to me.
>
> -james
>
> www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~jfostr/artzone.htm
Chris
"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
>
>
>
> Now this line of thought is generating its own aesthetic theory. People may
> like to hang a representation of a bowl of fruit in their living rooms because
> this sort of a work of art laughs at death in its face. Does that work for
> you?
>
> Regards,
> Erik Mattila
>
I love it Erik. Still life as a triumph of the courageous spirit! "If
you can keep your ripeness, when all about you/ Are losing theirs, and
blaming it on you..." (Farmyard Stripling).
Cheers,
Chris
Luc Erftemeijer
4-dimensional,
if you include the dimension time: symbolising decay, the mortality of life,
death.
This fits much better with the contemporary art forms and could be compared
to
some extent with for example Damien Hirst's 'A thousand years' (the one with
the
flies, cow's head and insect-o-cutor).
As I mentioned in another message, still life is not - according to recent
exhibitions
in New York and Paris - limited to forms like painting, drawings or other
2-dimensional
works. So, could we even call such 4-dimensional still lifes 'Installation
Art'? They would
comply with some of the key features of an Installation: tendency for art to
merge with life;
question the cultural truths, activate the potential or repressed meanings
of a
specific space, etc.
In traditional still lifes, especially in the form of paintings, I could
imagine a depiction
of such symbolisation using fruit. I don't know if that has ever been put on
canvas: fruit
in decomposition, maybe with flies. Probably most 17th century still life
painters of fruit
must have had plenty of such situations in their ateliers, but that reality
wouldn't sell well.
The question remains, is such 4-D still life an Installation?
Luc
Erik A. Mattila wrote in message <37D17A93...@tomatoweb.com>...
>Now this line of thought is generating its own aesthetic theory. People
may
>like to hang a representation of a bowl of fruit in their living rooms
because
>this sort of a work of art laughs at death in its face. Does that work for
>you?
>
>Regards,
>Erik Mattila
>
James W. Foster
> Real fruit goes off and attracts fruitflies. Which reminds me of the
> other reason for enjoying art, it is timeless and time flies like an
> arrow while fruit flies like a banana.
Yeah but you eat the fruit before it goes off, then put more fruit in the
bowl. That way you also have control over the types of fruit, the way
they're arranged etc. I guess in a way, it's like the difference between a
video CD and DVD.
-james
James W. Foster
> Yes it was! If I assume that still life today exsists beyond painting and
> beyond
> 2-dimensional depiction (although few dictionaries consider that), than
> 'deep throat' would be a still life. The fact that it interacts with the
> space around it
> and invited spectators to take part of it makes it an Installation. So, is
> it
> an Installtion still life (opposed to a Painting still life)?
>
But although the dinner table objects in Deep Throat were still, the footage
wasn't - it was continually cycling at 25 frames per second, reproducing the
journey of a camera into parts of her not normally seen. How can it be
still if it's moving? If a person sits for a portrait and manages to sit
still, only changing slightly (breathing, coughing, slight twitches etc.)
does that make the painting a still life?
-james
Luc Erftemeijer
James W. Foster wrote in message <37d2...@news.jakinternet.co.uk>...
It is clearly all about definition. I could argue that it is an Installation
on Still Life:
a Still Life transformed to a contemporary art form; a Still Life with
features which
are important in the present day (e.g. interaction with spectator) and with
todays
technology (video). Or in other words an artwork of the genre Still Life
within the form
of an Installation. Another argument is that when on a Still Life (e.g. 17th
century) a
person is depicted as well (Wolfgang Heimbach's Fruehstuecktisch mit Magd
hinter einem Fenster, 1610), it doesn't make the Still Life a Genre (scene
of
everyday life). Similarly, a History painting doesn't become Still Life when
food on a table is shown in the corner. What do you think?
The aspect of the 'living' spectator is also very interesting. You could
take it further
and say that the Still Life is seen by two incredibly fast and dynamic eyes!
And the
phenomenon that makes the Still Life painting seen, light, changes as well
constantly.
Assuming there is sun light - as we have in most galleries and homes, the
Still Life
painting changes constantly in appearance. Not to mention the continuous
change
in chemistry of the pigments and varnish throughout the years. Everything is
relative
and nothing is constant. Still I would call it a Still Life painting. And
still I would call Deep
throat a Still Life.
Luc
By the way, I just saw that Deep Throat is made by Mona Hatoum in 1996.
mdeli
<jwfo...@UKARTISTS.com> wrote:
>One thing that's always bugged me is why do people hang paintings of bowls
>of fruit in their living room?
It bugs you because they don't hang your sort of shit.
> I mean, yeah it looks nice but surely one
You just answered your question
>could just have a bowl of fruit, which would be edible as well as aesthetic.
>Seems wierd to me.
The reason they don't generally hang your sort of work is that it
looks like the stuff one produces daily in another type of bowl.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
James W. Foster
> It is clearly all about definition. I could argue that it is an
Installation
> on Still Life:
> a Still Life transformed to a contemporary art form; a Still Life with
> features which
> are important in the present day (e.g. interaction with spectator) and
with
> todays
> technology (video). Or in other words an artwork of the genre Still Life
> within the form
> of an Installation. Another argument is that when on a Still Life (e.g.
17th
> century) a
> person is depicted as well (Wolfgang Heimbach's Fruehstuecktisch mit Magd
> hinter einem Fenster, 1610), it doesn't make the Still Life a Genre (scene
> of
> everyday life). Similarly, a History painting doesn't become Still Life
when
> food on a table is shown in the corner. What do you think?
I guess it must therefore depend on what the main subject focused on is. If
the painting had featured a gigantic oversize plate of food on a table in
the centre of the picture and the people were smewhere in the background in
a corner then I'd say it's nearer the still life category. The whole
categorisation thing is so futile though. Us humans seem to need to
allocate categories for everything we encounter, and yet the borders between
the categories are so blurred it makes a mockery of this supposedly precise
science. Take the categories in a record shop for instance. You have a
rock section and a dance section. Where does the latest album from the
Prodigy belong? Or 'Discotheque' by U2? Or Apollo 440? They're all
inbetweeners.
This reminds me of the thread on the art of opposites. We seem to all need
in our minds to simplify everything to gain a false sense of understanding.
Nothing is ever simple or clear cut. Even the border between life and death
isn't as straightforward as people believe.
-james
wrob
But of course, one can call a still life anything.
The meaning is different for every individual, right?
-BER
Luc Erftemeijer wrote:
> >"James W. Foster" wrote:
> >
> >> One thing that's always bugged me is why do people hang paintings of
> bowls
> >> of fruit in their living room? I mean, yeah it looks nice but surely one
> >> could just have a bowl of fruit, which would be edible as well as
> aesthetic.
> >> Seems wierd to me.
> >>
> >> -james
> >>
> >> www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~jfostr/artzone.htm
> >
burnin...@my-deja.com
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
> I'm just building the case to consider the possibility that an
installation
> may resemble an 'archaic' still life in that it uses objects for their
> symbolic value, like the Roman catacomb painting.
In a literal sense, you may have a point; however, I've yet to see a
piece of "installation art" that I didn't think should have stayed
in the dumpster. That said, I have a personal preference toward
painting and I'm not much interested in sculpture in general.
...
> But is it art? (he he he). Anyway, take a look -- I'd be interested
in
> what you think about it.
Someone obviously spent some time developing the site. It was
tastefully understated but slightly difficult to get around in.
I'm not sure if it was either art or "installation
art" but the site had a comfortable feel to it. It's possible that
is something.
burnin...@my-deja.com
"James W. Foster" <jwfo...@UKARTISTS.com> wrote:
> One thing that's always bugged me is why do people hang paintings of
bowls
> of fruit in their living room? I mean, yeah it looks nice but surely
one
> could just have a bowl of fruit, which would be edible as well as
aesthetic.
> Seems wierd to me.
Simple answer: the colors matched their couch.
James W. Foster
hard to see when your head is so far up your own arse...
By the way, exactly how many people have actually bought your book?
-james
mdeli <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message
news:37d2e694...@news.psi.ca...
> On Fri, 3 Sep 1999 20:20:33 +0100, "James W. Foster"
> <jwfo...@UKARTISTS.com> wrote:
>
> >One thing that's always bugged me is why do people hang paintings of
bowls
> >of fruit in their living room?
>
> It bugs you because they don't hang your sort of shit.
>
> > I mean, yeah it looks nice but surely one
>
> You just answered your question
>
> >could just have a bowl of fruit, which would be edible as well as
aesthetic.
> >Seems wierd to me.
>