The Evolution of the Still Life (or The Still Life for the Proletariat)

The Evolution of the Still Life (or The Still Life for the Proletariat)

The purpose of the still life is to give the appearance of having the objects represented in the painting. As John Berger points out, a painting is unique in that the owner can surround themselves, immerse themselves in the content of the painting (85). Music and poetry can be heard, but not seen; at least not in the same context as a painting. During the Renaissance, the wealthy possessed the paintings, therefore the subjects were to reflect or infer the wealth of the owner. Morath’s Summer Still Life with Antlers is not altogether different from the oil still life paintings presented in Chapter 5 of Berger’s Ways of Seeing, although there are some interesting differences that set it apart from the norm.

                The traditional oil still life was produced for the wealthy. They were to be possessed by the wealthy, enjoyed by the wealthy, and to prove that one was, well, wealthy. The Picture Gallery of Cardinal Valenti Gonzaga by Panini is evidence of this statement (86). The painting shows a vast room that is covered from floor to ceiling with other paintings. A painting of paintings clearly has no other purpose than to show the wealth of the subject, in this case Cardinal Valenti Gonzaga (I’m still amazed at how wealthy the religious powers were during the Renaissance). On the other hand, Morath’s Summer Still Life with Antlers shows items that are not considered to be of great value in society. An empty beer bottle, a beat up license plate, some vegetables, and flowers are hardly associated with wealth. It is quite the opposite in fact. This may have been Morath’s intention, or perhaps he was simply imitating the style of the Renaissance oil still life paintings. Morath assembled artifacts that he associates with summer in a manner similar to Still Life with a Lobster by de Heem (Berger 99). While the lobster and fruits presented by de Heem weren’t exclusive to the wealthy, the abundance certainly was indicative of wealth. Morath used an abundance of vegetables and a couple of fish (rainbow trout?), which give the viewer a more earthen/less advantaged feel. This may also be the reason for the empty beer bottle- a substitution for the “high class” glass of fine wine. The imitation and perhaps spoof of wealth continues with Summer Still Life with Antlers’ lack of a gold leaf frame. While it certainly isn’t a requisite of “high art”, many of the more “elegant” pieces are contained within a well crafted gold frame. Morath’s piece doesn’t even have a frame. Perhaps he couldn’t “afford” one? Lastly, Morath saw fit to include an antlered animal skull among the composition. The human skull was representative of mortality and death in traditional oil painting. The animal skull perhaps represents the heathen, animistic proletariat, of which many of today’s artists belong. This may be a bit of a stretch, but it seems to me that Morath was making a point with Summer Still Life with Antlers that was targeted at the discrepancy between the “have’s” and “have-not’s”. This point echoes John Berger’s argument that the purpose of representing “things” in art has evolved from displaying items of wealth to displaying more common items (109-110).

               

Stephen Morath Summer Still Life with Antlers (1999) Acrylic on Canvas

Reference:

Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin Books, 1972. Print.